. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Sep 22.

Published in final edited form as: Am J Infect Control. 2021 Jan 29;49(4):416–423. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2021.01.017

Table 3.

Summary data of filter airflow resistance, aerosol penetration, and filtration efficiency for N95 FFRs following UV and MH decontaminations

FFR type	Decontamination method	Tested FFR samples	Average initial resistance (mm H₂0)^*	Average initial sodium chloride penetration (%P)^*	Filtration efficiency (%)^*

sample-G N95 FFR	UV	Untreated FFR (control)	10.71 ± 0.61	2.21 ± 0.67	97.79 ± 0.78
		Treated FFR	10.37 ± 0.12	2.99 ± 0.43	97.01 ± 0.47
	MH	Untreated FFR	10.72 ± 0.61	2.23 ± 0.68	97.77 ± 0.83
		Treated FFR	10.43 ± 0.21	2.81 ± 0.31	97.19 ± 0.29
sample-N N95 FFR	UV	Untreated FFR	11.32 ±0.50	0.31 ± 0.06	99.69 ± 0.02
		Treated FFR	11.41 ±1.05	0.72 ± 0.05	99.28 ± 0.03
	MH	Untreated FFR	11.34 ±0.50	0.32 ± 0.06	99.68 ± 0.02
		Treated FFR	10.93 ± 0.32	0.41 ± 0.05	99.59 ± 0.03

Mean ± RSD (RSD: relative standard deviation; n = 3).