1

Evaluation of Decontaminated N95 Respirators 

Date Tested: 11/9/2020 – 11/10/2020 

Respirator Model(s): 3M 8210 

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

Integrity with Tensile Testing 

Decontamination Method: Steam decontamination using a commercial electric steamer set at 100°C for 30 seconds per 

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). 

Twenty respirators that were unworn and not subjected to any pathogenic microorganisms were submitted for evaluation. 

This included 15 respirators that were subjected to 10 cycles of the steam decontamination process and an additional 5 

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. 

Filtration Efficiency Results: The minimum and maximum filter efficiencies were 98.03% and 99.46%, respectively. All ten 

respirators measured more than 95%. See Table 1. 

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

evaluated. Failing fit factors (less than 100) resulted for all five treated samples evaluated. See Table 2. 

Strap Integrity Results: The top straps of the treated samples showed a 7.82% increase in recorded force compared to the 

control samples. The bottom straps of the treated samples showed a 10.86% increase in force compared to the control 

samples. See Table 3. 

Other notes: Blurring of the printed information found on the front side of the treated respirators was observed. Figure 1A1B shows a comparison of the printed information between a control sample and a treated sample. The insides of the 

treated samples felt stiff and rough to the touch. Lastly, the treated sample straps were notably stiff and had shriveled in 

length when compared to the control straps. 

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.” 
2

Figure 1. Observations 

Fig. 1A. Printed Information – Control Fig. 1B. Printed Information – Treated

A B
3

Figure 2. Laboratory Test Photos

Fig. 2A. Medium Static Advanced Headform Fig. 2B. Instron 5943 Tensile Tester

A B

Fig. 2C. TSI 8130 Filter Tester 

C
4

Table 1. Filter Efficiency Evaluation

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, controls

Control 1 85 7.2 0.094 0.434 99.57

Control 2

85 7.2 0.111 0.531 99.47

Control 3

85 7.5 0.123 0.522 99.48

3M 8210, steam, 

10 cycles 

Min Fil Eff: 98.03%

Max Fil Eff: 99.46%

1

85 7.2 0.198 0.545 99.46

2

85 8.4 1.840 1.97 98.03

3

85 7.0 0.275 0.788 99.21

4

85 7.3 0.181 0.776 99.22

5

85 6.8 0.246 0.784 99.22

6

85 6.7 0.237 1.01 98.99

7

85 6.9 0.201 0.665 99.34

8

85 7.5 0.202 0.805 99.20

9

85 8.3 1.050 1.4 98.60

10 85 7.0 0.298 1.03 98.97
5

Table 2. Manikin Fit Evaluation

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 8210, controls

Control 4 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

Control 5 200+ 200+ 200+ 200+

3M 8210, steam, 10 

cycles 

Static Advanced 

Medium Headform 

(Hanson Robotics)

11 29 16 20 20

12 18 22 22 20

13 23 12 23 18

14 25 14 19 18

15 25 18 22 22

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

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 8210, controls 

Control 1 4.726 5.170

Control 2 4.583 4.814

Control 3 4.709 4.773

Control Strap Average 4.673 4.919

3M 8210, steam, 10 cycles 

1 5.088 5.537

2 4.974 5.532

3 5.051 5.423

4 5.041 5.320

Decontaminated Strap 

Average 5.039 5.453

% Change 

((Deconned - Controls)/ 

Controls)

7.82% 10.86%