The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), underscoring the urgent need for simple, efficient, and inexpensive methods to decontaminate masks and respirators exposed to severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We hypothesized that methylene blue (MB) photochemical treatment, which has various clinical applications, could decontaminate PPE contaminated with coronavirus.

The 2 arms of the study included (1) PPE inoculation with coronaviruses followed by MB with light (MBL) decontamination treatment and (2) PPE treatment with MBL for 5 cycles of decontamination to determine maintenance of PPE performance.

MBL treatment was used to inactivate coronaviruses on 3 N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) and 2 medical mask models. We inoculated FFR and medical mask materials with 3 coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2, and we treated them with 10 µM MB and exposed them to 50,000 lux of white light or 12,500 lux of red light for 30 minutes. In parallel, integrity was assessed after 5 cycles of decontamination using multiple US and international test methods, and the process was compared with the FDA-authorized vaporized hydrogen peroxide plus ozone (VHP+O3) decontamination method.

Overall, MBL robustly and consistently inactivated all 3 coronaviruses with 99.8% to >99.9% virus inactivation across all FFRs and medical masks tested. FFR and medical mask integrity was maintained after 5 cycles of MBL treatment, whereas 1 FFR model failed after 5 cycles of VHP+O3.

MBL treatment decontaminated respirators and masks by inactivating 3 tested coronaviruses without compromising integrity through 5 cycles of decontamination. MBL decontamination is effective, is low cost, and does not require specialized equipment, making it applicable in low- to high-resource settings.

To effectively respond to this relatively new, complex mandate it is essential to find effective models of coordination to ensure that medical and health services can meet the standards now expected in a disaster situation. This theme explored various models, noting both the strengths that can be built on and the weaknesses that still need to be overcome.

Details of the methods used are provided in the preceding paper. The chairs moderated all presentations and produced a summary that was presented to an assembly of all of the delegates. Since the findings from the Theme 1 and Theme 4 groups were similar, the chairs of both groups presided over one workshop that resulted in the generation of a set of Action Plans that then were reported to the collective group of all delegates.

The main points developed during the presentations and discussion included: (1) preplanning (predisaster goals), (2) information collection (assessment), (3) communication (materials and methods); and (4) response centres and personnel. There exists a need for institutionalization of processes for learning from experiences obtained from disasters.

Action plans presented include: (1) creation of an information and data clearinghouse on disaster management, (2) identification of incentives and disincentives for readiness and develop strategies and interventions, and (3) action on lessons learned from evidence-based research and practical experience.

There is an urgent need to proactively establish coordination and management procedures in advance of any crisis. A number of important insights for improvement in coordination and management during disasters emerged.