## 4 Discussion
We highlight that, because the disinfection chamber is a new technology [49], no study available in the literature has been carried out with the objective of evaluating its perception among professionals. In this context, the results found in this study showed that, in general, professionals from the different hospitals and healthcare units investigated had a positive perception regarding the safety and efficacy of using the chamber for the instantaneous decontamination of PPE. This demonstrates that the technology could potentially be applied prior to PPE doffing during the COVID-19 pandemic (mainly in reference hospitals designated for the treatment of COVID-19). [PERSON] et al. [92] evaluated the perception of healthcare workers regarding the use of a new technology for surface disinfection. They investigated the daily impact of disinfection by ultraviolet light (UV)-C for the reduction in infections related to the nosocomial environment. In agreement with the results of the present study, the authors reported a positive perception by healthcare workers, who believed that the daily use of the technology decreased the risk of patients acquiring infections, and a perception of \"acceptable\" by patients, who reported an improvement in their experience during the time of hospitalization [92]. A similar investigation was also performed by [PERSON] et al. [93] in relation to the perception of healthcare workers, general service providers, and patients, in the use of UV light for the decontamination of environments (hospital rooms). The results of the study showed that the vast majority of patients, healthcare workers, and environmental services staff presented a positive perception for the use of UV-C light technology in the prevention of possible infections in a hospital environment. In addition, different studies have shown that the control of nosocomial infections can result in a reduction in the period of hospitalization of the patient and can result in financial benefits for the institution [94; 95; 96]. It is important to highlight that only 15.10% of participants reported moderate or severe adverse events, as well as the absence of the need for any type of medical intervention in mild events. In this context, the most reported episodes were eye and throat irritation, which together accounted for 44.6% of the total number of adverse events. These results indicate that the use of PPE (donning of PPE), such as face masks and goggles, reduces the possibility of contact of the biocidal agent with the mucous membranes or other regions of the human body, and, consequently, the possibility of adverse events. Some studies have reported that depending on the level of exposure, sodium hypochlorite can be toxic when in contact with the mucous membranes or skin and can lead to tissue injury or cause allergic reactions [97; 98]. The concentration of sodium hypochlorite is also important when it comes to chronic exposure, since it has been reported that long exposure to this agent can lead to non-allergic symptoms, such as non-allergic asthma [99]. However, in vivo tests showed that exposure for 14 days to an aerosolized form of active chlorine at a concentration of 1.7 \(\pm\) 0.13 mg/m\({}^{3}\) did not result in significant toxic effects [100]. Thus, our results demonstrate that the practice of using PPE can be extrapolated beyond the nosocomial environment, resulting in protocols for surface disinfection that consider the correct use as a way to mitigate the adverse events that are caused by biocidal agents such as sodium hypochlorite. A study by [PERSON] et al. [101] showed that prolonged exposure to chlorine solution at a concentration of 0.5% during continuous decontamination procedures of an Ebola treatment unit caused an episode of respiratory difficulty in only one patient. However, such an episode could also be associated with the patient's previous clinical status.