Research: Comparing ASTM F1671 with a Modified Dot-Blot Method to Evaluate Personal Protective Materials

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 102-109
Author(s):  
Poulomi Nandy ◽  
Chengru Zhu ◽  
Megan Young ◽  
Steven C. Wood ◽  
Anne D. Lucas
Keyword(s):  
Standard Method ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Signal Amplification ◽  
Penetration Resistance ◽  
Substantial Improvement ◽  
Test Method ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Test Liquid ◽  
Dot Blot ◽  
Challenge Testing

Abstract Effective personal protective equipment (PPE) is critical in preventing the spread of infectious diseases. Appropriate test systems and test soils are needed to adequately evaluate PPE. ASTM test method F903, which specifies the test method setup also used in ASTM F1670 and F1671, has been used for decades to test liquid (ASTM F1670) or viral (ASTM F1671) penetration resistance of PPE fabrics. However, an alteration of the bacteriophage propagation method detailed in the standard was necessary to obtain consistent titers of virus. In this study, modification of the nutrient broth provided consistently higher titers of virus and the use of the top agar in smaller increments prevented premature solidification. This study then compared the standard ASTM F1671 (using bacteriophage φχ174) with a modified dot-blot method to assess viral penetration of PPE materials. The results indicated that ASTM F1671 and the dot-blot apparatus methods were equivalent. The dot-blot method described here is less labor intensive and faster than the ASTM F1671 method. However, using the dot-blot system, which uses antibodies to detect the bacteriophage and signal amplification, does not indicate if virus viability or infectivity is retained, whereas the ASTM F1671 method indicates both. Nonetheless, the method presented in this investigation is a substantial improvement of a standard method for viral challenge testing of PPE materials.

Research: Using Clinically Relevant Test Soils to Evaluate Personal Protective Materials

2019 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 196-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew R. Schwerin ◽  
Edward A. Gordon ◽  
Steven C. Wood ◽  
Anne D. Lucas
Keyword(s):  
Blood Test ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Test Methods ◽  
Test Method ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Liquid Penetration ◽  
Test Apparatus ◽  
Dot Blot ◽  
In Series ◽  
Test Soil

Abstract Effective personal protective equipment (PPE) is critically important to preventing the spread of infectious diseases. Appropriate test systems and test soils are needed to adequately evaluate PPE. ASTM test method F903, which specifies the test method setup also used in ASTM F1670/F1670M-17a and ASTM F1671/F1671M-13, has been used for decades to test liquid penetration resistance of fabrics. All three standards require at least 60 mL of challenge liquid, such as synthetic blood solution (F1670) or bacteriophage in nutrient broth (F1671). The three ASTM test methods also are labor intensive and prone to exhibiting problems with leakage around the gaskets. Previous work comparing the F903 test apparatus with a modified dot-blot apparatus to evaluate the visual penetration of a blood test soil in series of commercially available gowns and drapes demonstrated that the methods are comparable and revealed that penetration through PPE material may depend on the test solution. The study described here evaluated a series of clinically relevant test soils (blood, vomit, urine, and feces) in penetration of PPE garments using the modified dot-blot apparatus. The results indicated that a vomit test soil penetrates PPE material more often than blood, urine, or fecal test soils and that the blood test soil has the least number of PPE failures. Incorporating clinically relevant, chemically defined test soils to evaluate PPE material should be considered to protect healthcare workers and reduce the spread of infectious material.

Impact of COVID-19 on Nuclear Medicine in Germany, Austria and Switzerland: An International Survey in April 2020

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (04) ◽  
pp. 294-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lutz S. Freudenberg ◽  
Ulf Dittmer ◽  
Ken Herrmann
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Medicine ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Diagnostic Procedures ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Current Crisis ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Public Versus Private ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Introduction Preparations of health systems to accommodate large number of severely ill COVID-19 patients in March/April 2020 has a significant impact on nuclear medicine departments. Materials and Methods A web-based questionnaire was designed to differentiate the impact of the pandemic on inpatient and outpatient nuclear medicine operations and on public versus private health systems, respectively. Questions were addressing the following issues: impact on nuclear medicine diagnostics and therapy, use of recommendations, personal protective equipment, and organizational adaptations. The survey was available for 6 days and closed on April 20, 2020. Results 113 complete responses were recorded. Nearly all participants (97 %) report a decline of nuclear medicine diagnostic procedures. The mean reduction in the last three weeks for PET/CT, scintigraphies of bone, myocardium, lung thyroid, sentinel lymph-node are –14.4 %, –47.2 %, –47.5 %, –40.7 %, –58.4 %, and –25.2 % respectively. Furthermore, 76 % of the participants report a reduction in therapies especially for benign thyroid disease (-41.8 %) and radiosynoviorthesis (–53.8 %) while tumor therapies remained mainly stable. 48 % of the participants report a shortage of personal protective equipment. Conclusions Nuclear medicine services are notably reduced 3 weeks after the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic reached Germany, Austria and Switzerland on a large scale. We must be aware that the current crisis will also have a significant economic impact on the healthcare system. As the survey cannot adapt to daily dynamic changes in priorities, it serves as a first snapshot requiring follow-up studies and comparisons with other countries and regions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document