Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Research Note
  • Published:

Assessment of personal protective equipment used for facial mucocutaneous exposure protection in nonhuman primate areas

Lab Animal volume 34, pages 49–53 (2005)Cite this article

Abstract

Animal caretakers working in NHP areas must wear facial PPE to protect themselves from the zoonotic hazards related to splash exposures, but PPE that is uncomfortable may present its own risks. The authors evaluated the level of protection offered by several types of facial PPE against a variety of simulated facial mucocutaneous exposures of the sort that could occur during typical procedures in Old World NHP facilities and determined that less restrictive PPE can be used without compromising safety.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: To assess worker exposure resulting from a direct spray, we sprayed paint at ∼90° angle from the anterior plane of the face.
Figure 2: To assess worker exposure from peripheral spray, we sprayed paint (a) at ∼45° angle from the anterior plane of the face, superiorly and inferiorly, and (b) at ∼45° from the lateral plane of the face from posterior on the left and right sides.
Figure 3: To assess patient exposure to spray produced by the worker, we sprayed paint from the back of the mannequin head through a hole that had been bored in the mouth.
Figure 4: Examples of facial PPE tested.
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dooly, C.R., Johnson, A.T. & Brown, E.Y. Performance decrement due to altered vision while wearing a respiratory face mask. Mil. Med. 159(5), 408–411 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Garner, A., Laurence, H. & Lee, A. Practicality of performing medical procedures in chemical protective ensembles. Emerg. Med. Australas. 16(2), 108–113 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, National Research Council. Occupational Health and Safety in the Care and Use of Nonhuman Primates 24, 78, 88, 100–102 (National Academies Press, New York, 2003).

  4. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, National Research Council. Occupational Health and Safety in the Care and Use of Research Animals 114 (National Academies Press, New York, 1997).

  5. Centers for Disease Control. Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (BMBL) 4th edn. (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1999).

  6. Centers for Disease Control. Guidelines for prevention of Herpesvirus simiae (B virus) infection in monkey handlers. Morb. Mort. Week. Rep. 36(41), 680–682, 687–689 (1987).

  7. Cohen, J.I. et al. Recommendations for prevention of and therapy for exposure to B virus (Cercopithecine Herpesvirus I). Clin. Infect. Dis. 35(10), 1191–1203 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Occupational Safety & Health Administration. General description and discussion of the levels of protection and protective gear. 29 CFR 1910.120 App. B.

  9. Occupational Safety & Health Administration. Eye and face protection eTool, PPE Selection. (2004). http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/eyeandface/ppe/.

  10. Bolyard, E.A. et al. Guidelines for infection control in health care personnel, 1998. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 19(6), 407–463 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Centers for Disease Control. Slideset: Guidance for the selection and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in healthcare settings. (2004). http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/hip/ppe/default.htm.

  12. Tablan, O.C., Anderson, L.J., Besser, R.B., Bridges, C. & Hajjeh, R. Guidelines for preventing health care–associated pneumonia, 2003. Morb. Mort. Week. Rep. 53(RR03), 1–36 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  13. TB Infection-Control Guidelines Work Group, Centers for Disease Control. Guidelines for preventing the transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in health-care facilities, 1994. Morb. Mort. Week. Rep. 43(RR13), 1–132 (1994).

  14. Nighswonger, T. Make sure workers know how to shield their faces from specific hazards. Occupational Hazards, Penton Media, Inc. (2002). http://www.occupationalhazards.com.

  15. American National Standards Institute. Practice for occupational and educational eye and face protection standard Z87.1-1979.

  16. Mitchell, N.J. & Hunt, S. Surgical face masks in modern operating rooms—a costly and unnecessary ritual? J. Hosp. Infect. 18(3), 239–242 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chen, S.K., Vesley, D., Brosseau, L.M. & Vincent, J.H. Evaluation of single-use masks and respirators for protection of health care workers against mycobacterial aerosols. Am. J. Infect. Control 22(2), 65–74 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hodous, T.K. & Coffey, C.C. The role of respiratory protective devices in the control of tuberculosis. Occup. Med. 9(4), 631–657 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  19. McCluskey, F. Does wearing a face mask reduce bacterial wound infection? A literature review. Br. J. Theatre Nurs. 6(5), 18–20 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Belkin, N.L. The evolution of the surgical mask: filtering efficiency versus effectiveness. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 18(1), 49–57 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Romney, M.G. Surgical face masks in the operating theatre: re-examining the evidence. J. Hosp. Infect. 47(4), 251–256 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rawson, D. The basics of surgical mask selection. Infect. Control Today (2003). http://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/articles/331feat2.html.

  23. Lipp, A. The effectiveness of surgical face masks: what the literature shows. Nurs. Times 99(39), 22–24 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Miller, R.L., Micik, R.E., Abel, C. & Ryge, G. Studies on dental aerobiology. II. Microbial splatter discharged from the oral cavity of dental patients. J. Dent. Res. 50(3), 621–625 (1971).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pigman, E.C., Karch, D.B. & Scott, J.L. Splatter during jet irrigation cleansing of a wound model: a comparison of three inexpensive devices. Ann. Emerg. Med. 22(10), 1563–1567 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Jain, K., Simoni, E.J. & Munn, J.S. Improvement in suction catheter efficiency and safety in arterial operations. Cardiovasc. Surg. 3(4), 431–435 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mohandas, K.M. & Gopalakrishnan, G. Mucocutaneous exposure to body fluids during digestive endoscopy: the need for universal precautions. Indian J. Gastroenterol. 18(3), 109–111 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Cox, A.J., Cook, T.A. & Wang, T.D. Decreased splatter in dermabrasion. Arch. Facial Plast. Surg. 21(1), 23–26 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Friberg, B., Friberg, S., Ostensson, R. & Burman, L.G. Surgical area contamination—comparable bacterial counts using disposable head and mask and helmet aspirator system, but dramatic increase upon omission of head-gear: an experimental study in horizontal laminar air-flow. J. Hosp. Infect. 47(2), 110–115 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Carrington, P.R. The surgical looking glass: a readily available safeguard against eye splash injury/contamination during infiltration of anesthesia for cysts and other “porous” lesions of the skin. Dermatol. Surg. 28(4), 356–358 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Sharma, J.B., Gupta, A., Malhotra, M. & Arora, R. Facial and body blood contamination in major gynecologic surgeries. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 29(6), 402–405 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Veterinary Resources, In Vivo Pharmacology, Greenfield Laboratories, Eli Lilly and Company, Greenfield, 46140, IN

    Dale M. Cooper DVM, MS, DACLAM, Amanda J. Durnell BS, RVT, LAT & Jason M. Anderson BS, LAT

  2. Occupational Health and Safety, Greenfield Laboratories, Eli Lilly and Company, Greenfield, 46140, IN

    Dan Charles MPH, CIH, CSP

  3. Animal Studies, Greenfield Laboratories, Eli Lilly and Company, Greenfield, 46140, IN

    Tom Kern BS, ACT, LATG & Terry Self LAT

Authors
  1. Dale M. Cooper DVM, MS, DACLAM
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dan Charles MPH, CIH, CSP
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amanda J. Durnell BS, RVT, LAT
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jason M. Anderson BS, LAT
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tom Kern BS, ACT, LATG
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Terry Self LAT
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dale M. Cooper DVM, MS, DACLAM.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cooper, D., Charles, D., Durnell, A. et al. Assessment of personal protective equipment used for facial mucocutaneous exposure protection in nonhuman primate areas. Lab Anim 34, 49–53 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/laban0505-49

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/laban0505-49

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing