10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Modified full-face snorkel mask: answer to the PPE crisis?

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Summary box What are the new findings? A commercially available full-face snorkel mask can be modified to create a variety of respiratory assisting devices. Combining a connector piece and a heat and moisture exchange filter to a full-face snorkel mask can create a reusable piece of respiratory and eye protecting personal protective equipment (PPE). Challenges to overcome using this system include carbon dioxide clearance, satisfactory fit and certification testing. Additional challenges such as cleaning regimes and unfiltered exhaled air still need to be tackled. How might it impact on healthcare in the future? In an emergency crisis situation, however, this adaptation could prove to be an easily accessible solution for all to have level 2 PPE made available at low cost and rapid production. Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to light shortages in personal protective equipment (PPE) preparations and supply across the UK. In an emergency, we have all had to adapt to new living and working conditions. As the government moves to relax the lockdown1 and recommend the use of masks to be worn by the general public, supply problems are likely to continue, hindering the health service. Of particular concern will be the need for adequate protection to allow clinicians to be comfortable in the PPE they are wearing. There is a definite shortage in supply and clinicians are understandably concerned about this. Two surveys undertaken by the Royal College of Surgeons of 2000 of their members highlighted that over a third of surgeons felt that their Trust did not have adequate PPE, particularly FFP3 masks and full-face visors. Over a quarter of surgeons were not confident that the supplied PPE had been adequately fit tested, with several hospitals around the country removing fit testing altogether instead adopting the fit check alone.2 Alongside this, 15% felt under pressure to undertake procedures without adequate PPE. BBC Panorama highlighted a worrying lack of preparation from the government in case of a pandemic.3 Given that this is the starting point for our healthcare system, what has been developed to combat the issue? Methods Adaptation of a commercially available full-face snorkel mask has been raised as a possible solution. As a concept, it would appear a good idea-made of materials that would allow reuse, provides both eye and airway protection and requires only a simple modification to allow connection of a heat and moisture exchange filter by way of traditional manufacturing by moulding, or quicker still, by 3D printing. In essence, this simple change could create a form of protection that could be reusable until the end of the pandemic. Powered versus non-powered filtration devices have been developed, adapting readily available equipment to create these.4 The full-face snorkel mask has been identified as an easily modifiable tool to create a variety of respiratory-support devices ranging from dual-patient ventilator use5 to continuous positive airway pressure and PPE.6 7 British Standards and European Regulation takes into consideration additional safety factors that should be considered when designing full-face respiratory protective devices. Similar documents are equally available for masks used for non-aerosol-generating procedures, eye and hearing protection against which PPE products can be tested and certified. Results As part of the safety testing of these masks, a quantitative fit test is the gold standard that needs to be passed. Most hospitals will have easy access to qualitative fit testing as is required for FFP3 seal-efficacy testing. However, passing a qualitative fit test for a full-face mask does not make it safe for the user. Despite a successful qualitative fit test suggesting a good seal and protection from inhaling viral particles, the quantitative fit testing of these modified PPE devices has identified a concerning level of carbon dioxide build-up within the mask.8 Since this initial finding, different teams have come together across the globe to reassess the science behind this modification with a collaborate team of medics and engineers at Stanford University having successfully designed a modification to the snorkel mask that satisfactorily passes the quantitative testing (figure 1B). SEAC of Italy has managed to go one step further and has successfully achieved a Conformité Européenne (CE) certification of their adapted snorkel mask for use as PPE (figure 1A). Figure 1 Full-face snorkel mask adaptations with 3D printed connectors for its novel use during the coronavirus pandemic. (A) SEAC’s adapted Libera mask. (B) Stanford University’s adapted Dolfino mask. On the strength of this evidence, the Czech Republic has repurposed 25 000 snorkel masks to be given to those who needed it most as a reusable method of PPE.9 Figure 1 shows the different masks that have been verified to be safe for use in their alternative form. Design team Genova, Italy10 Stanford, USA3 Photo A B Mask model SEAC Libera /Unica Dolfino Connector required 3D printed 3D printed Recommended use All Aerosol Generating Procedures All Aerosol Generating Procedures Highest passed testing standard Conformité Européenne (CE) marked to standard EN136 In-house quantitative testing passed Connector material Polylactic Formlabs high temperature resin Discussion These models that have been successfully adapted to be safe for use have identified a number of key design similarities which contribute to their success. These include Single filtered inflow port. Outflow ports to remain separate channels ensuring no mixing of inspired and expired gases. Maintenance of one-way exhalation valve. Standard ISO 22 mm port to attach heat and moisture exchange filter to the connector piece. Inert 3D printing material (Formlabs high temperature resin/polylactic). These designs should ensure that the filter will protect from COVID-19, but the remainder of the system will be safe for the user without risking hypercapnia. A safe, reusable mask would also require an equally safe cleaning regime. Although one has not been formalised, suggestions have included wiping with 70% ethanol wipes in between uses with submersion in a 50 ppm chlorine solution at the end of the day.7 Any reusable option will need a suitably verified cleaning regime to ensure safety of the end user. The full-face snorkel mask adaptation is reliant on a one-way exhalation valve to facilitate adequate carbon dioxide clearance. Unfortunately, this remains the site of unfiltered exhaled air being expelled. Being a product of personal protection and not patient protection, no current unpowered reusable PPE face mask is able to fulfil both roles. Raising the issue of powered respirators then calls into question issues of supply again and hence is not necessarily a suitable solution in times of supply crises. Despite the work that is involved, innovators should not be discouraged by these hurdles. Several studies quoted figures between 28% and 85%11 12 of subjects failing quantitative fit testing with a single respirator model, while others quoted close to 28% failing three different respirators offered.13 In a study published following the H1N1 pandemic in 2009, nearly 59% of subjects labelled the available respirators as intolerable and non-wearable for extended periods of time.14 Nearly a decade on, there is not only a shortage during the ongoing pandemic but also a need for a better respirator overall. Conclusion The reality, therefore, is that there is no one-size-fits-all mask. Innovations around this area should be encouraged and collaboration between engineers, clinicians and regulators should be encouraged. Together, a suitably safe solution could be created to a problem that is not likely to disappear anytime soon.

          Related collections

          Most cited references10

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Safety testing improvised COVID ‐19 personal protective equipment based on a modified full‐face snorkel mask

          Reported shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the NHS have caused anxiety among healthcare workers 1. Several designs for improvised PPE have been circulated online and via social media. One particularly widely shared design involves a 3D printed adaptor to allow the mating of a standard anaesthetic heat and moisture exchange (HME) filter to a commercially available snorkelling mask. Thingiverse, an online repository of 3D printable files, contains at least 18 adaptor designs that users can download 2. Although one specific combination of mask, filter and HME has apparently passed fit‐testing 3, given the variation in masks, adaptors and HME filters we are concerned there are insufficient safety data to recommend general use of these devices. Websites generally contain important disclaimers that the systems have not been subjected to peer review or rigorously tested, but we remain anxious that users may attempt to wear these devices in clinical practice without proper validation. To evaluate one such design, we tested PPE based on an Omew full‐face snorkel mask purchased from Amazon 4. An adaptor from the Thingiverse website was printed on a 3D printer (Prusa i3 mk2 with standard PLA material. 1.75 nozzle, 0.15 layer height), to which we attached an Intersurgical Cleartherm‐3 HME filter (Intersurgical, Wokingham, UK). The assembled system is illustrated in Fig. 1. We subjected the system to a series of tests, firstly to check clinical applicability, and secondly to test fit. Quantitative fit‐testing was conducted using the TSI Portacount 8038 system (TSI UK, High Wycombe, UK). Figure 1 Depiction of the improvised PPE system. One user was asked to perform simulated cannulation, airway management and patient transfer while wearing the mask. After donning the mask, the user performed a successful negative‐pressure fit‐check, by manually occluding the HME filter and inhaling. Over the next 20 min of activity there was a small degree of fogging of the internal surfaces, but this did not impair vision. We measured FIO2, ETO2 and ETCO2 with essentially no changes in gas composition over the testing period (FIO2: 0.20–0.21; EtO2: 0.15–0.17 kPa; ETCO2: 3.7–4.0 kPa). The user reported minimal discomfort and noted that in this regard it was comparable to a validated reusable filtering facepiece (FFP) 3 mask. Of great concern, however, was that the mask failed the quantitative fit‐testing process despite the apparently successful fit‐check. To permit formal fit‐testing, we mounted a sampling line between the mask‐adaptor and the filter using standard breathing system parts, such that gas was sampled from within the mask without disrupting the face seals. Three attempts were made with minor modifications to the snorkel adaptor between each joint to reinforce the system. In every case the mask failed during the initial ‘normal breathing’ phase. It might be speculated that snorkel masks are simply poorly suited for this use. When submerged, a high‐pressure exists outside the mask which presses it to the face. In air there is no such gradient, so there remains only the force exerted by the head straps to hold it securely. It is not clear that they are sufficient to this task. We recognise we have tested only a single combination of adaptor and mask on a single user, but our data demonstrate that it is essential to properly fit‐test before use. It is crucially important to note that fit‐testing quantitative methods are mandatory for full‐face masks (such as this improvised system) 5; qualitative fit‐testing, using taste‐ or smell‐based substances, is not adequate. It is laudable that people are attempting to ameliorate the shortages of PPE worldwide, but we cannot recommend that staff use improvised equipment in clinical situations without fit‐testing. There may be instances in which these systems can be safely used but, as with formal PPE systems, it is clear there is no ‘one‐size fits all’, and to use these improvised designs without proper testing may present a significant hazard to staff.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Particulate face masks for protection against airborne pathogens - one size does not fit all: an observational study.

            To determine the proportion of hospital staff who pass fit tests with each of three commonly used particulate face masks, and factors influencing preference and fit test results.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Respirator fit of a medium mask on a group of South Africans: a cross-sectional study

              Background In South Africa, respiratory protective equipment is often the primary control method used to protect workers. This preliminary study investigated how well a common disposable P2 respirator fitted persons with a range of facial dimensions. Methods Quantitative respirator fit tests were performed on 29 volunteers from different racial, gender and face size groups. Two facial dimensions width (bizygomatic) and length (menton-sellion) were measured for all participants. Results In this study 13.8% of the participants demonstrated a successful fit with the medium sized mask. These included participants from three different racial and both gender groups. The large percentage of failed fit tests (86%) indicates that reliance on off-the-shelf respirators could be problematic in South Africa. Conclusions The limitations of this preliminary study notwithstanding, respirator fit appear to be associated with individual facial characteristics and are not specific to racial/ethnic or gender characteristics.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Innov
                BMJ Innov
                bmjinnov
                bmjinnov
                BMJ Innovations
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2055-8074
                2055-642X
                January 2021
                6 January 2021
                : bmjinnov-2020-000468
                Affiliations
                [1]departmentDepartment of Plastic Surgery , Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Harshul D Measuria, Department of Plastic Surgery, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK; harshulmeasuria@ 123456doctors.org.uk

                HDM and YVV are joint first authors.

                Article
                bmjinnov-2020-000468
                10.1136/bmjinnov-2020-000468
                7789198
                3bdf0968-d165-4e31-a4a3-872799513c1f
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.

                History
                : 18 May 2020
                : 29 November 2020
                : 06 December 2020
                Categories
                Early-Stage Innovation Report
                2474
                Custom metadata
                free

                occupational health,communicable diseases,infectious disease medicine,public health,environment and public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article