Evaluation of Decontaminated N95 Respirators 

Date(s) Tested: 4/27/2020-4/30/2020 

Respirator Model(s): Moldex 1512 Medium, Moldex 2200 M/L, 3M 8210, 3M V-flex 1804, 3M 1860, Sperian One-Fit, 

Sperian N1105 M/L, Sperian N1125 M/L 

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

Integrity with Tensile Testing

Decontamination Method: VPHP 

Decontamination Cycles: 5 (Sperian One-Fit, Sperian N1105 M/L, and Sperian N1125 M/L) 

10 (Moldex 1512 Medium, Moldex 2200 M/L, 3M 8210, 3M V-flex 1804, 3M 1860) 

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). 

134 respirators, of varying manufacturers/models, that were unworn and not subjected to any pathogenic 

microorganisms were submitted for evaluation. This included 45 respirators subjected to 5 cycles of the VPHP 

decontamination process, 75 respirators subjected to 10 cycles, and an additional 14 respirators that served as 

controls. Samples were donned/doffed in between each decontamination cycle. 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. 

Filtration Efficiency Results: The minimum and maximum filter efficiencies were as follows; Moldex 2200 M/L 

(94.27% and 98.79%); Moldex 1512 Medium (95.19% and 99.40%); 3M 8210 (99.37% and 99.60%); 3M 1860 

(99.02% and 99.47%); 3M V-flex 1804 (99.28% and 99.59%); Sperian N1105 M/L (99.54% and 99.85%); Sperian 

N1125 M/L (99.13% and 99.88%); Sperian One-Fit (98.90% and 99.75%). All samples of all respirator models, 

except for the Moldex 2200 M/L, had filtration efficiencies measured more than 95%. The Moldex 2200 M/L 

had one sample with a filter efficiency less than 95%. See Table 1 for Moldex respirators, Table 4 for 3M 

respirators, and Table 7 for Sperian respirators. 

1The 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.” 
Manikin Fit Factor Results: The manikin fit factor showed passing fit factors (greater than 100) for all samples of 

the following models; Moldex 1512 Medium; Moldex 2200 M/L; 3M 8210; 3M 1860; Sperian N1105 M/L. See 

Table 2 for Moldex respirators, Table 5 for 3M respirators, and Table 8 for Sperian respirators.

The manikin fit factor did not show consistent passing fit factors for the following models; 3M V-flex 1804 (range 

= 27-200+) or the Sperian N1125 M/L (range = 99-200+). See Tables 5 and 8.

The manikin fit test procedure used in this assessment did not show any detriments in fit associated with the 

decontamination method used for all models, except for the 3M V-flex 1804 and Sperian N1125 M/L. Small 

changes in fit factors may be attributed to manufacturing variation, variation in donning on the manikin, the 

decontamination method, or a combination of these factors. Larger variations, as seen in these models, may 

require further research to understand the cause.

Strap Integrity Results: No visual degradation of the straps was observed. Decreases in recorded force of the 

treated samples were found in the following models for both top and bottom straps, respectively; Moldex 1512 

Medium (10.01% and 11.78%); Sperian One-Fit (0.5% and 1.52%).

Increases in recorded force of the treated samples were found in the following models for both top and bottom 

straps, respectively; 3M V-flex 1804 (25.76% and 22.73%); Sperian N1105 M/L (7.31% and 24.03%); Sperian 

N1125 M/L (9.32% and 18.69%); and 3M 1860 (17.23% and 37.57%).

Inconsistent changes were shown between top and bottom straps for the following; Moldex 2200 M/L, with the 

top straps showing a 10.43% increase in recorded force and the bottom an 11.23% decrease; 3M 8210, with the 

top straps showing a 0.54% increase and the bottom a 10.08% decrease.

While the exact correlation between the force exerted by straps and fit is not well understood, higher force 

values may be associated with a tighter fit of the respirator to the face. Significant reductions in this force would 

be associated with a loss of elasticity of the straps, thereby reducing their ability to create a tight fit. See Table 3

for Moldex respirators, Table 6 for 3M respirators, and Table 9 for Sperian respirators.
Figure 1. Laboratory test photos from a portion of the respirators evaluated 
Table 1. Filter Efficiency Evaluation – Moldex

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. 

• BOLD filter efficiencies < 95%

Respirator Model, 

Decon Method, # of 

cycles

Treated 

Sample #

Flow 

Rate

(Lpm)

Initial 

Filter 

Resistance

(mmH2O)

Initial 

Percent 

Leakage (%)

Maximum 

Percent 

Leakage 

(%)

Filter Efficiency

(%)

Moldex 2200 M/L, 

VPHP, 10 cycles

Minimum Filter 

Efficiency: 94.27%

Maximum Filter 

Efficiency: 98.79%

1 85 10.9 1.21 1.21 98.79

2 85 10.2 2.49 2.49 97.51

3 85 9.5 2.59 2.59 97.41

4 85 10.3 2.16 2.16 97.84

5 85 9.9 4.48 4.48 95.52

6 85 10.3 3.00 5.73 94.27

7 85 10.0 2.49 2.49 97.51

8 85 10.3 1.54 1.54 98.46

9 85 11.1 1.94 1.94 98.06

10 85 11.0 1.63 1.63 98.37

Control 1 85 10.5 1.91 1.91 98.09

Moldex 1512 Medium, 

VPHP, 10 cycles

Minimum Filter 

Efficiency: 95.19%

Maximum Filter 

Efficiency: 99.40%

1 85 10.4 0.601 0.601 99.40

2 85 9.0 2.15 2.15 97.85

3 85 8.6 3.24 4.18 95.82

4 85 9.3 1.83 1.83 98.17

5 85 9.8 1.13 1.13 98.87

6 85 9.6 1.36 1.36 98.64

7 85 8.6 1.52 1.52 98.48

8 85 9.6 1.44 4.81 95.19

9 85 10.8 1.50 1.50 98.50

10 85 8.9 1.71 3.98 96.02

Control 1 85 8.7 2.80 2.80 97.20
Table 2. Manikin Fit Evaluations – Moldex 

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 (mFF) 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

Moldex 2200 

M/L, VPHP, 10

cycles

Static Advanced 

Medium 

Headform 

(Hanson Robotics)

11

200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

12

200+ 194 200+ 198

13

200+ 98 200+ 149

14 200+ 169 200+ 189

15 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

Control 2 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

Moldex 1512 

Medium, VPHP, 

10 cycles

Static Advanced 

Medium 

Headform 

(Hanson Robotics)

11

200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

12

200+ 121 173 158

13

200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

14 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

15 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

Control 2 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+
Table 3. Strap Integrity Evaluation - Moldex

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)

Moldex 2200 M/L, 

VPHP, 10 cycles

1 5.117 4.498

2 4.800 4.165

3 5.061 4.322

Decontaminated Strap 

Average 4.993 4.328

Control 1 4.521 4.876

% Change

((Deconned - Control) / 

Control)

10.43% -11.23%

Moldex 1512 Medium, 

VPHP, 10 cycles

Straps from Treated Sample # Force in Top Strap (N) Force in Bottom Strap 

(N)

1 3.042 2.848

2 2.869 2.708

3 3.022 2.684

Decontaminated Strap 

Average 2.978 2.747

Control 1 3.309 3.114

% Change

((Deconned - Control) / 

Control)

-10.01% -11.78%
Table 4. Filter Efficiency Evaluation – 3M

*no control provided

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 8210, 

VPHP, 10 cycles

Min Fil Eff: 

99.37%

Max Fil Eff: 

99.60%

1 85 7.7 0.239 0.555 99.45

2 85 8.2 0.190 0.400 99.60

3 85 8.0 0.196 0.570 99.43

4 85 7.6 0.212 0.532 99.47

5 85 8.0 0.145 0.401 99.60

6 85 8.1 0.223 0.612 99.39

7 85 7.6 0.389 0.664 99.37

8 85 7.9 0.180 0.452 99.55

9 85 7.8 0.144 0.409 99.59

10 85 8.2 0.203 0.534 99.47

Control 1 85 7.8 0.151 0.404 99.60

3M 1860, 

VPHP, 10 cycles

Min Fil Eff:

99.02%

Max Fil Eff: 

99.47%

1 85 9.1 0.533 0.976 99.02

2 85 9.7 0.566 0.740 99.26

3 85 9.2 0.429 0.566 99.43

4 85 10.6 0.602 0.707 99.29

5 85 9.5 0.447 0.645 99.36

6 85 9.4 0.509 0.739 99.26

7 85 9.4 0.509 0.739 99.26

8 85 9.5 0.307 0.533 99.47

9 85 10.6 0.711 0.711 99.29

10 85 9.8 0.425 0.613 99.39

Control 1 n/a*

3M VFlex 1804, 

VPHP, 10 cycles

Min Fil Eff: 

99.28%

Max Fil Eff: 

99.59%

1 85 4.6 0.368 0.465 99.54

2 85 5.0 0.471 0.525 99.48

3 85 4.7 0.361 0.455 99.55

4 85 4.7 0.353 0.469 99.53

5 85 4.8 0.395 0.499 99.50

6 85 4.8 0.317 0.420 99.58

7 85 4.8 0.287 0.408 99.59

8 85 4.6 0.367 0.450 99.55

9 85 4.6 0.212 0.720 99.28

10 85 4.5 0.330 0.409 99.59

Control 1 85 4.8 0.237 0.343 99.66
Table 5. Manikin Fit Evaluation – 3M

Manikin Fit Factor (mFF) 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 8210, VPHP, 

10 cycles

Static Advanced 

Medium 

Headform 

(Hanson Robotics)

11 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

12 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

13 132 117 103 116

14 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

15 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

Control 2 200+ 166 200+ 187

3M 1860, VPHP, 

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+

Control 2

n/a*

3M VFlex 1804, 

VPHP, 10 cycles

Static Advanced 

Medium 

Headform 

(Hanson Robotics)

11 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

12 29 24 30 27

13 165 86 156 125

14 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

15 141 98 132 121

Control 2 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

*no control provided

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 less than 100. 
Table 6. Strap Integrity Evaluation - 3M

Tensile Force in Respirator Straps of Decontaminated N95s

(recorded force values are at 150% strain)

3M 8210, 

VPHP, 10

cycles

Straps from Treated Sample # Force in Top Strap (N) Force in Bottom Strap (N)

1 4.286 3.886

2 4.415 4.015

3 4.411 3.855

Decontaminated Strap 

Average 4.371 3.919

Control 1 4.347 4.358

% Change

((Deconned - Control) / 

Control)

0.54% -10.08%

3M 1860, 

VPHP, 10

cycles

Straps from Treated Sample # Force in Top Strap (N) Force in Bottom Strap (N)

1 3.105 3.686

2 3.147 3.589

3 3.136 3.525

Decontaminated Strap 

Average 3.129 3.600

Control 1 2.701 2.534

Control 2 2.637 2.695

Control Strap Average 2.669 2.615

% Change

((Deconned - Control) / 

Control)

17.23% 37.57%

3M VFlex

1804, VPHP, 

10 cycles

Straps from Treated Sample # Force in Top Strap (N) Force in Bottom Strap (N)

1 2.711 2.788

2 2.548 2.645

3 2.494 2.656

Decontaminated Strap 

Average 2.584 2.696

Control 1 2.055 2.197

% Change

((Deconned - Control) / 

Control)

25.76% 22.73%
Table 7. Filter Efficiency Evaluation – Sperian 

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 (%)

Sperian N1105 

M/L, VPHP, 5

cycles

Min Fil Eff: 

99.54%

Max Fil Eff:

99.85%

1 85 11.3 0.235 0.243 99.76

2 85 11.2 0.168 0.172 99.83

3 85 11.4 0.299 0.305 99.70

4 85 11.4 0.229 0.236 99.76

5 85 11.8 0.149 0.153 99.85

6 85 11.6 0.181 0.188 99.81

7 85 10.8 0.262 0.262 99.74

8 85 11.4 0.201 0.209 99.79

9 85 11.3 0.206 0.458 99.54

10 85 11.4 0.190 0.190 99.81

Control 1 85 11.5 0.129 0.135 99.87

Sperian N1125 

M/L, VPHP, 5

cycles

Min Fil Eff: 

99.13%

Max Fil Eff: 

99.88%

1 85 14.3 0.565 0.565 99.44

2 85 11.7 0.435 0.450 99.55

3 85 12.5 0.872 0.872 99.13

4 85 13.8 0.147 0.171 99.83

5 85 13.1 0.294 0.309 99.69

6 85 13.0 0.260 0.265 99.74

7 85 14.3 0.122 0.122 99.88

8 85 13.1 0.281 0.289 99.71

9 85 12.7 0.851 0.867 99.13

10 85 14.0 0.715 0.716 99.28

Control 1 85 14.9 0.944 0.957 99.04

Sperian OneFit, VPHP, 5

cycles

Min Fil Eff: 

98.90%

Max Fil Eff:

99.75%

1 85 11.1 0.277 0.293 99.71

2 85 9.8 0.243 0.263 99.74

3 85 9.7 0.410 0.430 99.57

4 85 10.9 0.329 0.336 99.66

5 85 10.0 0.331 0.331 99.67

6 85 10.3 0.737 0.739 99.26

7 85 10.5 0.656 0.661 99.34

8 85 11.4 0.470 0.470 99.53

9 85 10.1 0.811 1.10 98.90

10 85 9.9 0.345 0.345 99.66

11 85 10.0 0.479 0.493 99.51

12 85 11.2 0.923 0.934 99.07

13 85 10.0 0.734 0.759 99.24

14 85 10.9 0.249 0.252 99.75

15 85 9.7 0.858 0.858 99.14

Control 1 85 9.2 0.773 0.785 99.22
Table 8. Manikin Fit Evaluation – Sperian

Manikin Fit Factor (mFF) 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

Sperian OneFit, 

VPHP, 5 cycles

11

n/a*

12

13

14

15

Control 2

Sperian N1105 

M/L, VPHP, 5

cycles

Static Advanced 

Large Headform 

(Lunar Studios)

11 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

12 200+ 144 200+ 177

13 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

14 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

15 200+ 123 200+ 166

Control 2

200+ 147 200+ 179

Sperian N1125 

M/L, VPHP, 5

cycles

Static Advanced 

Large Headform 

(Lunar Studios)

11 87 90 165 105

12 200+ 167 200+ 188

13 79 102 126 99

14 200+ 125 200+ 167

15 200+ 90 192 141

Control 2 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

*unable to achieve adequate fit (overall mFF >= 100) on control respirator, so reliable fit test results cannot be reportedsample #’s 11-15 were tested for filtration 

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 less than 100. 
Table 9. Strap Integrity Evaluation - Sperian

Tensile Force in Respirator Straps of Decontaminated N95s

(recorded force values are at 150% strain)

Sperian 

OneFit, 

VPHP, 5

cycles

Straps from Treated Sample # Force in Top Strap (N) Force in Bottom Strap (N)

1 6.405 11.648

2 8.956 10.498

3 9.674 12.277

Decontaminated Strap 

Average 8.345 11.474

Control 1 8.387 11.651

% Change

((Deconned - Control) / 

Control)

-0.5% -1.52%

Sperian 

N1105 M/L, 

VPHP, 5

cycles

Straps from Treated Sample # Force in Top Strap (N) Force in Bottom Strap (N)

1 1.772 1.914

2 1.871 1.977

3 1.801 1.884

Decontaminated Strap 

Average 1.815 1.925

Control 1 1.691 1.552

% Change

((Deconned - Control) / 

Control)

7.31% 24.03%

Sperian 

N1125 M/L, 

VPHP, 5

cycles

Straps from Treated Sample # Force in Top Strap (N) Force in Bottom Strap (N)

1 1.836 2.067

2 1.770 1.948

3 1.861 1.707

Decontaminated Strap 

Average 1.822 1.907

Control 1 1.667 1.607

% Change

((Deconned - Control) / 

Control)

9.32% 18.69%