TY - JOUR T1 - Decontamination of filtering facepiece respirators in primary care using medical autoclave JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2020.04.27.20066654 SP - 2020.04.27.20066654 AU - Ralf E. Harskamp AU - Bart van Straten AU - Jonathan Bouman AU - Bernadette van Maltha - van Santvoort AU - John J. van den Dobbelsteen AU - Joost R.M. van der Sijp AU - Tim Horeman Y1 - 2020/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/01/2020.04.27.20066654.abstract N2 - Objective There are widespread shortages of personal protective equipment as a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Reprocessing filtering facepiece respirators may provide an alternative solution in keeping health care professionals safe.Design prospective, bench-to-bedsideSetting A primary care-based study using filtering facepiece particles (FFP) type 2 respirators without exhalation valve (3M Aura 1862+, Maco Pharma ZZM002), FFP2 respirators with valve (3M Aura 9322+ and San Huei 2920V), and valved FFP type 3 respirators (Safe Worker 1016).Interventions All masks were reprocessed using a medical autoclave (34-minute total cycle time of steam sterilization, with 17 minutes at 121°C) and subsequently tested up to 3 times whether these decontaminated respirators retained their integrity (seal check, pressure drop) and ability to filter small particles (0.3-5.0μm) in the laboratory using a particle penetration test.Results We tested 32 respirators, and 63 samples for filter capacity. All 27 FFP-2 respirators retained their shape, whereas half of the sterilized FFP-3 respirators (Safe Worker 1116) showed deformities and failed the seal check. The filtering capacity of the 3M Aura 1862 was best retained after 1, 2, and 3 sterilization cycles (0.3μm: 99.3±0.3% (new) versus 97.0±1.3, 94.2±1.3% or 94.4±1.6, p<0.001). Of the other FFP-2 respirators, the San Huei 2920V had 95.5±0.7% at baseline versus 92.3±1.7% versus 90.0±0.7 after one- and two-time sterilization, respectively (p<0.001). The tested FFP-3 respirator (Safe Worker 1016) had a filter capacity of 96.5±0.7% at baseline and 60.3±5.7% after one-time sterilization (p<0.001). Breathing and pressure resistance tests indicated no relevant pressure changes between respirators that were used once, twice or thrice.Conclusion This study shows that selected FFP2-type respirators may be reprocessed for use in primary care, as the tested masks retain their shape, ability to retain particles and breathing comfort after decontamination using a medical autoclave.Strengths and limitations of this study- Pragmatic use of autoclave to sterilize and reuse filter facepiece respirators- Combining clinical and laboratory findings to evaluate the safety in terms of shape, ability to retain particles and breathing comfort- The study is limited in sample size and restricted to selected FFP-2 and FFP-3 respirators- The study is a first of its kind in primary care settings and thus unvalidated- The study does not provide "hard" clinical evidence in terms of a randomized trial (i.e. reprocessed mask versus usual care)Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementN/AAuthor DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data will be made available on https://repository.tudelft.nl/ https://repository.tudelft.nl/ ER -