Sterile field contamination from powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) versus contamination from surgical masks

Background: Currently, powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) are not recommended for usage in close proximity to sterile fields owing to concerns that exhaled, unfiltered air potentially may cause contamination; however, this has not been confirmed by experimental study. Methods: After establishing background levels of airborne contamination, our team placed settling plates in a sterile field and collected contamination from participants who were performing particulate-generating actions. Participants performed the actions while wearing various forms of respiratory protection, including: (1) a full facepiece PAPR, (2) a full facepiece PAPR with a shoulder-length hood, (3) a surgical mask, and (4) no facial covering (as a positive control to determine contamination-reduction effectiveness). Specimens were collected at the end of a 10-minute sampling time frame. After incubation at 36.5 degrees C for 72 hours, we tabulated colony forming units as a marker of contamination. Results: Surgical masks and the 2 PAPR configurations all drastically reduced aerosolized droplet contamination. Surgical masks reduced contamination by 98.48%, and both PAPRs reduced contamination by 100% (compared with the usage of no facial covering). There was no statistical difference between their effectiveness (surgical mask vs both PAPRs, P value = .588 and no hood PAPR vs hood PAPR, P value >.999). Discussion/Conclusions: Based on these findings, the tested PAPR configurations are effective at reducing aerosolized droplet contamination into a sterile field, and further testing is warranted to assess other PAPR configurations as well as PAPR suitability in an operating room. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc.