Submitted Successfully!
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry related to this topic through the link below:
Check Note
Mazeyar Parvinzadeh Gashti 2021-05-28 21:12:32
It would be good if authors represent the mechanism of disinfection by UVC.
Ver. Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 + 1677 word(s) 1677 2021-04-27 06:04:32 |
2 format correct Meta information modification 1677 2021-05-10 09:59:24 | |
3 A paragraph at the beginning of chapter 2 explaining the mechanism of disinfection by UVC + 58 word(s) 1735 2021-06-01 10:46:41 |
Ultraviolet-C for mask disinfection
Upload a video

Change in the title since the subject is more specific 

ultraviolet-C surgical masks filtering facepiece respirators
Subjects: Polymer Science
Contributor :
View Times: 131
Revisions: 3 times (View History)
Update Time: 23 Jun 2021
Table of Contents

    1. Introduction

    The typical chemical methods used to sterilize SUPPE are Vaporized Hydrogen Peroxide (VH2O2) and Ethylene Oxide (EtO), and the first has been gaining the second’s market. Even though VH2O2 is ineffective on cellulose-based SUPPE, it is environmentally friendly, and EtO is carcinogenic [1][2][3][4]. The chemical methods have some cons, such as their residues causing allergic reactions and having an intense odor. They depend on specific machinery, and VH2O2 is highly unstable when vaporized, losing significant efficiency when condensed [5][6][7][8][3][4][9].

    Regarding radioactive sterilization methods, the most common one uses gamma irradiation, and it is already primarily used for sterilizing medical tools on a large scale, but it is highly dependent on expensive machinery, it might cause irreversible deformities on SUPPE, and these methods use radioactive raw material [1][2][10][4][11].

    Regarding the energetic methods, the water and the food industry already apply germicidal ultraviolet (UVGI) [1]. Ultraviolet C (UV-C), among the UVGI, can damage biological structures via the photodimerization process since both RNA and DNA bases strongly absorb UV-C [5]. UV-C is suitable due to its low cost, high throughput, ease of use, and no chemical residues left [12][3][13]. UV-C has some limitations related to SUPPE thermal deformation, shadowing, and absorption effects [14][6][2][15][9].

    Considering this panorama, UV-C seems to be the method that is more suitable to tackle the problems (economic, environmental, and social) of selecting a sterilization method for SUPPE.

    Among different SUPPE, masks and filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) became necessary due to their primary role as a protective barrier from Coronavirus disease infection in the hospital and nonhospital environments [16]; therefore, this paper focuses on these SUPPE. This analysis allows observing if studies benefit from advantages and face the disadvantages described for UV-C and how they are overcoming them. Such evaluations are essential because UV-C is already useful in disinfecting other materials/equipment/products, but there remain doubts concerning its disinfection ability for masks/FFRs.

    2. UV-C’s Germicidal Capability

    UV-C (200-280 nm), among the UVGI, damages biological structures via the photodimerization process [17]. At this wavelength, microorganisms' nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) undergo chemical reactions that inactivate them [18], as their DNA and RNA are responsible for cellular replication and protein synthesis [19]. Since UV-C prevents essential microorganism activity, it turns into an appropriate method for disinfecting surfaces, in general.
    Considering the studies in the SLR’s final database, 31 studies [20][12][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49], representing 53.45% of the SLR database, attest to UV-C’s germicidal capability, as they find results of at least 3-log reduction using different biological indicators, conditions, and setups. These studies present results using UV-C as a single method of sterilization. In contrast, another five studies [31][50][51][48][52] use ultraviolet in hybrid models, four combined heat and UV-C, and one adds hydrogen peroxide. While two publications [50][52] do not evaluate UVGI alone, the other two [31][51] do, one attesting for it and another one not. The last one [48] simulates its efficiency. However, when the authors evaluate the hybrid model, they find reductions “well beyond 3” -log [51] (p. 13). Additionally, four research papers [20][34][38][39] indicate a relation between virucidal activity and the masks’ (or FFRs’) models. Summing these results up, all of the researchers tested for the germicidal capability of UVGI and found at least partial confirmation of it, being the majority working with UV-C and being in favor of its usage.
    Besides its need to be germicidal for SUPPE, UV-C must have low cost, high throughput, ease of use, and reduce or leave behind no chemical byproducts [12][3][13]. The sum of these advantages creates appeal for this reprocessing method. These advantages can be either read solely for UVGI methods or in comparison with other (thermal, chemical, and radioactive) methods’ disadvantages.

    3. UV-C’s Additional Advantages

    Ultraviolet-C is normally regarded as a low-cost reprocessing method. From the SLR’s final sample, most publications used either adapted biosafety [12][35][36][40][41][42][44][53] or sterilization [16][39][54] cabinets; adapted chambers [7][26][30][50][46][48][55][56], rooms [51][57][58][49] or laminar flow cabinets [30][59][60][61]; the lamps alone [25][27][33][37][62][45][63][64] or tube racks [65]. Most of these resources are available in research departments or hospitals; making this method “reasonably (…) inexpensive” [7] (p. 515) or, at least, “a cost-effective alternative to heat or chemical decontamination” [58] (pp. 396–397).
    Ten publications [21][24][29][31][32][43][66][67][68][69] adapted machines/robots or used specific UVGI cabinets. These options seemed more expensive approaches than the previous ones. This information does not completely invalidate the “low-cost” idea, as they might prove to be cost-effective once the facility is looking for reprocessing masks and might already own such devices, and they may be idle. Lastly, some researchers created prototypes [28][70], or built their own UV cabinets [20][22][38][47][71][72][52][73]. These self-built UV cabinets are sometimes built from scratch using inexpensive raw materials like aluminum [20][47], or they adapted other containers [38][71][72][52], such as metallic tool storage, an old freezer box, or a reflecting box.
    Considering that UVGI methods are of high throughput, this advantage is not mentioned by every study. Assuming that most studies use small chambers [7][26][30][50][46][48][55][56], biosafety [12][36][40][41][42][44][53] or sterilization [16][39][54] cabinets, this could partially hinder this advantage, as SUPPE cannot be stacked (piled up) [34][68].
    Although some publications [7][28][40] argue that reaching high throughput depends on adapting their systems’ setups, which increases their processes’ agility and consequently their throughput per round, finally, some studies [26][31][71][72][67] indicate an actual number of masks and FFRs disinfected per round. These numbers depend on the area each mask model has and the irradiated area the system has. Despite these studies, this capability becomes easily observed when researchers use adapted rooms [51][57][58][49] since they can disinfect multiple SUPPE at once.
    In the matter of effortlessness application of UVGI, fewer studies [7][21][28][31][50][38][72][67][64] discuss it. Usually, this characteristic relates to how easy the insertion of these setups into the potential users’ facilities is or how workers benefit from it amidst each patient consultation. On some level, this effortlessness of inserting these setups into healthcare facilities is more important than workers’ ability to know how to do it. We argue that possible users should invest in training a group of workers and detach them for this job, given that if every worker starts doing it, it will increase the probability of someone not following the guidelines correctly, thus increasing the infection probability.
    The last common advantage UVGI has compared to chemical disinfection methods is the reduced/no chemical byproduct left in SUPPE after sterilization rounds. Some studies [7][27][31][50][35][66][46][71][65][59][63][61][53] discuss this advantage. On the one hand, a few studies [7][27][53] only mention this advantage without testing it—three [65][59][61] publications tangentially discuss this characteristic by the possibility of the lasting odors resulting from the UV-C reprocessing. On the other hand, other publications [31][50][35][66][46][71][63] test for this chemical byproduct. Using low-pressure mercury lamps during the sterilization may create Ozone (O3), which “can pose an additional health hazard” [46] (p. 7592); if trapped inside the container, the reprocessing is taking place. Three research papers [31][50][46] find low accumulation levels of O3 ranging from less than 0.001 to 0.02 ppm after the UV-C sterilization process.
    Still on chemical byproducts, two other publications [66][63] find some unique peaks in their analysis, but these results indicate divergent observations. Jung et al. explain that the byproducts are a result of “surface oxidation leaving some peaks of C–O–C and O–H bending” [66] (p. 11). In contrast, Salter et al. argue that their unique peaks “appear to be (…) related to the solvent (n-pentane) and unrelated to the disinfectant” [63] (p. 443).
    Despite these advantages, there is no universal option concerning sterilization methods since all of them present disadvantages; thus, we should observe which disadvantages are present in our SLR database and if they have made this choice of reprocessing procedure inadvisable.

    4. UV-C’s Disadvantages

    There are three common problems the UV-C sterilization process demonstrates: the possibility of thermal deformation, shadowing, and absorption effects [14][6][2][15][9]. As the first potential problem (changes in integrity) already discards reprocessed SUPPE, we opted to leave it on Table 1 column “Changes in integrity or fit.” From our SLR database, 30 studies (51.72%) assess it, of which 21 [16][22][24][27][31][50][35][51][70][44][66][46][47][71][65][59][67][60][74][61][64] observe no physical changes within different rounds of sterilization or extenuating conditions. On the other hand, nine studies [23][25][29][34][62][55][56][73][54] find that masks or FFRs degraded, or faced changes in airflow resistance [23][34][55][56], or reached minimum acceptability levels after some rounds of reprocessing [25][29][62][73][54]. These results are important to consider, albeit with caution because one publication [56] indicates that despite having degradation problems, they varied according to the different models used, suggesting that it is wise to observe each case individually. In contrast, another study [55] indicates a positive relationship between degradation levels and dosage.

    Another potential problem reprocessed masks and FFRs might present the reduction of their filtration power. Most studies [22][23][25][26][29][30][31][50][35][51][62][42][44][66][46][71][67][68][60][74][61][73][64] indicate that little or no effect happened as these SUPPE faced UV-C sterilization. However, this is not a consensus in the SLR’s final sample. Few publications [7][16][55][69] indicate problems in these SUPPE’s filtration power after sterilization, normally after some reprocessing cycles or in higher doses.

    A third setback for choosing UV-C’s method is shadowing. This problem happens when parts of the masks or FFRs are poorly irradiated or not irradiated at all. Such a concern is a priority, especially when the object possesses inner-layers where microorganisms can remain. This problem automatically impacts UV-C’s germicidal capability because all parts must be irradiated to be decontaminated and reused. Shadowing is also a problem in these SUPPE’s straps. Some studies [20][24][27][28][31][38][41][48][71][72] discussed shadowing although only few [28][31][38][48][72] presented possible solutions. One study [28] is concerned with this problem regarding masks and FFRs straps, then to solve it, they include a fused quartz hook that enables UV irradiation. Other researchers [31][38][48][72] suggest changing the UV-C system setup or the SUPPE’s positions to increase exposure or the system’s reflection.

    A fourth problem concerns UV-C’s penetration ability. This problem is intimately related to the irradiation of inner parts and with the material these SUPPEs use. Some studies [20][12][21][27][68] argue about it. The leading cause for this concern lies in the physio–chemical properties of the materials used in masks and FFRs [12][21][68]. None of these studies discussing absorption problems tried to solve them. Only one [27] argued about the possibility of optimizing their system’s setup to cope with it. Nevertheless, an increase in dosage to reach deeper layers may lead to photooxidation on the surface [29][71][55]. Thus, better reflective setups and more uniform irradiation might prove to be better solutions to reach the inner layers.

    A fifth problem lies outside the capability of UV-C but in the potential users’ ability to explain to the users of reprocessed SUPPE the procedure’s safety. Only two studies [29][67] discuss it, but a system where users of the reprocessed masks and FFRs only wear their previously used SUPPE may increase acceptability.


    1. Rowan, N.J.; Laffey, J.G. Challenges and solutions for addressing critical shortage of supply chain for personal and protective equipment (PPE) arising from Coronavirus disease (COVID19) pandemic—Case study from the Republic of Ireland. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 725, 138532.
    2. Rubio-Romero, J.C.; Pardo-Ferreira, M.D.C.; Torrecilla-García, J.A.; Calero-Castro, S. Disposable masks: Disinfection and sterilization for reuse, and non-certified manufacturing, in the face of shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic. Saf. Sci. 2020, 129, 104830.
    3. Paul, D.; Gupta, A.; Maurya, A.K. Exploring options for reprocessing of N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirators (N95-FFRs) amidst COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0242474.
    4. McEvoy, B.; Rowan, N. Terminal sterilization of medical devices using vaporized hydrogen peroxide: A review of current methods and emerging opportunities. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2019, 127, 1403–1420.
    5. Derraik, J.G.B.; Anderson, W.A.; Connelly, E.A.; Anderson, Y.C. Rapid Review of SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 Viability, Susceptibility to Treatment, and the Disinfection and Reuse of PPE, Particularly Filtering Facepiece Respirators. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6117.
    6. Deskins, A. Attention Nurses, Doctors, First Responders, Healthcare Providers and Anyone Re-Using an N95 Mask or Making One. 2020. Available online: (accessed on 5 February 2021).
    7. Lindsley, W.G.; Martin, S.B., Jr.; Thewlis, R.E.; Sarkisian, K.; Nwoko, J.O.; Mead, K.R.; Noti, J.D. Effects of Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation (UVGI) on N95 Respirator Filtration Performance and Structural Integrity. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2015, 12, 509–517.
    8. Czubryt, M.; Stecy, T.; Popke, E.; Aitken, R.; Jabusch, K.; Pound, R.; Lawes, P.; Ramjiawan, B.; Pierce, G. N95 mask reuse in a major urban hospital: COVID-19 response process and procedure. J. Hosp. Infect. 2020, 106, 277–282.
    9. Toomey, E.C.; Conway, Y.; Burton, C.; Smith, S.; Smalle, M.; Chan, X.-H.S.; Adisesh, A.; Tanveer, S.; Ross, L.; Thomson, I.; et al. Extended use or reuse of single-use surgical masks and filtering face-piece respirators during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: A rapid systematic review. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2021, 42, 75–83.
    10. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Cloth Masks and Mask Sterilisation as Options in Case of Shortage of Surgical Masks and Respirators; Technical Report; ECDC: Stockholm, Sweden, 2020.
    11. Kenney, P.A.; Chan, B.J.; Kortright, K.; Cintron, M.; Havill, N.; Russi, M.; Epright, J.; Lee, L.; Balcezak, T.J.; Martinello, R.A. Hydrogen Peroxide Vapor sterilization of N95 respirators for reuse. medRxiv 2020.
    12. Fisher, E.; Shaffer, R. A method to determine the available UV-C dose for the decontamination of filtering facepiece respirators. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2010, 110, 287–295.
    13. Nogueira, M.S. Ultraviolet-based biophotonic technologies for control and prevention of COVID-19, SARS and related disorders. Photodiagn. Photodyn. Ther. 2020, 31, 101890.
    14. Livingston, E.H.; Desai, A.; Berkwits, M. Sourcing Personal Protective Equipment During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA 2020, 323, 1912–1914.
    15. Feldmann, F.; Shupert, W.L.; Haddock, E.; Twardoski, B.; Feldmann, H. Gamma Irradiation as an Effective Method for Inactivation of Emerging Viral Pathogens. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2019, 100, 1275–1277.
    16. Liao, L.; Xiao, W.; Zhao, M.; Yu, X.; Wang, H.; Wang, Q.; Chu, S.; Cui, Y. Can N95 Respirators Be Reused after Disinfection? How Many Times? ACS Nano 2020, 14, 6348–6356.
    17. José G. B. Derraik; William A. Anderson; Elizabeth A. Connelly; Yvonne C. Anderson; Rapid Review of SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 Viability, Susceptibility to Treatment, and the Disinfection and Reuse of PPE, Particularly Filtering Facepiece Respirators. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2020, 17, 6117, 10.3390/ijerph17176117.
    18. Hao Luo; Lexuan Zhong; Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI) for in-duct airborne bioaerosol disinfection: Review and analysis of design factors. Building and Environment 2021, 197, 107852-107852, 10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107852.
    19. Kowalski, Wladyslaw . Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation Handbook; Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009; pp. XVII, 501.
    20. Mills, D.; Harnish, D.A.; Lawrence, C.; Sandoval-Powers, M.; Heimbuch, B.K. Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation of influenza-contaminated N95 filtering facepiece respirators. Am. J. Infect. Control 2018, 46, e49–e55.
    21. Ludwig-Begall, L.F.; Wielick, C.; Dams, L.; Nauwynck, H.; Demeuldre, P.-F.; Napp, A.; Laperre, J.; Haubruge, E.; Thiry, E. The use of germicidal ultraviolet light, vaporized hydrogen peroxide and dry heat to decontaminate face masks and filtering respirators contaminated with a SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus. J. Hosp. Infect. 2020, 106, 577–584.
    22. Cheok Hong, M.; Sook Lan, T.; Soo Zeng Fiona, P.; Wei Qi, L.; Shyue Wei, P.; Vidhya, N.; Geraldine, C.; Yu Hui Shermin, C. Surgical masks decontamination for reuse by members of the public: Feasibility study and development of home-based methods. Res. Sq. 2020, 1–15.
    23. Ludwig-Begall, L.F.; Wielick, C.; Jolois, O.; Dams, L.; Razafimahefa, H.N.; Demeuldre, P.F.; Napp, A.; Laperre, J.; Farnir, F.; Thiry, E.; et al. From “don, doff, and discard” to “don, doff, and decontaminate”—Determination of filtering facepiece respirator and surgical mask integrity and inactivation of a SARS-CoV-2 surrogate and a small non-enveloped virus following multiple-cycles of vaporised hydrogen peroxide, ultraviolet germicidal irradiation and dry heat decontamination. medRxiv 2020, 1–13.
    24. Cadnum, J.L.; Li, D.F.; Redmond, S.N.; John, A.R.; Pearlmutter, B.; Donskey, C.J. Effectiveness of Ultraviolet-C Light and a High-Level Disinfection Cabinet for Decontamination of N95 Respirators. Pathog. Immun. 2020, 5, 52–67.
    25. Fischer, R.J.; Morris, D.H.; Van Doremalen, N.; Sarchette, S.; Matson, M.J.; Bushmaker, T.; Yinda, C.K.; Seifert, S.N.; Gamble, A.; Williamson, B.N.; et al. Effectiveness of N95 Respirator Decontamination and Reuse against SARS-CoV-2 Virus. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2020, 26, 2253–2255.
    26. Hanyanunt, P.; Juntanawiwat, P.; Chatreewonanakul, T.; Potisuwan, P.; Simsiriporn, W.; Phondee, S.; Sungsirin, N.; Kesakomol, P.; Watanaveeradej, V.; Boonsiri, T. Effects of ultraviolet C (uvc) light and dry heat on filtration performance of N95 respirator mask. J. Southeast Asian Med. Res. 2020, 4, 48–52.
    27. Heimbuch, B.K.; Wallace, W.H.; Kinney, K.; Lumley, A.E.; Wu, C.-Y.; Woo, M.-H.; Wander, J.D. A pandemic influenza preparedness study: Use of energetic methods to decontaminate filtering facepiece respirators contaminated with H1N1 aerosols and droplets. Am. J. Infect. Control 2011, 39, e1–e9.
    28. Kayani, B.J.; Weaver, D.T.; Gopalakrishnan, V.; King, E.S.; Dolson, E.; Krishnan, N.; Pelesko, J.; Scott, M.J.; Hitomi, M.; Cadnum, J.L.; et al. UV-C tower for point-of-care decontamination of filtering facepiece respirators. Am. J. Infect. Control 2020, 1–6.
    29. Kumar, A.; Kasloff, S.B.; Leung, A.; Cutts, T.; Strong, J.E.; Hills, K.; Gu, F.X.; Chen, P.; Vazquez-Grande, G.; Rush, B.; et al. Decontamination of N95 masks for re-use employing 7 widely available sterilization methods. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0243965.
    30. Lore, M.B.; Heimbuch, B.K.; Brown, T.L.; Wander, J.D.; Hinrichs, S.H. Effectiveness of Three Decontamination Treatments against Influenza Virus Applied to Filtering Facepiece Respirators. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2011, 56, 92–101.
    31. Muñoz, M.; Comtois-Bona, M.; Cortes, D.; Cimenci, C.E.; Du, Q.; Thompson, C.; Figueroa, J.D.; Franklin, V.; Liu, P.; Alarcon, E.I. Integrated photothermal decontamination device for N95 respirators. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 1–13.
    32. Simmons, S.E.; Carrion, R.; Alfson, K.J.; Staples, H.M.; Jinadatha, C.; Jarvis, W.R.; Sampathkumar, P.; Chemaly, R.F.; Khawaja, F.; Povroznik, M.; et al. Deactivation of SARS-CoV-2 with pulsed-xenon ultraviolet light: Implications for environmental COVID-19 control. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2021, 42, 127–130.
    33. Singh, G.; Jorgenson, J.; Pringle, T.; Nelson, T.; Ramamoorthy, S. Monitoring SARS-CoV-2 decontamination by dry heat and ultraviolet treatment with a swine coronavirus as a surrogate. Infect. Prev. Pract. 2021, 3, 100103.
    34. Smith, J.S.; Hanseler, H.; Welle, J.; Rattray, R.; Campbell, M.; Brotherton, T.; Moudgil, T.; Pack, T.F.; Wegmann, K.; Jensen, S.; et al. Effect of various decontamination procedures on disposable N95 mask integrity and SARS-CoV-2 infectivity. J. Clin. Transl. Sci. 2020, 1–5.
    35. Vo, E.; Rengasamy, S.; Xu, S.; Horvatin, M.; Zhuang, Z. New technique to evaluate decontamination methods for filtering facepiece respirators. Am. J. Infect. Control 2021.
    36. Vo, E.; Rengasamy, S.; Shaffer, R. Development of a Test System To Evaluate Procedures for Decontamination of Respirators Containing Viral Droplets. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 75, 7303–7309.
    37. Woo, M.-H.; Grippin, A.; Anwar, D.; Smith, T.; Wu, C.-Y.; Wander, J.D. Effects of Relative Humidity and Spraying Medium on UV Decontamination of Filters Loaded with Viral Aerosols. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 5781–5787.
    38. Golovkine, G.R.; Roberts, A.W.; Cooper, C.; Riano, S.; DiCiccio, A.M.; Worthington, D.L.; Clarkson, J.P.; Krames, M.; Zhang, J.; Gao, Y.; et al. Practical considerations for Ultraviolet-C radiation mediated decontamination of N95 respirator against SARS-CoV-2 virus. medRxiv 2020.
    39. Ozog, D.M.; Sexton, J.Z.; Narla, S.; Pretto-Kernahan, C.; Mirabelli, C.; Lim, H.W.; Hamzavi, I.H.; Tibbetts, R.J.; Mi, Q.-S. The Effect of Ultraviolet C Radiation Against SARS-CoV-2 Inoculated N95. medRxiv 2020, 1–13.
    40. Rathnasinghe, R.; Karlicek, R.F.; Schotsaert, M.; Koffas, M.; Arduini, B.; Jangra, S.; Wang, B.; Davis, J.L.; Alnaggar, M.; Costa, A.; et al. Scalable, effective, and rapid decontamination of SARS-CoV-2 con-taminated N95 respirators using germicidal Ultra-Violet C (UVC) irradiation device. medRxiv 2020.
    41. Weaver, D.T.; McElvany, B.D.; Gopalakrishnan, V.; Card, K.J.; Crozier, D.; Dhawan, A.; Dinh, M.N.; Dolson, E.; Farrokhian, N.; Hitomi, M.; et al. UV decontamination of personal protective equipment with idle laboratory biosafety cabinets during the COVID-19 pandemic. medRxiv 2020, 1–18.
    42. He, W.; Guo, Y.; Gao, H.; Liu, J.; Yue, Y.; Wang, J. Evaluation of Regeneration Processes for Filtering Facepiece Respirators in Terms of the Bacteria Inactivation Efficiency and Influences on Filtration Performance. ACS Nano 2020, 14, 13161–13171.
    43. Lede, I.; Nolte, K.; Kroes, R.; Scalable, A. Method for Ultraviolet C Disinfection of Surgical Facemasks Type IIR and Filtering Facepiece Particle Respirators 1 and 2. Preprints 2020, 1–13.
    44. Suen, C.Y.; Leung, H.H.; Lam, K.W.; Hung, K.P.S.; Chan, M.Y.; Kwan, J.K.C. Feasibility of reusing surgical mask under different disinfection treatments. medRxiv 2020.
    45. Lin, T.-H.; Tang, F.; Hung, P.-C.; Hua, Z.-C.; Lai, C.-Y. Relative survival of Bacillus subtilis spores loaded on filtering facepiece respirators after five decontamination methods. Indoor Air 2018, 28, 754–762.
    46. Purschke, M.; Elsamaloty, M.; Wilde, J.; Starr, N.; Anderson, R.R.; Farinelli, W.; Sakamoto, F.; Tung, M.; Tam, J.; Hesselink, L.; et al. Construction and validation of UV-Cdecontamination cabinets for filteringfacepiece respirators. Appl. Opt. 2020, 59, 7585.
    47. Kierat, W.; Augustyn, W.; Koper, P.; Pawlyta, M.; Chrusciel, A.; Wyrwol, B. The Use of UVC Irradiation to Sterilize Filtering Facepiece Masks Limiting Airborne Cross-Infection. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7396.
    48. Banerjee, R.; Roy, P.; Das, S.; Paul, M.K. A hybrid model integrating warm heat and ultraviolet germicidal irradiation might efficiently disinfect respirators and personal protective equipment. Am. J. Infect. Control 2021, 49, 309–318.
    49. Lowe, J.J.; Paladino, K.D.; Farke, J.D.; Boulter, C.K.; Emodi, M.; Hankins, R.; Hinkle, L.; Micheels, T.; Schwedhelm, S.; Vasa, A.; et al. N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirator Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation (UVGI) Process for De-contamination and Reuse; Nebraska Medicine: Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA, 2020.
    50. Vernez, D.; Save, J.; Oppliger, A.; Concha-Lozano, N.; Hopf, N.B.; Niculita-Hirzel, H.; Resch, G.; Michaud, V.; Dorange-Pattoret, L.; Charrière, N.; et al. Reusability of filtering facepiece respirators after decontamination through drying and germicidal UV irradiation. BMJ Glob. Health 2020, 5, e003110.
    51. Wigginton, K.R.; Arts, P.J.; Clack, H.L.; Fitzsimmons, W.J.; Gamba, M.; Harrison, K.R.; LeBar, W.; Lauring, A.S.; Li, L.; Roberts, W.W.; et al. Validation of N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirator Decontamination Methods Available at a Large University Hospital. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 2021, 8, ofaa610.
    52. Venkatesh, R.; Gurnani, B.; Kaur, K.; Vedachalam, R.; Gubert, J. Innovative application of ultraviolet rays and hydrogen peroxide vapor for decontamination of respirators during COVID-19 pandemic- An experience from a tertiary eye care hospital. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 2020, 68, 1714–1715.
    53. Card, K.J.; Crozier, D.; Dhawan, A.; Dinh, M.; Dolson, E.; Farrokhian, N.; Gopalakrishnan, V.; Ho, E.; Jagdish, T.; King, E.S.; et al. UV Sterilization of Personal Protective Equipment with Idle Laboratory Biosafety Cabinets during the Covid-19 Pandemic. medRxiv 2020, 1–18.
    54. Price, A.; Cui, Y.; Liao, L.; Xiao, W.; Yu, X.; Wang, H.; Zhao, M.; Wang, Q.; Chu, S.; Chu, L. Is the fit of N95 facial masks effected by disinfection? A study of heat and UV disinfection methods using the OSHA protocol fit test. medRxiv 2020.
    55. Yujie, M.; Rae, Z.; Kurt, R.; Kelly, B. Effect of Ultraviolet C Disinfection Treatment on the Nanomechanical and Topographic Properties of N95 Respirator Filtration Microfibers. MRS Adv. 2020, 5, 2863–2872.
    56. Rohit, A.; Rajasekaran, S.; Shenoy, S.; Rai, S.; Iddya, K.; Dorairajan, S.K. Reprocessing of N95 masks: Experience from a resource-limited setting in India. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2021, 104, 41–44.
    57. Sears, A.P.; Ohayon, J.; Shutov, A.D.; Pettigrew, R.I. Modeling-based UV-C decontamination of N95 masks optimized to avoid undertreatment. medRxiv 2020, 1–8.
    58. Baluja, A.; Arines, J.; Vilanova, R.; Cortiñas, J.; Bao-Varela, C.; Flores-Arias, M.T. UV light dosage distribution over irregular respirator surfaces. Methods and implications for safety. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2020, 17, 1–8.
    59. Bergman, M.S.; Viscusi, D.J.; Palmiero, A.J.; Powell, J.B.; Shaffer, R.E. Impact of three cycles of decontamination treatments on filtering facepiece respirator fit. J. Int. Soc. Respir. Prot. 2011, 28, 48–59.
    60. Viscusi, D.J.; King, W.P.; Shaffer, R.E. Effect of decontamination on the filtration efficiency of two filtering facepiece respirator models. J. Int. Soc. Respir. Prot. 2007, 24, 93–107.
    61. Viscusi, D.J.; Bergman, M.S.; Novak, D.A.; Faulkner, K.A.; Palmiero, A.; Powell, J.; Shaffer, R.E. Impact of Three Biological Decontamination Methods on Filtering Facepiece Respirator Fit, Odor, Comfort, and Donning Ease. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2011, 8, 426–436.
    62. Fischer, R.J.; Morris, D.H.; van Doremalen, N.; Sarchette, S.; Matson, M.J.; Bushmaker, T.; Yinda, C.K.; Seifert, S.N.; Gamble, A.; Williamson, B.N.; et al. Assessment of N95 respirator decontamination and re-use for SARS-CoV-2. medRxiv 2020.
    63. Salter, W.B.; Kinney, K.; Wallace, W.H.; Lumley, A.E.; Heimbuch, B.K.; Wander, J.D. Analysis of Residual Chemicals on Filtering Facepiece Respirators After Decontamination. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2010, 7, 437–445.
    64. Borro, L.; Raponi, M.; Del Fatore, A.; Zanini, F.; di Lillo, F.; Contillo, A.; Di Piazza, E.; Bordonaro, V.; Tozzi, A.E.; Secinaro, A. Reusability of P3 facial filter in pandemic emergency: A 3D Analysis of a filter microstructure with X-Ray micro-tomography images after dry heat and UV sterilization procedures. Res. Sq. 2020.
    65. Bergman, M.S.; Viscusi, D.J.; Heimbuch, B.K.; Wander, J.D.; Sambol, A.R.; Shaffer, R.E. Evaluation of Multiple (3-Cycle) Decontamination Processing for Filtering Facepiece Respirators. J. Eng. Fibers Fabr. 2010, 5, 33–41.
    66. Jung, S.; Hemmatian, T.; Song, E.; Lee, K.; Seo, D.; Yi, J.; Kim, J. Disinfection Treatments of Disposable Respirators Influencing the Bactericidal/Bacteria Removal Efficiency, Filtration Performance, and Structural Integrity. Polymers 2020, 13, 45.
    67. Golladay, G.J.; Leslie, K.A.; Zuelzer, W.A.; Cassano, A.D.; Plauny, J.J.; Daniels, F.E.; Bearman, G.; Kates, S.L. Rationale and process for N95 respirator sanitation and re-use in the COVID-19 pandemic. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2021, 1–20.
    68. Ou, Q.; Pei, C.; Kim, S.C.; Abell, E.; Pui, D.Y. Evaluation of decontamination methods for commercial and alternative respirator and mask materials—View from filtration aspect. J. Aerosol Sci. 2020, 150, 105609.
    69. Peltier, R.E.; Wang, J.; Hollenbeck, B.L.; Lanza, J.; Furtado, R.M.; Cyr, J.; Ellison, R.T.; Kobayashi, K.J. Addressing decontaminated respirators: Some methods appear to damage mask integrity and protective function. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2020, 41, 1–3.
    70. Chotiprasitsakul, D.; Kitiyakara, T.; Jongkaewwattana, A.; Santanirand, P.; Jiaranaikulwanich, A.; Prahsam, C.; Wadwongsri, P.; Jeendum, N.; Watcharananan, S.P. Approach of using a household device in decontaminating respirators with ultraviolet C during the scarcity in the COVID-19 pandemic. Res. Sq. 2020, 1–12.
    71. Zhao, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Lanzarini-Lopes, M.; Sinha, S.; Rho, H.; Herckes, P.; Westerhoff, P. Germicidal Ultraviolet Light Does Not Damage or Impede Performance of N95 Masks Upon Multiple Uses. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2020, 7, 600–605.
    72. Gilbert, R.M.; Donzanti, M.J.; Minahan, D.J.; Shirazi, J.; Hatem, C.L.; Hayward-Piatkovskyi, B.; Dang, A.M.; Nelson, K.M.; Bothi, K.L.; Gleghorn, J.P. Mask Reuse in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Creating an Inexpensive and Scalable Ultraviolet System for Filtering Facepiece Respirator Decontamination. Glob. Health Sci. Pract. 2020, 8, 582–595.
    73. Chen, P.Z.; Ngan, A.; Manson, N.; Maynes, J.T.; Borschel, G.H.; Rotstein, O.D.; Gu, F.X. Transmission of aerosols through pristine and reprocessed N95 respirators. medRxiv 2020, 1–9.
    74. Viscusi, D.J.; Bergman, M.S.; Eimer, B.C.; Shaffer, R.E. Evaluation of Five Decontamination Methods for Filtering Facepiece Respirators. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2009, 53, 815–827.
    Subjects: Polymer Science
    Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to :
    View Times: 131
    Revisions: 3 times (View History)
    Update Time: 23 Jun 2021
    Table of Contents


      Are you sure to Delete?

      Video Upload Options

      Do you have a full video?
      If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
      Zille, A. Ultraviolet-C for mask disinfection. Encyclopedia. Available online: (accessed on 29 November 2022).
      Zille A. Ultraviolet-C for mask disinfection. Encyclopedia. Available at: Accessed November 29, 2022.
      Zille, Andrea. "Ultraviolet-C for mask disinfection," Encyclopedia, (accessed November 29, 2022).
      Zille, A. (2021, May 10). Ultraviolet-C for mask disinfection. In Encyclopedia.
      Zille, Andrea. ''Ultraviolet-C for mask disinfection.'' Encyclopedia. Web. 10 May, 2021.