## 3 Results
The results showed that 51.43% (\(n=126\)) of the professionals noticed that after passing through the chamber (a process that lasted between 10 and 30 s), all the PPE surfaces were uniformly humidified, whereas the percentage of those who did not notice or did not know was 23.27% (\(n=57\)) and 25.31 (\(n=62\)), respectively, without significant difference between responses (\(p>0.05\)) (Figure 7c). Some of the professionals who reported the non-uniformity of the biocidal agent distribution on the PPE (four professionals from Hospital Espanhol and three professionals from Hospital Arena Fonte Nova) suggested that additional nebulizer nozzles could be installed in other locations within the chamber, mainly below the knees, in addition to necessary adjustments in the intensity of the biocidal agent solution spray. Figure 6: Responses of professionals to the following survey questions: (**a**) Did you experience any discomfort when using the disinfection chamber? (**b**) If yes, please indicate the type of discomfort(s) you felt. * represents \(p<0.05\) by [PERSON] test with [PERSON]’s multiple comparisons test. The last four research questions in the questionnaire for data collection are presented in Figure 8. In this study, important results were obtained regarding the perception of the importance of the technology as a safe and effective option for PPE disinfection during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. As Figure 8a shows, 75.10% or \(n=184\) of the professionals considered the disinfection chamber that was developed for exclusive use in hospitals as an important and effective protective barrier for healthcare professionals when applied before the PPE duffing process. Only 7.35% (\(n=18\)) of the interviewees did not consider the use of the proposed technology as an effective measure, and 17.55% (\(n=43\)) did not express an opinion. Among the interviewees, 47.35% (\(n=116\)) responded that the use of the chamber would not cause a false sense of security for the users (Figure 8b), and 20.41% (\(n=50\)) did not express an opinion (with significant difference between responses \(p<0.05\)), totaling 67.75% (\(n=166\)). However, 32.24% (\(n=79\)) of the participants were of the opinion that the technology could lead to a false sense of security for professionals. When questioned about the false sense of safety, professionals from Hospital Espanhol stated that it was related to the area chosen for the installation of the chamber, and suggested a greater proximity to the exit area of the ICU and the wards. In the hospital in question, although the location of the chamber was in accordance with the basic premise of the study, many professionals did not carry out doffing of the PPE before passing through the  
Figure 7: Perception of professionals as evaluated using the following survey questions: (**a**) Did you know that the chamber was developed to reduce the microbial load, including that of the new coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2]), from the surface of personal protective equipment (PPE)? (**b**) Do you consider the use of the disinfection chamber before the PPE duffing process to be a safe option? (**c**) Did you notice if after using the chamber, all surfaces of the personal protective equipment (PPE) were uniformly humidified? * represents \(p<0.05\) by [PERSON] test with [PERSON]’s multiple comparisons test. chamber, as they preferred to carry out this process within the ICU or the ward. In addition, professionals from Hospital Ernesto Simoes (\(n=11\)), Hospital Arena Fonte Nova (\(n=12\)) and Hospital Espanhol (\(n=5\)) reported that the false sense of safety could be related to the lack of uniformity in the coverage of the PPE surface (mainly near the knee) by the biocidal agent, which could lead to inefficient disinfection.