Skip to main content

Table 1 Decontaminating N95/FFP2 masks for reuse: results of the systematic review 2011–June 2020

From: Decontaminating N95/FFP2 masks for reuse during the COVID-19 epidemic: a systematic review

Title

Authors

Intervention

Microorganisms tested

Quantification method

Outcome: log reduction compared to control

Data on physical integrity/fit/filtration/residue

Sterilization/probable disinfection (minimum 3-log reduction for disinfection, 6-log for sterilization)

Method recommended (see text for the definition of this column)

Comments

Liquids

         

Cleaning of filtering facepiece respirators contaminated with mucin and Staphylococcus aureus [2]

Heimbuch et al

Benzalkonium chloride (Wipes)

Mucin or Staphylococcus aureus

CFU assay

3–5

Fail

Disinfection

No

 

Relative survival of Bacillus subtilis spores loaded on filtering facepiece respirators after five decontamination methods [3]

Lin et al

Ethanol 50–95%

Bacillus subtilis spores

CFU assay

N/A, but culture results were positive

N/A

Failed

No

 

Effect of various decontamination procedures on disposable N95 mask integrity and SARS-CoV-2 infectivity [4]

Smith et al

Ethanol 70%

SARS-CoV-2

RT-PCR

likely > 3 log

Fail

Disinfection

No

The initial contamination was at 3 log as it was coming from human sample

Effectiveness of N95 Respirator Decontamination and Reuse against SARS-CoV-2 Virus [5]

Fischer et al

Ethanol 70% for 10 min

SARS-CoV-2 (HCoV-19 nCoV-WA1-2020 (MN985325.1))

TCID50

4

Fail

Disinfection

No

 

Relative survival of Bacillus subtilis spores loaded on filtering facepiece respirators after five decontamination methods [3]

Lin et al

Hypochlorite in a 0.54% solution

Bacillus subtilis spores

CFU assay

N/A, but culture results were negative

N/A

Disinfection

N/A

No colonies but no info on log reduction

Cleaning of filtering facepiece respirators contaminated with mucin and Staphylococcus aureus [2]

Heimbuch et al

Hypochlorite (Wipes) in a 0.9% solution

S. aureus

CFU assay

4–5 except for nose pads

Fail

Disinfection and failure

No

All masks had good disinfection except for on the nose pads (less than 2 log reduction)

Cleaning of filtering facepiece respirators contaminated with mucin and Staphylococcus aureus [2]

Heimbuch et al

Nonantimicrobial detergent wipes

Mucin or Staphylococcus aureus

CFU assay

1

Fail

Failure

No

 

Heat

         

Effectiveness of N95 Respirator Decontamination and Reuse against SARS-CoV-2 Virus [5]

Fischer et al

Dry heat at 70 °C for 10–60 min

SARS-CoV-2 (HcoV-19 nCoV-WA1-2020 (MN985325.1)

TCID50

 > 1to > 3 depending on time

Pass (max 3 rounds)

Disinfection and failure

Yes

Ability to disinfect was time dependent

Effectiveness of Ultraviolet-C Light and a High-Level Disinfection Cabinet for Decontamination of N95 Respirators [6]

Cadnum et al

Dry heat at 70 °C for 30 min

Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and bacteriophages MS2 and Phi6

CFU assay, Plaque assay

Bacteriophages < 1, MRSA > 4

N/A

Disinfection and failure

No

Failure for bacteriophages

It’s not the heat, it’s the humidity: Effectiveness of a rice cooker-steamer for decontamination of cloth and surgical face masks and N95 respirators [7]

Li et al

Dry heat at 100 °C for 15 min

MS2 ad MRSA

Plaque assay

 < 3 log10 reduction

Pass (visual)

Failure

No

 

Validation of N95 filtering facepiece respirator decontamination methods available at a large university hospital [8]

Wigginton et al

Dry heat at 82 °C for 30 min

Staphylococcus aureus and Geobacillus stearothermophilus

Plaque assay

S. aureus: < 1.0 log10, G. stearotherophilus: < 0.3 log10

Pass

Failure

No

 

Decontamination of face masks and filtering facepiece respirators via ultraviolet germicidal irradiation, hydrogen peroxide vaporization, and use of dry heat inactivates an infectious SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus [9]

Ludwig-Begall et al

Dry heat at 102 °C for 60 min

Porcine respiratory coronavirus (PRCV)

TCID50

 ≥ 4

N/A

Disinfection

N/A

 

Decontamination of Surgical Face Masks and N95 Respirators by Dry Heat Pasteurization for One Hour at 70°C [10]

Xiang et al

Dry heat at 60 °C and 70 °C 60 min

E. coli, S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, K. pneumonia, A.baumannii, C. pseudodiphtheria, and C.albicans, Inf A virus (H1N1)

TCID 50

N/A, but culture results were negative

Pass

Disinfection

Yes

 

Dry Heat as a Decontamination Method for N95 Face Respirator Reuse [11]

Oh et al

Dry heat at 120 °C for 50 min

Tulane virus, rotavirus, adenovirus, transmissible gastroenteritis

virus

Plaque assay

Tulane > 5.2, rotavirus > 6.6, adenovirus > 4.0, gastroenteritis > 4.7

Pass

Sterilization and disinfection

Yes

All disinfection except for rotavirus which reached sterilization

Thermal Disinfection Inactivates SARS-CoV-2 in N95 Respirators while Maintaining Their Protective Function [12]

Daeschler et al

Dry heat at 70 °C for 60 min

SARS-CoV-2 and E. coli

TCID 50

mixed: > 4 for SARS CoV-2, < 1 for E.coli

Pass

Disinfection and failure

Depends

Failure for E.Coli. Recommendation dependent on microorganism present

Relative survival of Bacillus subtilis spores loaded on filtering facepiece respirators after five decontamination method [3]

Lin et al

Dry Heat (electric rice cooker) 149–164 °C

Bacillus subtilis spores

CFU assay

N/A, culture results were mixed

N/A

Failure

N/A

Possibly disinfection after 24 h, but not immediately

Efficacy of moist heat decontamination against various pathogens for the reuse of N95 respirators in the COVID-19 emergency [13]

Oral et al

Moist heat at 60 °C at 80% humidity for 30 min

Bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV), Porcine Parvovirus (PPV) and Influenza A Virus, S. aureus, P. Aeruginosa and A. Baumanii

cell culture

S. aureus: 5.32 P.aeruginosa:5.7 A. Baumannii:5.92 InfA:4.35 modestly BVDV:1.62 PPV:0

N/A

Disinfection and failure

N/A

Failure for BVDV and PPV

A pandemic influenza preparedness study: Use of energetic methods to decontaminate filtering facepiece respirators contaminated with H1N1 aerosols and droplets [14]

Heimbuch et al

Moist heat at 65 °C at 85% humidity for 30 min

H1N1

TCID50

 > 4

Pass

Disinfection

Yes

There was only a visual examination for fit and integrity

Biological Aerosol Test Method and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Decon [15]

Hinrichs et al

Moist heat at 62 °C at 85% humidity for 20 min

influenza virus A (H5N1)

RT-PCR and TCID50

 ≥ 4

N/A

Disinfection

N/A

 

Effect of moist heat decontamination on methicillin-sensitive S. aureus for the reuse of N95 respirators in the COVID-19 emergency [16]

Gil et al

Moist heat at 60 °C at 80% humidity for 30 min

S. aureus (methicillin sensitive)

CFU assay

5.31

N/A

Disinfection

N/A

 

Thermal Disinfection Inactivates SARS-CoV-2 in N95 Respirators while Maintaining Their Protective Function [12]

Daeschler et al

Moist heat at 70 °C at 50% humidity for 60 min

SARS-CoV-2 and E. coli

TCID 50

mixed: > 4 for SARS CoV-2, < 3 for E.coli

Pass

Disinfection and failure

Depends

Failure for E.Coli because initial contamination was too low, but was probably disinfection. Recommendation dependent on microorganism present

Effectiveness of three decontamination treatments against influenza virus applied to filtering facepiece respirators [17]

Lore et al

Moist heat at 65 °C for 20 min

H5N1

TCID50

 ≥ 4.62 and ≥ 4.65

Pass

Disinfection

Yes

 

It’s not the heat, it’s the humidity: Effectiveness of a rice cooker-steamer for decontamination of cloth and surgical face masks and N95 respirators [7]

Li et al

Moist heat for 12–15 min

MS2 ad MRSA

Plaque assay

 > 5 log10 reduction

Pass

Disinfection

Yes

There was only a visual examination for fit and integrity

Validation of N95 filtering facepiece respirator decontamination methods available at a large university hospital [8]

Wigginton et al

Moist heat at 80 °C at 60% humidity for 30 min

MS2, phi6, influenza A virus S aureus, G. stearotherophilus

Plaque assay

MS2: > 6.8, Phi6: > 6.6, influenza virus: > 3.4, and MHV > 1.4, S disinfection > 2.9, G. stearotherophilus < 0.3

Pass

Sterilization, disinfection and failure

No

MS2: Sterilization, Phi6: Sterilization, Influenza virus: Disinfection, MHV: failed, S aureus: failed, G. stearotherophilus: failed

A pandemic influenza preparedness study: Use of energetic methods to decontaminate filtering facepiece respirators contaminated with H1N1 aerosols and droplets [14]

Heimbuch et al

Moist heat (microwave-generated) for 2 min

H1N1

TCID50

 > 4

Pass

Disinfection

Yes

There was only a visual examination for fit and integrity

Biological Aerosol Test Method and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Decon [15]

Hinrichs et al

Moist heat (microwave-generated) for 2 min

influenza virus AH5N1

RT-PCR and TCID50

 ≥ 4

N/A

Disinfection

N/A

 

Effectiveness of three decontamination treatments against influenza virus applied to filtering facepiece respirators [17]

Lore et al

Moist heat (microwave-generated) for 2 min

H5N1

TCID50

 ≥ 4.81 and ≥ 4.79

Pass

Disinfection

Yes

 

Evaluation of microwave steam bags for the decontamination of filtering facepiece respirators [18]

Fisher et al

Moist heat (microwave-generated) for 1.5 min

MS2 bacteriophage

CFU assay

3.10 – 4.64

Mixed

Disinfection

Mixed

Can be only recommended in some cases, depending on model of the mask and how much water is absorbed. Some failure for physical integrity/fit/filtration

Microwave-Generated Steam Decontamination of N95 Respirators Utilizing Universally Accessible Materials [19]

Zulauf et al

Moist heat (microwave-generated) for 3 min for 1, 5, or 20 cycles

Escherichia coli MS2 bacteriophage

Plaque assay

5–6

Pass

Sterilization and disinfection

Yes

Average 6-log10 PFU and a minimum 5-log10 PFU reduction after a single three-minute microwave treatment

Steam treatment for rapid decontamination of N95 respirators and medical face masks [20]

Li et al

Steam (autoclave, short cycle) at 100 °C for 10–30 s

S. aureus (MRSA), G. stearothermophilus spores, bacteriophage MS2

CFU assay

MS2 and MRSA > 3, G. stearothermophilus spores: fail

Pass

Disinfection and failure

No

Failure for G. stearothermophilus spores. Authors also tested a 2 s cycle, but the test failed

Relative survival of Bacillus subtilis spores loaded on filtering facepiece respirators after five decontamination methods [3]

Lin et al

Steam (autoclave) at 121 °C for 15 min

Bacillus subtilis spores

CFU assay

N/A, but culture results were negative

N/A

Disinfection

N/A

No colonies but no info on log reduction

N95 mask decontamination using standard hospital sterilization technologies [21]

Kumar et al

Steam (autoclave) at 121 °C for 40 min

Vesicular stomatitis virus, Indiana serotype (VSV) or SARSCoV-2 (contaminated group)

TCID50

VSV: > 6, SARSCoV-2: 5.2–6.3

Pass

Disinfection and Sterilization

Yes

Some FFRs may have had too low a level of contamination to ensure a 6-log reduction

Gases

         

N95 mask decontamination using standard hospital sterilization technologies [21]

Kumar et al

Ethylene oxide (EtO) for 60 min

Vesicular stomatitis virus, Indiana serotype (VSV)

TCID50

VSV: > 6

Pass

Sterilization

No

 

Validation of N95 filtering facepiece respirator decontamination methods available at a large university hospital [8]

Wigginton et al

Ethylene oxide (EtO) 55 °C for 60 min at 45% RH

MS2

Plaque assay

 > 5.8

Pass

Disinfection

No

 

Validation of N95 filtering facepiece respirator decontamination methods available at a large university hospital [8]

Wigginton et al

Hydrogen peroxide (gaseous HPGP) in a 59% solution for 24 min

MS2, phi6, influenza A virus

Plaque assay

Phi6: > 7.9, influenza virus > 3.8, MS2: 5.6

Pass

Sterilization and disinfection

No

Sterilization for Phi6, disinfection for influenza virus and MS2

Effect of various decontamination procedures on disposable N95 mask integrity and SARS-CoV-2 infectivity [4]

Smith et al

Hydrogen peroxide (gaseous HPV) in a 30% solution (500 ppm) at humidity between 38–99.5% for 20 min

SARS-CoV-2

RT-PCR

2 masks: ~ five log10 reduction < 3 log

Pass

Disinfection

No

The initial contamination was at 3 log as it was coming from human sample

Aerosolized Hydrogen Peroxide Decontamination of N95 Respirators, with Fit-Testing and Virologic Confirmation of Suitability for Re-Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic [22]

Derr et al

Hydrogen Peroxide (Gaseous-aHP) in a 7% solution for 12 min

SARS-CoV-2, Herpes simplex virus 1, Coxsackie virus B3, Pseudomonas phi6 bacteriophage

Plaque assay

N/A, but culture results were negative

Pass

Sterilization

Yes

 

Vapor H2O2 sterilization as a decontamination method for the reuse of N95 respirators in the COVID-19 emergency [23]

Oral et al

Hydrogen Peroxide (Gaseous-HPV) 410 ppm for 180 min

SARS-CoV-2

Plaque assay

> 2.6

Pass

Disinfection

Yes

The initial contamination was too low to be able to detect sterilization

N95 mask decontamination using standard hospital sterilization technologies [21]

Kumar et al

Hydrogen peroxide (gaseous-HPV) in a 35% solution (750 ppm) for 60 min

Vesicular stomatitis virus, Indiana serotype (VSV) or SARSCoV-2 (contaminated group)

TCID50

VSV: > 6, SARSCoV-2: 5.2–6.3

Pass

Sterilization and disinfection

Yes

Some FFRs may have had too low a level of contamination to ensure a 6-log reduction

Effectiveness of N95 Respirator Decontamination and Reuse against SARS-CoV-2 Virus [5]

Fischer et al

Hydrogen peroxide (gaseous-HPV) (1000 ppm) for 10 min

SARS-CoV-2 (HCoV-19 nCoV-WA1-2020 (MN985325.1))

TCID50

 > 4

Pass

Disinfection

Yes

 

Validation of N95 filtering facepiece respirator decontamination methods available at a large university hospital [8]

Wigginton et al

Hydrogen peroxide (gaseous-HPV) 446–659 ppm

MS2, phi6, influenza A virus, murine hepatitis virus, E. coli, S. aureus, G. stearothermophilus, A. niger

Plaque assay

 > 2

Pass

Failure

No

 

Decontamination of face masks and filtering facepiece respirators via ultraviolet germicidal irradiation, hydrogen peroxide vaporization, and use of dry heat inactivates an infectious SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus [9]

Ludwig-Begall et al

Hydrogen peroxide (gaseous-HPV) in a 59% solution (750 ppm) for 28 min

Porcine respiratory 38 coronavirus (PRCV)

TCID50

 ≥ 5

N/A

Disinfection

N/A

 

Hydrogen Peroxide Vapor sterilization of N95 respirators for reuse [24]

Kenney et al

Hydrogen peroxide (gaseous-HPV) 30–40-min gassing phase at 16 g/min

Phages phi-6, T7 and T1

Plaque assay, TCID50

N/A, but complete eradication of phages from masks

Pass

Sterilization

Yes

Limit of detection was 5PFU, lower than infectious dose, and authors used the term "sterilization"

Disinfection of N95 respirators by ionized hydrogen peroxide during pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to SARS-CoV-2 [25]

Cheng et al

Hydrogen Peroxide (Gaseous-iHP) in a 7.8% solution

Influenza A virus subtype H1N1

TCID 50

N/A, but culture results were negative

N/A

Disinfection

N/A

No growth, but no specific log reduction mentioned, paper uses term "disinfection"

N95 mask decontamination using standard hospital sterilization technologies [21]

Kumar et al

Hydrogen peroxide (gaseous-LT-HPGP) in a 59% solution for 47 min

Vesicular stomatitis virus, Indiana serotype (VSV)

TCID50

VSV: > 6

Pass

Sterilization

No

LT-HPGT-treated masks failed testing beyond the first cycle

Effectiveness of Ultraviolet-C Light and a High-Level Disinfection Cabinet for Decontamination of N95 Respirators [6]

Cadnum et al

Hydrogen Peroxide (Gaseous) and Peracetic acid for 1–3 cycles of 21 min, and a single cycle of 31 min

S. aureus (MRSA) and bacteriophages MS2 and Phi6

CFU assay, Plaque assay

1 cycle: > 2.1, 2 cycles: > 3.6, 3 cycles > 6 log10

N/A

Sterilization, disinfection, failure

N/A

Outcome was dependent on the number of cycles (3 cycles resulted in sterilization)

Scalable In-hospital Decontamination of N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirator with a Peracetic Acid Room Disinfection System [26]

John et al

Hydrogen Peroxide (Gaseous) and Peracetic acid in a 18% solution at at 20 °C for 12–19 min

MS2 bacteriophage and G. stearothermophilus spores

CFU assay

6/6/4

Pass

Sterilization and disinfection

Yes

Shorter cycle led to disinfection. Can't be used with masks containing cellulose

Enveloped Virus Inactivation on Personal Protective Equipment by Exposure to Ozone [27]

Blanchard et al

Ozone at 20 ppm and 70% humidity for 40 min

Influenza virus A

A/WSN/33, RSV A2

Plaque assay

4

Mixed

Disinfection

Mixed

Although the facepiece was unaffected for fit/filtration, the elastic band failed

Fast and easy disinfection of coronavirus-contaminated face masks using ozone gas produced by a dielectric barrier discharge plasma generator [28]

Lee et al

Ozone at 120 ppm for 1 and 5 min

HCoV-229E

TCID 50

3

Pass

Disinfection

Yes

The initial contamination was too low to be able to detect sterilization

Disinfection of N95 Respirators with Ozone [29]

Manning et al

Ozone at 450 ppm and 75–90% humidity for 120 min

Pseudomonas aeruginosa

CFU assay

> 7–> 9, (one sample failed disinfection-1.38 log reduction)

Mixed

Sterilization and failure

Mixed

There was a single failure, but one needs to verify why one mask failed the test. Although the facepiece was unaffected for fit/filtration, the elastic band failed

N95 mask decontamination using standard hospital sterilization technologies [21]

Kumar et al

Peracetic acid dry fogging system (PAF) at 80–90% humidity for 60 min

Vesicular stomatitis virus, Indiana serotype (VSV) or SARSCoV-2 (contaminated group)

TCID50

VSV: > 6, SARSCoV-2: 5.2–6.3

Pass

Disinfection and sterilization

Yes

Some FFRs may have had too low a level of contamination to ensure a 6 log reduction

Ultra violet light

         

Relative survival of Bacillus subtilis spores loaded on filtering facepiece respirators after five decontamination methods [3]

Lin et al

UVA at 365 nm and 1.87–37.44 J/cm2 for 1–20 min

Bacillus subtilis spores

CFU assay

N/A, but culture results were positive

N/A

Failed

No

 

A Scalable Method for Ultraviolet C Disinfection of Surgical Facemasks Type IIR and Filtering Facepiece Particle Respirators 1 and 2 [30]

Lede et al

UVGI at 253.7 nm and 6 lamps, each 0.6 J/cm2 for 40 min

S. aureus

CFU assay

7

Pass

Sterilization

Yes

 

Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation of influenza-contaminated N95 filtering facepiece respirators [31]

Mills et al

UVGI at 254 nm and 1.1 J/cm2 and 48% humidity for 40 min

Influenza virus (H1N1)

TCID 50

 ≥ 3 log on 12 of 15 FFR models and straps from 7 of 15 FFR models

N/A

Disinfection and failure

N/A

 

A method to determine the available UV-C dose for the decontamination of filtering facepiece respirators [32]

Fisher and Shaffer

UVGI at 254 nm and 0.15–1.5 J/cm2 for 1–10 min

MS2 coliphage

Plaque assay

minimum IFM dose of 1000 J m^-2: log reduction >  = 3

Mixed

disinfection

No

Model dependent outcomes. Model-specific exposure times to achieve this IFM dose

Ranged from 2 to 266 min. Mostly failure for physical integrity/fit/filtration

The Effect of Ultraviolet C Radiation Against SARS-CoV-2 Inoculated N95 Respirators [33]

Ozog et al

UVGI at 254 nm and 1.5 J/cm2 for 60–70 s/side

SARS-CoV-2

TCID 50

N/A, culture results were mixed

N/A

Disinfection and failure

N/A

Disinfection but not for all models of masks (5 models of N95 tested)

Effects of relative humidity and spraying medium on UV decontamination of filters loaded with viral aerosols [34]

Woo et al

UVGI at 254 nm and 1.8 and 3.6 J/cm2 and 30,60, and 90% humidity for 30 and 60 min

MS2

Plaque assay

mixed, highest inactivation efficiency: 5.8 log

N/A

Disinfection and failure

N/A

Disinfection, but not for all masks and conditions

Relative survival of Bacillus subtilis spores loaded on filtering facepiece respirators after five decontamination methods [3]

Lin et al

UVGI at 254 nm and 1.13–22.68 J/cm2 for 1–20 min

Bacillus subtilis spores

CFU assay

N/A, culture results were mixed

N/A

Failure

N/A

Possible disinfection after 24 h, but not immediately

Effectiveness of three decontamination treatments against influenza virus applied to filtering facepiece respirators [17]

Lore et al

UVGI at 254 nm and 18 kJ/m2 for 15 min

H5N1

TCID50

 ≥ 4.54 and ≥ 4.65

Pass

Disinfection

Yes

 

A pandemic influenza preparedness study: Use of energetic methods to decontaminate filtering facepiece respirators contaminated with H1N1 aerosols and droplets [14]

Heimbuch et al

UVGI at 254 nm and 18 kJ/m2 for 15 min CHECK SAME AS LORE)

H1N1

TCID50

 > 4

Pass

Disinfection

Yes

There was only a visual examination for fit and integrity

Effectiveness of N95 Respirator Decontamination and Reuse against SARS-CoV-2 Virus [5]

Fischer et al

UVGI at 260-285 nm and 0.33 J/cm2, 0.99 J/cm2, and 1.98 J/cm2 for 10, 30, and 60 min

SARS-CoV-2 (HCoV-19 nCoV-WA1-2020 (MN985325.1))

TCID50

between 1 and 3, depending on the time

Pass

Disinfection and failure

Yes

Time-dependent: failure for masks below 60 min, probable disinfection at 60 min

Effectiveness of Ultraviolet-C Light and a High-Level Disinfection Cabinet for Decontamination of N95 Respirators [6]

Cadnum et al

UVGI for 1 and 30 min

S. aureus (MRSA) and bacteriophages MS2 and Phi6

CFU assay, Plaque assay

0–4

N/A

Disinfection and failure

No

Outcome depended on model of mask and pathogen, only 1 of 9 masks qualified as disinfected

Validation of N95 filtering facepiece respirator decontamination methods available at a large university hospital [8]

Wigginton et al

UVGI at 200-315 nm for 5 min

MS2, phi6, influenza A virus, murine hepatitis virus, E. coli, S. aureus, G. stearothermophilus, A. niger

Plaque assay

MS2: 0.7 – 1.3, Phi6: 0.2 – 1.8, influenza: 1.4 – 1.7, MHV > 1.4, S. aureus < 1.0, G. stearotherophilus < 0.3 log10

Pass

Failure

No

 

Effect of various decontamination procedures on disposable N95 mask integrity and SARS-CoV-2 infectivity [4]

Smith et al

UVGI at 254 nm and 0.63 J/cm2 for 33 min

SARS-CoV-2

RT-PCR

 < 3 log

Fail

Neither

No

The initial contamination was at 3 log as it was coming from human sample

Decontamination of face masks and filtering facepiece respirators via ultraviolet germicidal irradiation, hydrogen peroxide vaporisation, and use of dry heat inactivates an infectious SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus [9]

Ludwig-Begall et al

UVGI at 254 nm and 5.2 J/cm [2] for 4 min

Porcine respiratory 38 coronavirus (PRCV)

TCID50

 ≥ 4

N/A

Disinfection

N/A

 

Disinfection effect of pulsed xenon ultraviolet irradiation on SARS-CoV-2 and implications for environmental risk of COVID-19 transmission [35]

Simmons et al

UVGI for 5 min

SARS CoV-2

Plaque assay

 > 4.79

N/A

Disinfection

N/A

 

Biological Aerosol Test Method and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Decon [15]

Hinrichs et al

UVGI at 254 nm and 18 kJ/m2 for 15 min

influenza virus AH5N1

RT-PCR and TCID50

 ≥ 4 log10 TCID50

N/A

Disinfection

N/A

 

Reusability of filtering facepiece respirators after germicidal UV irradiation [36]

Vernez et al

UVGI + dry heat (Dry Heat at 70 °C for 15 min and then UVGI at 254 nm and 60 mJ/cm2 for 4 min)

vB_HSa_2002 and P66 phages

Plaque assay

 > 3

Pass

Disinfection

Yes

 

Validation of N95 filtering facepiece respirator decontamination methods available at a large university hospital [8]

Wigginton et al

UVGI + dry heat (Dry heat at 82 °C and UVGI at 200–315 nm)

MS2, phi6, influenza A virus, murine hepatitis virus, Staphylococcus aureus

Plaque assay

The influenza virus: > 3.9, the mouse coronavirus: 1.1, Phi6 deposited in PBS < 1.5 when heated to 82C and at ~ 8% RH. S. aureus: 1.2

Pass

Disinfection and failure

No

Influenza virus: Disinfection MHV: Failed MS2: Failed, Phi6: Failed S. aureus: failed

Validation of N95 filtering facepiece respirator decontamination methods available at a large university hospital [8]

Wigginton et al

UVGI + medium humidity heat (Heat at 80 °C, RH at 62–66% and UVGI at 200–315 nm for 15 min)

MS2, phi6, influenza A virus

Plaque assay

influenza virus: > 3.9, mouse coronavirus MHV > 1.1, MS2 > 6.8, Phi6 > 6.6

Pass

Sterilization, disinfection, failure

No

MS2: Sterilization, Phi6: Sterilization, Influenza virus: Disinfection, MHV: failed