The use of face masks has assumed a leading spot among nonspecific prevention measures during the coronavirus pandemic. The effectiveness of this protective measure depends on the specifics of individual use. The purpose of our study was to analyze the use of respiratory protective equipment (RPE) by medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic. The evaluation of face mask use was based on the results of a survey of medical students at Sechenov University. There were 988 participants in the study: 97.5% used RPE during the pandemic, 89.1% used disposable medical and hygienic face masks, 27.4% used reusable cloth face masks, and 13.2% used respirators. The majority of respondents (75.2%) were found to wear face masks correctly. However, 17.0% of the respondents were found to cover only their mouths with a face mask, while 7.8% reported often shifting their face mask under the chin due to perceived discomfort. Only 25.1% of respondents changed their disposable face mask after 2–3 h of wearing, while 13.0% decontaminated and used it several times. Most cloth face mask users (93.7%) decontaminated their marks, but only 55.7% of respondents did so daily. Face masks were most often worn in medical organizations (91.5%), and 1.4% of respondents did not use respiratory protection anywhere. In conclusion, we consider it necessary to introduce a special module on nonspecific prevention in the discipline of hygiene.

Use of respiratory protective equipment (RPE) has become the most significant way to prevent the coronavirus infection from its rapid spread. Our research goal was to analyze efficiency of various RPE used by people during COVID-19 pandemic. We made a review focusing on RPE manufactured and tested as per standards existing in different counties; we also analyzed the State Medical Equipment Register of the Federal Service for Surveillance in Public Healthcare as well as a market where respiratory protective equipment available to people was distributed. RPE is quite variable as per such parameters as bacterial filtration efficiency, number of layers and quality of a material it is made of, being fit to a person’s face (masks for children/adults), conditions for use (a time of use, whether a mask can be disinfected and used again, etc.). Data provided for customers when respiratory protective equipment is sold are rather scarce and controversial (people do not understand what a mask name means and how efficiently it protects their respiratory organs). Respiratory protective equipment which is registered within the State Medical Equipment Register of the Federal Service for Surveillance in Public Healthcare accounts for only 24% of the overall equipment sold to consumers. Taking into account variable and multiple properties of different masks, we developed a RPE classification basing on their efficiency when it comes down to protection from respiratory infections. FFP3/KN100/N99/N100 respirators are the most efficient ones. FFP2/KN95/N95/DS/DL2/KF94 respirators have average efficiency. FFP1 respirators and nonwoven medicals masks, II R, II, I type, and woven gauze masks have efficiency that is lower than average (RPE is mentioned in a descending order as per its efficiency). Low and extremely low efficiency was established accordingly for various non-medical masks (nonwoven, woven cotton, and synthetic ones) and face shields. When RPE is manufactured and sold, there are no precise criteria for assessing its protective efficiency. There is either no unified approach to such concepts as «medical» and «non-medical» masks. Most respiratory protective equipment sold on the consumer market in Russia is not registered within the Russian State Medical Equipment Register of the Federal Service for Surveillance in Public Healthcare. Our classification allows working out a unified approach to providing data on respiratory protective equipment for consumers.

Due to the conditions that cause the spread of COVID-19, national health systems worldwide are under severe strain. Most countries face similar difficulties such as a lack of medical personnel and equipment and tools for diagnosis and treatment, overrun hospitals, and forced restriction of planned medical care. Public authorities in healthcare take the following measures due to increased pressure: limiting the transmission and spread of the virus (social distancing and quarantine), mobilizing medical personnel, ensuring the availability of diagnostic and treatment tools, and providing a sufficient number of premises, which are not always suitable for the provision of medical care (buildings and structures). To date, the stages of management decision-making to counter coronavirus infection and the risk of COVID-19 transmission at various facilities have not been analyzed. The authors propose a methodology for assessing the COVID-19 transmission risk at various social and transport facilities. A survey of 1325 respondents from Moscow demonstrated the most significant risk factors, such as visitation avoidance, infection risk, and facemask wearing. Risk categories were determined and objects classified according to high, medium, and low-risk levels.

The COVID-19 outbreak represents a global public health emergency. National governments have gradually introduced restrictive measures. Using respiratory protective equipment (face masks) and gloves was essential practice without specific infection control measures or guidelines. This study aimed to assess hygiene indicators when using gloves by transport workers in Russia during the COVID-19 pandemic and to develop integral indicators and recommendations for wearing gloves for workers for whom this is a mandatory requirement. For this purpose, 1103 transport workers were surveyed using a questionnaire. We investigated the hygiene aspects of gloves and evaluated the bacterial contamination of the contact side of the gloves based on the wash results. We assessed the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents, the duration of the work shift, the frequency of use of types of gloves, skin manifestations, the degree of comfort, and bacterial growth. We carried out the ranking according to comfort, the absence of adverse dermatological reactions when wearing gloves, and bacterial contamination of the inner surface of the gloves. It has been identified that it is necessary to use a comprehensive assessment of gloves to create a register of protective equipment, taking into account the frequency with which it was worn, the severity of the skin condition, comfort, and bacterial contamination.

Introduction: The use of personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the majority of the global population. The use of face masks has been proven to reduce the incidence of COVID-19 by 53 % and to be an effective means of prevention, both separately and in combination with other non-pharmaceutical measures. Wearing of face masks and gloves was mandated in different regions of the Russian Federation depending on the epidemiological situation, and it is still required in certain areas and workplaces at high risk of this severe infectious disease. Our literature review has shown that the prolonged mask and gloves use has adverse health effects including headaches, difficulty breathing, and various skin reactions. Objective: To analyze chemicals contained in commercially available face masks and protective gloves as one of the stages of hygienic assessment of personal protective equipment and to assess whether the established chemical composition can pose a risk of adverse health outcomes. Materials and methods: In 2021, four types of commercial face masks and protective gloves were analyzed in an accredited testing laboratory center to establish concentrations of chemicals after modeling their release into the aquatic and air environment. Results: We established that, in all types of masks, the levels of detected chemicals did not exceed their appropriate permissible values. Formaldehyde was found in cotton and latex coated cotton gloves in concentrations exceeding the permissible ones by 1.48 and 1.16 times, respectively. A 1.17-fold excess of the acceptable limit was also registered for zinc in latex coated cotton gloves. Conclusions: Increased levels of formaldehyde and zinc were found in cotton and latex coated cotton gloves. Formaldehyde can induce adverse skin reactions. Stricter control over production of respiratory and dermal protective equipment and a comprehensive hygienic assessment of PPE are required.