1

Evaluation of Decontaminated N95 Respirators 

Date Tested: 10/29/2020 – 11/5/2020 

Respirator Model(s): 3M VFlex 1804, 3M Aura 9205+, 3M 1860, 3M 1860S, 3M Aura 1870+ 

Tests: Filtration with NaCl (modified version of STP-0059), Manikin Fit Factor with Static Advanced Headform, and Strap 

Integrity with Tensile Testing 

Decontamination Method: Dry heat decontamination was performed in a 2 ft3 environmental chamber. Each respirator 

was sealed in its own Tyvek sterilization pouch and loaded into the chamber. All respirators were exposed to cycles of 75-

78°C recirculating hot air for 45 minutes, followed by cooling to ambient. 10 consecutive cycles of heat treatment were 

performed. A chemical indicator was affixed to each pouch to verify that all respirators reached the target decontamination 

temperature. Temperature profiles were also recorded to confirm that the air temperature in the chamber remained within 

specification for the entirety of the soak segment during each cycle. 

Decontamination Cycles: 10 cycles 

While decontamination and reuse of FFRs are not consistent with standard and approved usage, these options may need to 

be considered when FFR shortages exist. This assessment was developed to quantify the filtration efficiency and manikin fit 

factor1 of an N95 respirator that has been decontaminated. This assessment is not to determine the effectiveness of the 

decontamination procedure at killing pathogenic microorganisms. The results provided in this report are specific to the 

subset of samples that were provided to NPPTL for evaluation. These results may be used to update the CDC guidance for 

Crisis Capacity Strategies (during known shortages). 

One hundred respirators that were unworn and not subjected to any pathogenic microorganisms were submitted for 

evaluation. This included 75 respirators that were subjected to 10 cycles of the dry heat decontamination process and an 

additional 25 respirators that served as controls. Figure 1 photos document the procedures used. The samples were tested 

using a modified version of the NIOSH Standard Test Procedure (STP) TEB-APR-STP-0059 to determine particulate filtration 

efficiency. The TSI, Inc. model 8130 using sodium chloride aerosol was used for the filtration evaluation. For the laboratory 

fit evaluation, a static manikin headform was used to quantify changes in manikin fit factor. The TSI, Inc. PortaCount® PRO+ 

8038 in “N95 Enabled” mode was used for this evaluation. Additionally, tensile strength testing of the straps was 

performed to determine changes in strap integrity. The Instron® 5943 Tensile Tester was used for this evaluation. The full 

assessment plan can be found here. 

Other Notes: The 3M VFlex 1804, 3M 1860 and 3M 1860S treated respirators had observable blurring of the printed 

information found on the front side of the respirators. Figure 1A-1F shows a comparison between a control sample and a 

treated sample of the noted respirator models. 

3M VFlex 1804

Filtration Efficiency Results: The minimum and maximum filter efficiencies were 98.98% and 99.85%, respectively. All ten 

respirators measured efficiencies greater than 95%. See Table 1. 

Manikin Fit Factor Results: The manikin fit factor showed passing fit factors (greater than 100) for five out of seven 

respirators evaluated. One control and one treated sample received failing fit factors < 100. See Table 2. 

1

The American Industrial Hygiene Association defines the Manikin Fit Factor as “An expression related to the amount of leakage measured through the 

face or neck seal of a respirator mounted to a manikin under specified airflow and environmental conditions. If the challenge to the seal is an airborne 

substance, it is the ratio of its airborne concentration outside the respirator divided by the concentration that enters the respirator through the seal. If the 

challenge is airflow or air pressure, conditions and assumptions for quantifying leakage must be specified. Leakage from other sources (e.g., air purifying 

elements) must be essentially zero. The respirator may be mounted to the manikin without sealants; be partially sealed to the manikin; or be sealed to the 

manikin with artificially induced leaks.” 
2

Strap Integrity Results: The top straps showed a 4.82% decrease in recorded force and the bottom straps showed a 0.59% 

increase in force. See Table 3. 

3M Aura 9205+

Filtration Efficiency Results: The minimum and maximum filter efficiencies were 99.39% and 99.91%, respectively. All ten 

respirators measured efficiencies greater than 95%. See Table 4. 

Manikin Fit Factor Results: The manikin fit factor showed passing fit factors (greater than 100) for all respirators evaluated.

See Table 5. 

Strap Integrity Results: The top straps showed a 5.90% increase in recorded force and the bottom straps showed a 6.83% 

increase in force. See Table 6. 

3M 1860

Filtration Efficiency Results: The minimum and maximum filter efficiencies were 97.70% and 98.96%, respectively. All ten 

respirators measured efficiencies greater than 95%. See Table 7.

Manikin Fit Factor Results: The manikin fit factor showed passing fit factors (greater than 100) for all respirators evaluated.

See Table 8. 

Strap Integrity Results: The top straps showed a 5.62% decrease in recorded force and the bottom straps showed a 0.11% 

increase in force. See Table 9. 

3M 1860S

Filtration Efficiency Results: The minimum and maximum filter efficiencies were 97.86% and 98.79%, respectively. All ten 

respirators measured efficiencies greater than 95%. See Table 10. 

Manikin Fit Factor Results: The manikin fit factor showed passing fit factors (greater than 100) for all respirators evaluated.

See Table 11.

Strap Integrity Results: The top straps showed a 8.71% decrease in recorded force and the bottom straps showed a 5.79% 

decrease in force. See Table 12. 

3M Aura 1870+

Filtration Efficiency Results: The minimum and maximum filter efficiencies were 98.95% and 99.98%, respectively. All ten 

respirators measured efficiencies greater than 95%. See Table 13. 

Manikin Fit Factor Results: The manikin fit factor showed passing fit factors (greater than 100) for all respirators evaluated.

See Table 14. 

Strap Integrity Results: The top straps showed a 3.25% increase in recorded force and the bottom straps showed a 1.28% 

decrease in force. See Table 15. 
3

Figure 1. Sample Observations 

Fig. 1A. 3M VFlex 1804 - Control Fig. 1B. 3M VFlex 1804 - Treated

Fig. 1C. 3M 1860 - Control Fig. 1D. 3M 1860 - Treated

Fig. 1E. 3M 1860S - Control Fig. 1F. 3M 1860S - Treated
4

Figure 2. Laboratory Test Photos

Fig. 2A. Medium Static Advanced Headform 

Fig. 2B. Instron 5943 Tensile Tester

Fig. 2C. TSI 8130 Filter Tester
5

Table 1. Filter Efficiency Evaluation – 3M VFlex 1804

Notes:

• The test method utilized in this assessment is not the NIOSH standard test procedure that is used for certification 

of respirators. Respirators assessed to this modified test plan do not necessarily meet the requirements of STP0059, and therefore cannot be considered equivalent to N95 respirators that were tested to STP-0059. 

Respirator Model, 

Decon Method, # of 

cycles

Treated 

Sample #

Flow Rate

(Lpm)

Initial Filter 

Resistance

(mmH2O)

Initial Percent 

Leakage (%)

Maximum 

Percent 

Leakage (%)

Filter 

Efficiency 

(%)

3M VFlex 1804, 

Controls 

Control 1 85 6.0 0.170 0.218 99.78

Control 2 85 4.6 0.084 0.192 99.81

Control 3 85 5.6 0.292 0.318 99.68

3M VFlex 1804, Dry 

Heat, 10 cycles 

Min Fil Eff: 98.98%

Max Fil Eff: 99.85%

1

85 4.7 0.085 0.147 99.85

2

85 4.7 0.160 0.242 99.76

3

85 4.5 0.236 0.531 99.47

4

85 4.3 0.862 1.020 98.98

5

85 4.3 0.122 0.271 99.73

6

85 4.5 0.108 0.185 99.82

7

85 4.9 0.330 0.433 99.57

8

85 4.5 0.100 0.189 99.81

9

85 4.6 0.137 0.218 99.78

10 85 4.9 0.137 0.245 99.76
6

Table 2. Manikin Fit Evaluation – 3M VFlex 1804

Notes:

• Per OSHA 1910.134(f)(7), if the fit factor as determined through an OSHA-accepted quantitative fit testing protocol 

is equal to or greater than 100 for tight-fitting half facepieces, then the fit test has been passed for that respirator.

• This assessment does not include fit testing of people and only uses two exercises (normal and deep breathing) on 

a manikin headform. 

• This assessment is a laboratory evaluation using a manikin headform and varies greatly from the OSHA individual 

fit test. This headform testing only includes normal breathing and deep breathing on a stationary (non-moving) 

headform; therefore, fit results from this assessment cannot be directly translated to using the standard OSHAaccepted test. Instead, this testing provides an indication of the change in fit performance (if any) associated with 

the decontamination of respirators. 

• BOLD overall manikin fit factors < 100.

Table 3. Strap Integrity Evaluation – 3M VFlex 1804 

Tensile Force in Respirator Straps of Decontaminated N95s

(recorded force values are at 150% strain)

Respirator Model, Decon 

Method, # of cycles Straps from Treated Sample # Force in Top Strap (N)

Force in Bottom 

Strap (N)

3M VFlex 1804, Controls

Control 1 2.923 2.793

Control 2 2.791 2.746

Control 3 2.708 2.911

Control Strap Average 2.807 2.817

3M VFlex 1804, Dry Heat, 10 

cycles 

1 2.706 2.778

2 2.721 2.882

3 2.614 2.869

4 2.646 2.805

Decontaminated Strap 

Average 2.672 2.834

% Change 

((Deconned - Controls)/ 

Controls)

-4.82% 0.59%

Manikin Fit Factor of Decontaminated N95s

Respirator Model, 

Decon Method, # 

of cycles

Treated

Sample #

mFF Normal 

Breathing 1

mFF Deep 

Breathing

mFF Normal 

Breathing 2

Overall 

Manikin Fit 

Factor

3M VFlex 1804, 

Controls

Static Advanced 

Medium Headform 

(Hanson Robotics)

Control 4 169 93 200+ 138

Control 5 108 85 61 80

3M VFlex 1804, 

Dry Heat, 10 cycles

Static Advanced 

Medium Headform 

(Hanson Robotics)

11 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

12 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

13 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

14 147 39 97 70

15 200+ 200 200+ 200
7

Table 4. Filter Efficiency Evaluation – 3M Aura 9205+

Notes:

• The test method utilized in this assessment is not the NIOSH standard test procedure that is used for certification 

of respirators. Respirators assessed to this modified test plan do not necessarily meet the requirements of STP0059, and therefore cannot be considered equivalent to N95 respirators that were tested to STP-0059. 

Respirator Model, 

Decon Method, # 

of cycles

Treated 

Sample #

Flow Rate

(Lpm)

Initial Filter 

Resistance

(mmH2O)

Initial Percent 

Leakage (%)

Maximum 

Percent 

Leakage (%)

Filter 

Efficiency 

(%)

3M Aura 9205+, 

Controls 

Control 1 85 8.1 0.060 0.105 99.90

Control 2 85 8.5 0.239 0.306 99.69

Control 3 85 8.5 0.004 0.034 99.97

3M Aura 9205+, 

Dry Heat, 10 cycles 

Min Fil Eff: 99.39%

Max Fil Eff: 99.91%

1

85 7.9 0.080 0.254 99.75

2

85 7.7 0.448 0.610 99.39

3

85 8.1 0.033 0.167 99.83

4

85 8.3 0.061 0.211 99.79

5

85 9.1 0.127 0.288 99.71

6

85 8.6 0.182 0.391 99.61

7

85 8.4 0.023 0.095 99.91

8

85 7.5 0.045 0.181 99.82

9

85 7.6 0.047 0.108 99.89

10 85 8.7 0.084 0.185 99.82
8

Table 5. Manikin Fit Evaluation – 3M Aura 9205+

Notes:

• Per OSHA 1910.134(f)(7), if the fit factor as determined through an OSHA-accepted quantitative fit testing protocol 

is equal to or greater than 100 for tight-fitting half facepieces, then the fit test has been passed for that respirator.

• This assessment does not include fit testing of people and only uses two exercises (normal and deep breathing) on 

a manikin headform. 

• This assessment is a laboratory evaluation using a manikin headform and varies greatly from the OSHA individual 

fit test. This headform testing only includes normal breathing and deep breathing on a stationary (non-moving) 

headform; therefore, fit results from this assessment cannot be directly translated to using the standard OSHAaccepted test. Instead, this testing provides an indication of the change in fit performance (if any) associated with 

the decontamination of respirators. 

Table 6. Strap Integrity Evaluation – 3M Aura 9205+ 

Tensile Force in Respirator Straps of Decontaminated N95s

(recorded force values are at 150% strain)

Respirator Model, Decon 

Method, # of cycles Straps from Treated Sample # Force in Top Strap (N)

Force in Bottom 

Strap (N)

3M Aura 9205+, Controls

Control 1 1.793 1.772

Control 2 1.698 1.770

Control 3 1.786 1.753

Control Strap Average 1.759 1.765

3M Aura 9205+, Dry Heat, 10 

cycles 

1 1.921 1.962

2 1.838 1.867

3 1.785 1.811

4 1.907 1.902

Decontaminated Strap 

Average 1.863 1.886

% Change 

((Deconned - Controls)/ 

Controls)

5.90% 6.83%

Manikin Fit Factor of Decontaminated N95s

Respirator Model, 

Decon Method, # 

of cycles

Treated

Sample #

mFF Normal 

Breathing 1

mFF Deep 

Breathing

mFF Normal 

Breathing 2

Overall 

Manikin Fit 

Factor

3M Aura 9205+, 

Controls

Static Advanced 

Medium Headform 

(Hanson Robotics)

Control 4 198 104 170 146

Control 5 116 79 139 106

3M Aura 9205+, 

Dry Heat, 10 cycles

Static Advanced 

Medium Headform 

(Hanson Robotics)

11 122 106 146 123

12 142 109 149 131

13 162 116 132 134

14 104 98 117 106

15 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+
9

Table 7. Filter Efficiency Evaluation – 3M 1860 

Notes:

• The test method utilized in this assessment is not the NIOSH standard test procedure that is used for certification 

of respirators. Respirators assessed to this modified test plan do not necessarily meet the requirements of STP0059, and therefore cannot be considered equivalent to N95 respirators that were tested to STP-0059. 

Respirator Model, 

Decon Method, # 

of cycles

Treated 

Sample #

Flow Rate

(Lpm)

Initial Filter 

Resistance

(mmH2O)

Initial Percent 

Leakage (%)

Maximum 

Percent 

Leakage (%)

Filter 

Efficiency 

(%)

3M 1860, Controls 

Control 1 85 8.5 0.540 1.030 98.97

Control 2 85 9.6 0.316 0.713 99.29

Control 3 85 9.2 0.362 0.744 99.26

3M 1860, Dry 

Heat, 10 cycles 

Min Fil Eff: 97.70%

Max Fil Eff: 98.96%

1

85 8.6 0.510 1.170 98.83

2

85 8.5 0.558 1.040 98.96

3

85 8.9 0.509 1.380 98.62

4

85 8.7 0.422 1.420 98.58

5

85 8.5 0.820 1.280 98.72

6

85 10.7 1.490 1.940 98.06

7

85 13.4 1.860 2.300 97.70

8

85 9.1 0.572 1.080 98.92

9

85 9 0.642 1.040 98.96

10 85 9.2 0.924 1.620 98.38
10

Table 8. Manikin Fit Evaluation – 3M 1860

Notes:

• Per OSHA 1910.134(f)(7), if the fit factor as determined through an OSHA-accepted quantitative fit testing protocol 

is equal to or greater than 100 for tight-fitting half facepieces, then the fit test has been passed for that respirator.

• This assessment does not include fit testing of people and only uses two exercises (normal and deep breathing) on 

a manikin headform. 

• This assessment is a laboratory evaluation using a manikin headform and varies greatly from the OSHA individual 

fit test. This headform testing only includes normal breathing and deep breathing on a stationary (non-moving) 

headform; therefore, fit results from this assessment cannot be directly translated to using the standard OSHAaccepted test. Instead, this testing provides an indication of the change in fit performance (if any) associated with 

the decontamination of respirators. 

Table 9. Strap Integrity Evaluation – 3M 1860

Tensile Force in Respirator Straps of Decontaminated N95s

(recorded force values are at 150% strain)

Respirator Model, Decon 

Method, # of cycles Straps from Treated Sample # Force in Top Strap (N)

Force in Bottom 

Strap (N)

3M 1860, Controls

Control 1 2.974 2.640

Control 2 3.147 2.726

Control 3 2.967 2.657

Control Strap Average 3.029 2.674

3M 1860, Dry Heat, 10 cycles 

1 2.766 2.676

2 2.972 2.817

3 2.736 2.638

4 2.961 2.577

Decontaminated Strap 

Average 2.859 2.677

% Change 

((Deconned - Controls)/ 

Controls)

-5.62% 0.11%

Manikin Fit Factor of Decontaminated N95s

Respirator Model, 

Decon Method, # 

of cycles

Treated

Sample #

mFF Normal 

Breathing 1

mFF Deep 

Breathing

mFF Normal 

Breathing 2

Overall 

Manikin Fit 

Factor

3M 1860, Controls

Static Advanced 

Medium Headform 

(Hanson Robotics)

Control 4 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

Control 5 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

3M 1860, Dry 

Heat, 10 cycles

Static Advanced 

Medium Headform 

(Hanson Robotics)

11 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

12 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

13 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

14 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

15 200+ 80 182 130
11

Table 10. Filter Efficiency Evaluation – 3M 1860S

Notes:

• The test method utilized in this assessment is not the NIOSH standard test procedure that is used for certification 

of respirators. Respirators assessed to this modified test plan do not necessarily meet the requirements of STP0059, and therefore cannot be considered equivalent to N95 respirators that were tested to STP-0059. 

Respirator Model, 

Decon Method, # 

of cycles

Treated 

Sample #

Flow Rate

(Lpm)

Initial Filter 

Resistance

(mmH2O)

Initial Percent 

Leakage (%)

Maximum 

Percent 

Leakage (%)

Filter 

Efficiency 

(%)

3M 1860S,

Controls 

Control 1 85 11.6 0.968 1.680 98.32

Control 2 85 11.2 0.844 1.500 98.50

Control 3 85 11.2 1.260 2.010 97.99

3M 1860S, Dry 

Heat, 10 cycles 

Min Fil Eff: 97.86%

Max Fil Eff: 98.79%

1

85 11.3 1.260 2.080 97.92

2

85 11.6 0.970 1.470 98.53

3

85 12 0.763 1.210 98.79

4

85 12.2 0.790 1.400 98.60

5

85 11.5 0.683 1.360 98.64

6

85 11.7 0.736 1.296 98.70

7

85 11.8 0.763 1.240 98.76

8

85 10.8 1.150 2.140 97.86

9

85 12.2 1.020 1.700 98.30

10 85 11.9 1.050 1.690 98.31
12

Table 11. Manikin Fit Evaluation – 3M 1860S

Notes:

• Per OSHA 1910.134(f)(7), if the fit factor as determined through an OSHA-accepted quantitative fit testing protocol 

is equal to or greater than 100 for tight-fitting half facepieces, then the fit test has been passed for that respirator.

• This assessment does not include fit testing of people and only uses two exercises (normal and deep breathing) on 

a manikin headform. 

• This assessment is a laboratory evaluation using a manikin headform and varies greatly from the OSHA individual 

fit test. This headform testing only includes normal breathing and deep breathing on a stationary (non-moving) 

headform; therefore, fit results from this assessment cannot be directly translated to using the standard OSHAaccepted test. Instead, this testing provides an indication of the change in fit performance (if any) associated with 

the decontamination of respirators. 

Manikin Fit Factor of Decontaminated N95s

Respirator Model, 

Decon Method, # 

of cycles

Treated

Sample #

mFF Normal 

Breathing 1

mFF Deep 

Breathing

mFF Normal 

Breathing 2

Overall 

Manikin Fit 

Factor

3M 1860S, 

Controls

Static Advanced 

Medium Headform 

(Hanson Robotics)

Control 4 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

Control 5 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

3M 1860S, Dry 

Heat, 10 cycles

Static Advanced 

Medium Headform 

(Hanson Robotics)

11 200+ 200 200+ 200

12 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

13 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

14 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

15 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+
13

Table 12. Strap Integrity Evaluation – 3M 1860S

Tensile Force in Respirator Straps of Decontaminated N95s

(recorded force values are at 150% strain)

Respirator Model, Decon 

Method, # of cycles Straps from Treated Sample # Force in Top Strap (N)

Force in Bottom 

Strap (N)

3M 1860S, Controls

Control 1 3.053 3.148

Control 2 3.160 3.065

Control 3 3.018 2.978

Control Strap Average 3.077 3.064

3M 1860S, 

Dry Heat, 10 cycles 

1 2.802 2.847

2 2.786 2.826

3 2.749 2.907

4 2.899 2.966

Decontaminated Strap 

Average 2.809 2.887

% Change 

((Deconned - Controls)/ 

Controls)

-8.71% -5.79%
14

Table 13. Filter Efficiency Evaluation – 3M Aura 1870+

Notes:

• The test method utilized in this assessment is not the NIOSH standard test procedure that is used for certification 

of respirators. Respirators assessed to this modified test plan do not necessarily meet the requirements of STP0059, and therefore cannot be considered equivalent to N95 respirators that were tested to STP-0059. 

Respirator Model, 

Decon Method, # 

of cycles

Treated 

Sample #

Flow Rate

(Lpm)

Initial Filter 

Resistance

(mmH2O)

Initial Percent 

Leakage (%)

Maximum 

Percent 

Leakage (%)

Filter 

Efficiency 

(%)

3M Aura 1870+,

Controls 

Control 1 85 7.1 0.000 0.064 99.94

Control 2 85 7.6 0.000 0.065 99.94

Control 3 85 8.6 0.011 0.068 99.93

3M Aura 1870+,

Dry Heat, 10 cycles 

Min Fil Eff: 98.95%

Max Fil Eff: 99.98%

1

85 7.4 0.007 0.055 99.95

2

85 7.7 0.005 0.030 99.97

3

85 7.8 0.007 0.022 99.98

4

85 7.5 0.092 0.152 99.85

5

85 9.2 0.702 0.800 99.20

6

85 6.9 0.014 0.042 99.96

7

85 7.4 0.098 0.148 99.85

8

85 7.7 0.963 1.050 98.95

9

85 7.7 0.156 0.236 99.76

10 85 7.2 0.011 0.048 99.95
15

Table 14. Manikin Fit Evaluation – 3M Aura 1870+

Notes:

• Per OSHA 1910.134(f)(7), if the fit factor as determined through an OSHA-accepted quantitative fit testing protocol 

is equal to or greater than 100 for tight-fitting half facepieces, then the fit test has been passed for that respirator.

• This assessment does not include fit testing of people and only uses two exercises (normal and deep breathing) on 

a manikin headform. 

• This assessment is a laboratory evaluation using a manikin headform and varies greatly from the OSHA individual 

fit test. This headform testing only includes normal breathing and deep breathing on a stationary (non-moving) 

headform; therefore, fit results from this assessment cannot be directly translated to using the standard OSHAaccepted test. Instead, this testing provides an indication of the change in fit performance (if any) associated with 

the decontamination of respirators. 

Manikin Fit Factor of Decontaminated N95s

Respirator Model, 

Decon Method, # 

of cycles

Treated

Sample #

mFF Normal 

Breathing 1

mFF Deep 

Breathing

mFF Normal 

Breathing 2

Overall 

Manikin Fit 

Factor

3M Aura 1870+, 

Controls

Static Advanced 

Medium Headform 

(Hanson Robotics)

Control 4 200+ 185 200+ 195

Control 5 200+ 169 200+ 189

3M Aura 1870+, 

Dry Heat, 10 cycles

Static Advanced 

Medium Headform 

(Hanson Robotics)

11 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

12 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

13 200+ 176 200+ 191

14 200+ 197 200+ 199

15 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+
16

Table 15. Strap Integrity Evaluation – 3M Aura 1870+

Tensile Force in Respirator Straps of Decontaminated N95s

(recorded force values are at 150% strain)

Respirator Model, Decon 

Method, # of cycles Straps from Treated Sample # Force in Top Strap (N)

Force in Bottom 

Strap (N)

3M Aura 1870+, Controls

Control 1 1.817 1.595

Control 2 1.840 1.670

Control 3 1.770 1.613

Control Strap Average 1.809 1.626

3M Aura 1870+, Dry Heat, 10 

cycles 

1 1.871 1.617

2 1.806 1.664

3 1.842 1.599

4 1.952 1.541

Decontaminated Strap 

Average 1.868 1.605

% Change 

((Deconned - Controls)/ 

Controls)

3.25% -1.28%