No abstract

Fifty interactions between healthcare workers and patients were observed to obtain a quantifiable definition of "high-touch" (ie, frequently touched) surfaces based on frequency of contact. Five surfaces were defined as high-touch surfaces: the bed rails, the bed surface, the supply cart, the over-bed table, and the intravenous pump.

Over the last decade, substantial scientific evidence has accumulated that indicates contamination of environmental surfaces in hospital rooms plays an important role in the transmission of key health care-associated pathogens (eg, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, Clostridium difficile, Acinetobacter spp). For example, a patient admitted to a room previously occupied by a patient colonized or infected with one of these pathogens has a higher risk for acquiring one of these pathogens than a patient admitted to a room whose previous occupant was not colonized or infected. This risk is not surprising because multiple studies have demonstrated that surfaces in hospital rooms are poorly cleaned during terminal cleaning. To reduce surface contamination after terminal cleaning, no touch methods of room disinfection have been developed. This article will review the no touch methods, ultraviolet light devices, and hydrogen peroxide systems, with a focus on clinical trials which have used patient colonization or infection as an outcome. Multiple studies have demonstrated that ultraviolet light devices and hydrogen peroxide systems have been shown to inactivate microbes experimentally plated on carrier materials and placed in hospital rooms and to decontaminate surfaces in hospital rooms naturally contaminated with multidrug-resistant pathogens. A growing number of clinical studies have demonstrated that ultraviolet devices and hydrogen peroxide systems when used for terminal disinfection can reduce colonization or health care-associated infections in patients admitted to these hospital rooms.

IMPORTANCEDuring the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the general public has been advised to wear masks or improvised face coverings to limit transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, there has been considerable confusion and disagreement regarding the degree to which masks protect the wearer from airborne particles.OBJECTIVES To evaluate the fitted filtration efficiency (FFE) of various consumer-grade and improvised face masks, as well as several popular modifications of medical procedure masks that are intended to improve mask fit or comfort.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS For this study conducted in a research laboratory between June and August 2020, 7 consumer-grade masks and 5 medical procedure mask modifications were fitted on an adult male volunteer, and FFE measurements were collected during a series of repeated movements of the torso, head, and facial muscles as outlined by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration Quantitative Fit Testing Protocol. The consumer-grade masks tested included (1) a 2-layer nylon mask with ear loops that was tested with an optional aluminum nose bridge and filter insert in place, (2) a cotton bandana folded diagonally once (ie, "bandit" style) or in a (3) multilayer rectangle according to the instructions presented by the US Surgeon General, (4) a single-layer polyester/nylon mask with ties, (5) a polypropylene mask with fixed ear loops, (6) a single-layer polyester gaiter/neck cover balaclava bandana, and (7) a 3-layer cotton mask with ear loops. Medical procedure mask modifications included (1) tying the mask's ear loops and tucking in the side pleats, (2) fastening ear loops behind the head with 3-dimensional-printed ear guards, (3) fastening ear loops behind the head with a claw-type hair clip, (4) enhancing the mask/face seal with rubber bands over the mask, and (5) enhancing the mask/face seal with a band of nylon hosiery over the fitted mask. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary study outcome was the measured FFE of common consumer-grade and improvised face masks, as well as several popular modifications of medical procedure masks. RESULTSThe mean (SD) FFE of consumer grade masks tested on 1 adult male with no beard ranged from 79.0% (4.3%) to 26.5% (10.5%), with the 2-layer nylon mask having the highest FFE. Unmodified medical procedure masks with ear loops had a mean (SD) FFE of 38.5% (11.2%). All modifications evaluated in this study increased procedure mask FFE (range [SD], 60.3% [11.1%] to 80.2% [3.1%]), with a nylon hosiery sleeve placed over the procedure mask producing the greatest improvement.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE While modifications to improve medical procedure mask fit can enhance the filtering capability and reduce inhalation of airborne particles, this study demonstrates that the FFEs of consumer-grade masks available to the public are, in many cases, nearly equivalent to or better than their non-N95 respirator medical mask counterparts.