You are running an unsupported browser, please upgrade your browser. Close

Not all Filters are the Same: Pall’s Pleated Hydrophobic Breathing Filters vs Electrostatic Breathing Filters

Our Pleated Hydrophobic Breathing Filters vs Electrostatic Breathing Filters

Date: May 24th, 2021

Share this page

The world continues to face an unprecedented healthcare crisis caused by a pandemic novel beta coronavirus, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Protecting patients, staff and equipment from viral contamination has been of utmost importance during the pandemic. However, there are no clear guidelines regarding exactly which type of breathing filter is best suited for each application. Which brings us to the question: what factors do you need to consider when choosing a breathing filter? Certainly, using high efficiency breathing filters are one way of preventing viral contamination when working with patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Since the beginning of the pandemic, several societies around the world have recognized the importance of high-quality breathing filters.

 

Society Date
Canadian Anesthesiologists Society, Canada March 16, 2020 1
American Society of Anesthesiologists, USA​ April 1, 2020 2
Association of Anesthetists, UK April 2, 2020 3 April 2, 2020 3
Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation, USA May 18, 2020 4
Safe Airway Society, AUS/NZ April 1, 2020 5
The Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society April 15, 2020 6
European Resuscitation Council, EU April 24, 2020 7

Table 1: Relevant recommendations on the use of high efficiency breathing system filters during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

 

 

The COVID-19 Pandemic has Raised the Importance of Viral Infection Prevention

 

There is no doubt that patient safety and outcomes are the driving factors when deciding on products for our patients. Furthermore, healthcare providers require compelling evidence and data behind these choices. There are many different types of breathing circuit filters used on ventilators and anesthesia machines and it is important to know if your healthcare facility is using a suitable filter to protect your patients and staff from viral infection. Let’s compare Pall’s pleated hydrophobic breathing filters to commonly used electrostatic breathing filters. All Pall information is from internal and third-party validated testing; data for electrostatic filters are from published, publicly available sources.

 

Characteristic Pleated Hydrophobic Filters (Pall Corporation) Electrostatic Filters
Tolerance to humidity and droplets, Liquid Challenge

Hydrophobic fibers: 100% retention of liquid-borne contamination at >50 cm water column8

Wilkes: 27% (39/144) of electrostatic filters allowed water to pass through in laboratory testing9; “[Patient] secretions may adhere to the filter material and prevent adequate ventilation”10
Filtration efficiency NaCl penetration of 0.019% - 0.056% for three Pall filters tested by Wilkes9 NaCl penetration of 0.252% - 35.3% for the 24 electrostatic filters tested by Wilkes9
Viral and bacterial retention >99.999% retention of monodispersed bacterial and viral contaminants15 Wilkes: “Pleated hydrophobic filters reduce gas-borne transmission of bacteria, viruses and NaCl particles more effectively than electrostatic filters”10
Validation for the retention of airborne contamination Tested and validated against Myobacterium tuberculosis11, Myobacterium bovis12, Pseudomonas species13, Serratia marcescens14, MS2 virus15, Human Influenza A (H1N1) virus16  Allowed a higher percentage of Bacillus subtilis var. niger, Viral MS-2 and Sodium chloride particles (the most penetrating particle size) to pass through the filter when compared to pleated hydrophobic filters10
Validation for the retention of liquid-borne contamination and bloodborne viruses Tested and validated against HIV17, Hepatitis C18, Staphylococcus aureus19, Pseudomonas aeruginosa19, liquid borne latex allergens21 and infective prion proteins (PrPSC)22

7/7 tests allowed for transfer of Hepatitis C17 and 5/6 tests allowed for transfer of HIV18 through an electrostatic filter. 3/3 filters tested against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus allowed for the passage of organisms through the filter19

Table 2: Comparison of Pall pleated hydrophobic breathing filters vs electrostatic breathing filters. Pall breathing filters include the following US part codes: BB100A, BB100AF, BB50T, BB25A, BB25AB, BB25ABN. Specific part codes may vary by geography.

 

Selecting the Right Breathing Filter for Your Patients

If the retention of bacterial and viral particles is a deciding factor to which filter to choose for your patients, then Pall’s pleated hydrophobic filters have been shown to out-perform electrostatic filtration. Unsure of which filter membrane your medical center is using? Send us your filters: We can research the type of filter membrane and make recommendations for your medical center.

For more information on our breathing filters and to view our breathing filter portfolio, click HERE or contact a Pall Clinical Specialist directly today. Read Pall’s article “Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak Protection” HERE

 

References

Share this page

Catherine Kane, RN, BSN – Clinical Specialist ICU

Catherine provides clinical support to Pall’s sales and marketing teams on a full range of products including filters for mechanical ventilation, surgical and medical gas applications, and IV drug delivery systems. Catherine holds a Bachelor of Science in Nursing from the University of St. Francis in Joliet, IL with a background in inpatient nursing and clinical research.
Catherine provides clinical support to Pall’s sales and marketing teams on a full range of products including filters for mechanical ventilation, surgical and medical gas applications, and IV drug delivery systems. Catherine holds a Bachelor of Science in Nursing from the University of St. Francis in Joliet, IL with a background in inpatient nursing and clinical research.
Read more
  • Medical Industries
  • Author
  • Sort By
Results