BACKGROUND: During shortages, elastomeric half-mask respirators (EHMRs) are an alternative to reusing N95 filtering facepiece respirators but require between-use disinfection. The objectives of this study were to (a) measure microbial reductions on EHMR surfaces under laboratory conditions by a standardized procedure using wipes impregnated with health care disinfectants and to (b) measure microbial reductions on EHMRs disinfected by volunteer health care providers. METHOD: We inoculated EHMR (Honeywell model RU8500) surfaces with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Bacillus atrophaeus spores, and bacteriophages MS2 and Φ6, and disinfected them using two wipes with hydrogen peroxide (HP), alcohols, and quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs). Then, we randomized 54 volunteer subjects into three groups (Group 1: two wipes with instructions, Group 2: five wipes with instructions, Group 3: no instructions or set number of wipes) and used 0.5% HP wipes without precleaning on EHMRs inoculated with Raoultella terrigena and MS2. FINDINGS: The laboratory study demonstrated that all organisms achieved at least 4 log(10) median reductions (HP>QAC/alcohol>QAC>QAC/saline). Pseudomonas was highly susceptible to HP and QAC/alcohol and Φ6 to all disinfectants. MS2 reduction was highest using HP and lowest using QAC/saline. Bacillus was least susceptible. The volunteer study showed a 3 to 4 log(10) average reductions of bacteria and virus; Raoultella reductions were greater than MS2, with variability within and between subjects. Conclusions: HP disinfectant wipes used in laboratory and by volunteers reduce bacteria and viruses on EHMRs by 3 to 4 log(10) on average. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Commercially available hospital disinfectant wipes reduce bacteria and viruses on EHMRs and can fill the need for between-use disinfection. HP and combination QAC/alcohol have the greatest efficacy under our test conditions.

BACKGROUND: New elastomeric half mask respirator (EHMR) models without exhalation valves (EVs) or with exhalation valve filters (EVFs) are facilitating expanded use in health settings to reduce workers' exposure to airborne hazards while acting as source control to prevent pathogen spread. The physical comfort of new models has not been assessed in comparison to previously used EHMRs with EVs. METHODS: Researchers assessed 1,962 healthcare and emergency medical service personnels' self-reported adverse experiences from two cohorts while wearing EHMR models with EVs (Cohort 1, n=1,080) and without EVs or with EVFs (Cohort 2, n=882). Fisher's Exact Test identified differences between the cohorts accounting for organizational factors when possible. RESULTS: Cohort 1 respondents experienced communication challenges and discomfort when wearing the EHMR >1 hour statistically significantly more often than Cohort 2. Cohort 2 respondents reported statistically significantly more instances of difficulty breathing, moisture buildup, being uncomfortable to wear <1 hour, and being uncomfortably warm. CONCLUSIONS: Discomfort is prevalent among end users and more often among those wearing EHMRs without an EV/with an EVF. As EHMR research and development advances, prevalence in use may increase for emergency and routine situations. Organizations may not only need guidance about respirator selection but also model-specific selection.

BACKGROUND: Reusable elastomeric half-mask respirators (EHMR) are an alternative to address shortages of disposable respirators. While respirator discomfort has been noted as a barrier to adherence to wearing an N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) among health care personnel (HCP), few have examined EHMR comfort while providing patient care, which was the purpose of this study. METHOD: Among a cohort of 183 HCP, we prospectively examined how HCP rated EHMR tolerability using the Respirator Comfort, Wearing Experience, and Function Instrument (R-COMFI) questionnaire at Study Week 2 and Week 10. At the completion of the study (Week-12), HCP compared EHMR comfort with their prior N95 FFR use. Overall R-COMFI scores and three subscales (comfort, wear experience, and function) were examined as well as individual item scores. FINDINGS: The HCP reported an improved overall R-COMFI score (lower score more favorable, 30.0 vs. 28.7/47, respectively) from Week 2 to Week 10. Many individual item scores improved or remained low over this period, except difficulty communicating with patients and coworkers. The overall R-COMFI scores for the EHMR were more favorable than for the N95 FFR (33.7 vs. 37.4, respectively), with a large proportion of workers indicating their perception that EHMR fit better, provided better protection, and they preferred to wear it in pandemic conditions compared with the N95 FFR. CONCLUSION/APPLICATION TO PRACTICE: Findings suggest that the EHMR is a feasible respiratory protection device with respect to tolerance. EHMRs can be considered as a possible alternative to the N95 FFR in the health care setting. Future work is needed in the EHMR design to improve communication.

BACKGROUND: During public health emergencies, demand for N95® filtering facepiece respirators (N95 FFRs) can outpace supply. Elastomeric half mask respirators (EHMRs) are a potential alternative that are reusable and provide the same or higher levels of protection. This study sought to examine the practical aspects of EHMR use among healthcare personnel (HCP). METHODS: Between September and December 2021, 183 HCP at two tertiary referral centers participated in this three-month EHMR deployment, wearing the EHMR whenever respiratory protection was required according to hospital protocols (i.e., when an N95 FFR would typically be worn) and responding to surveys about their experience. RESULTS: Participants wore EHMRs typically 1-3 hours per shift, reported disinfecting the respirator after 85% of removals, and reported high confidence in using the EHMR following the study. EHMRs caused minimal interference with patient care tasks, though they did inhibit communication. DISCUSSION: HCP who had not previously worn an EHMR were able to wear it as an alternative to an N95 FFR without much reported interference with their job tasks and with high disinfection compliance. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the feasibility of deployment of EHMRs during a public health emergency when an alternative respirator option is necessary.

BACKGROUND: Disposable N95 respirator shortages during the COVID-19 and 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemics highlighted the need for reusable alternatives, such as elastomeric half-mask respirators (EHMRs). Two US medical organizations deployed reusable EHMRs during the COVID-19 response. In addition to wipe-based disinfection following patient care episodes expected per local policies at both organizations, postshift centralized cleaning and disinfection (C&D) was expected at one site (A), permitting shared-pool EHMR use, and optional at the other (Site B), where EHMRs were issued to individuals. Using a survey, we evaluated disinfection practices reported by EHMR users and predictors of disinfection behaviors and perceptions. METHODS: Surveys assessed EHMR disinfection practices, occupational characteristics, EHMR use frequency, training, and individual-issue versus shared-pool EHMR use. RESULTS: Of 1080 EHMR users completing the survey, 76% reported that they disinfect the EHMR after each patient encounter, which was the expected practice at both sites. Increasing EHMR use, recall of disinfection training, and work in intensive care or emergency settings significantly influenced higher reporting of this practice. 36% of respondents reported using centralized C&D, although reporting was higher at the site (A) where this was expected (53%). Confidence in cleanliness of the EHMR following centralized C&D was not influenced by individual versus shared-pool EHMR issue. CONCLUSIONS: Most EHMR users reported adherence with expected post-care individual-based disinfection of EHMRs but did not necessarily use standardized, centralized C&D. Future efforts to limit reliance on behavior related to respirator disinfection may improve EHMR implementation in healthcare to avert dependence on single-use, disposable N95 respirators.

BACKGROUND: Availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) and its effective use may influence safety climate perceptions among health care personnel (HCP). It is unclear how health care organizations can leverage the effective use of respiratory protection to engage in continuous improvement of their safety climate, which can inform opportunities for employee education and engagement. METHODS: After using an elastomeric half mask respirator (EHMR) as their primary form of respiratory protection for several months, 1,080 HCP provided feedback in an electronic survey about respiratory protection training, confidence in EHMR use, barriers during use, and perceived safety climate. Ordinal logistic regressions were used as nonlinear models to test relationships between these variables. FINDINGS: We observed that an increase in user confidence (p < .013), training content (p < .001), training formats (p < .001), and a decrease in EHMR barriers (p < .001) were associated with a statistically significant increase in proactive safety climate. In the second model, an increase in user confidence (p < .006) and training content (p < .001), and a decrease in barriers (p < .001), was associated with a statistically significant increase in compliant safety climate. CONCLUSIONS/APPLICATION TO PRACTICE: HCP EHMR confidence was positively associated with safety climate perceptions, underscoring the value of competency building by respiratory protection leaders prior to implementation. Because fewer barriers experienced while using an EHMR were associated with a more positive perception of safety climate, it is important to first communicate with end users about potential barriers and, second, to continue research with end users and manufacturers to improve the design of EHMRs moving forward.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated healthcare workers' (HCW) knowledge and confidence in using elastomeric half-mask respirator (EHMR) attributes known to influence usage. METHODS: HCW were surveyed regarding their EHMR donning and doffing experience. Respondents were categorized into competency categories based on their scores. Category differences were analyzed using chi square and multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: 72% showed high levels of EHMR donning and doffing knowledge and confidence (mastery); however, 21% had greater confidence than knowledge (misinformed). Respiratory therapists had greater odds of mastery than other HCW (p < .05), while those working in medical/surgical and pediatric units had greater odds of doubt than other HCW (p < .01). CONCLUSION: While most HCW show high knowledge and confidence with EHMR use strategies to confirm respirator use competency may ensure greater HCW protection.

Recent high-profile infectious disease outbreaks illustrate the importance of selecting appropriate control measures to protect a wider range of employees, other than those in healthcare settings. In such settings, where routine exposure risks are often high, control measures may be more available, routinely implemented, and studied for effectiveness. In the absence of evidence-based guidelines or established best practices for selecting appropriate control measures, employers may unduly rely on personal protective equipment (PPE) because of its wide availability and pervasiveness as a control measure, circumventing other effective options for protection. Control banding is one approach that may be used to assign job tasks into risk categories and prioritize the application of controls. This article proposes an initial control banding framework for workers at all levels of risk and incorporates a range of control options, including PPE. Using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) risk groups as a surrogate for toxicity and combining the exposure duration with the exposure likelihood, we can generate the risk of a job task to the worker.

As part of development of performance standards, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) technical committee, ISO/TC 94/SC 15 Respiratory protective devices (RPD), adopted work of breathing (WOB) to evaluate airflow resistance for all designs (classes) of respiratory protective devices. The interests of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's (NIOSH) National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory (NPPTL) are to compare the proposed WOB method and results for current RPD with those for present resistance methods. The objectives here were to assemble a method to meet the ISO SC15 standards, validate operation and conformance, and assess repeatability of WOB measurements for RPD. WOB method implementation and use followed standards ISO 16900-5:2016 and ISO 16900-12:2016. Volume-averaged total work of breathing (WOBT/VT where VT is tidal volume) determined for standard orifices was analyzed for variation and bias. After fabrication and assembly, the method gave preliminary verification orifice results that met ISO requirements and were equivalent to those from other laboratories. Evaluation of additional results from RPD testing showed tidal volume and frequency determined compliance. Appropriate adjustments reduced average absolute bias to 1.7%. Average coefficient of variation for WOBT/VT was 2.3%. Over 97% of results obtained during significant use over time met specifications. WOBT/VT for as-received air-purifying and supplied-air RPD were repeatable (p<0.05). WOBT/VT for unsealed half mask air-purifying RPD was an average of 31% lower compared to sealed. When experimental parameters were appropriately adjusted, the ISO WOB method implemented by NIOSH NPPTL consistently provided ISO-compliant verification WOBT/VT. Results for appropriately sealed RPD were reproducible.