Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPlana, Deborah
dc.contributor.authorTian, Enze
dc.contributor.authorCramer, Avilash
dc.contributor.authorYang, Helen
dc.contributor.authorCarmack, Mary M.
dc.contributor.authorSinha, Michael S.
dc.contributor.authorBourgeois, Florence T.
dc.contributor.authorYu, Sherry H.
dc.contributor.authorMasse, Peter
dc.contributor.authorBoyer, Jon
dc.contributor.authorKim, Minjune
dc.contributor.authorMo, Jinhan
dc.contributor.authorLeBoeuf, Nicole R.
dc.contributor.authorLi, Ju
dc.contributor.authorSorger, Peter K.
dc.date.accessioned2021-08-25T14:59:26Z
dc.date.available2021-08-25T14:59:26Z
dc.date.issued2021-07
dc.date.submitted2020-09
dc.identifier.issn1471-2334
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/131199
dc.description.abstractBackground:The COVID-19 pandemic has severely disrupted supply chains for many types of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), particularly surgical N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs; “masks”). As a consequence, an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA has allowed use of industrial N95 respirators and importation of N95-type masks manufactured to international standards; these include KN95 masks from China and FFP2 masks from the European Union. Methods: We conducted a survey of masks in the inventory of major academic medical centers in Boston, MA to determine provenance and manufacturer or supplier. We then assembled a testing apparatus at a university laboratory and performed a modified test of filtration performance using KCl and ambient particulate matter on masks from hospital inventories; an accompanying website shows how to build and use the testing apparatus. Results: Over 100 different makes and models of traditional and nontraditional filtering facepiece respirators (N95-type masks) were in the inventory of surveyed U.S. teaching hospitals as opposed to 2–5 models under normal circumstances. A substantial number of unfamiliar masks are from unknown manufacturers. Many are not correctly labelled and do not perform to accepted standards and a subset are obviously dangerous; many of these masks are likely to be counterfeit. Due to the absence of publicly available information on mask suppliers and inconsistent labeling of KN95 masks, it is difficult to distinguish between legitimate and counterfeit products. Conclusions: Many FFRs available for procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic do not provide levels of fit and filtration similar to those of N95 masks and are not acceptable for use in healthcare settings. Based on these results, and in consultation with occupational health officers, we make six recommendations to assist end users in acquiring legitimate products. Institutions should always assess masks from non-traditional supply chains by checking their markings and manufacturer information against data provided by NIOSH and the latest FDA EUA Appendix A. In the absence of verifiable information on the legitimacy of mask source, institutions should consider measuring mask fit and filtration directly. We also make suggestions for regulatory agencies regarding labeling and public disclosure aimed at increasing pandemic resilience.en_US
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLCen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-06008-8en_US
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licenseen_US
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_US
dc.sourceBMCen_US
dc.titleAssessing the filtration efficiency and regulatory status of N95s and nontraditional filtering face-piece respirators available during the COVID-19 pandemicen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.citationPlana, Deborah et al. "Assessing the filtration efficiency and regulatory status of N95s and nontraditional filtering face-piece respirators available during the COVID-19 pandemic." BMC Infectious Diseases 21, 1 (July 2021): 712. © 2021 The Author(s)en_US
dc.contributor.departmentHarvard University--MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technologyen_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Nuclear Science and Engineeringen_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Materials Science and Engineeringen_US
dc.relation.journalBMC Infectious Diseasesen_US
dc.eprint.versionFinal published versionen_US
dc.type.urihttp://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticleen_US
eprint.statushttp://purl.org/eprint/status/PeerRevieweden_US
dc.date.updated2021-08-10T17:03:19Z
dspace.orderedauthorsPlana, D; Tian, E; Cramer, AK; Yang, H; Carmack, MM; Sinha, MS; Bourgeois, FT; Yu, SH; Masse, P; Boyer, J; Kim, M; Mo, J; LeBoeuf, NR; Li, J; Sorger, PKen_US
dspace.date.submission2021-08-10T17:03:21Z
mit.journal.volume21en_US
mit.journal.issue1en_US
mit.licensePUBLISHER_CC
mit.metadata.statusComplete


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record