| Literature DB >> 31831801 |
Daniel Yam Thiam Goh1,2, Meng Wai Mun3, Wei Liang Jerome Lee3, Oon Hoe Teoh4, Dimple D Rajgor5,6.
Abstract
Children are more vulnerable to the risks of air pollution, including susceptibility to acquiring chronic diseases in their developing lungs. Despite these, there are no specific masks designed for and tested in children that are available to protect our young from the common particulate air pollutants today. We evaluated safety, fit and comfort of a specially designed paediatric N95 mask with an optional micro ventilator (micro fan, MF) in healthy children aged 7-14 years, in a randomized, two-period crossover design. The subjects' cardiorespiratory physiological measurements were assessed in different states of physical activity under different interventions (mask without and with MF). A total of 106 subjects were recruited between July-August 2016. The use of the mask without MF increased the End-Tidal CO2 (ETCO2) and Fractional concentration of Inspired CO2 (FICO2) at rest and on mild exertion, as expected. The use of the mask with MF brought FICO2 levels comparably closer to baseline levels without the mask for both activities. The mask, with or without the MF, was found to be well fitting, comfortable and safe for use in children at rest and on mild exertion. The N95 mask tested offers a promising start for more studies in the paediatric population.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31831801 PMCID: PMC6908682 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-55451-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Illustration of the (A) disposable N95-class particulate respirator that is able to be paired with the (B) novel, reusable micro fan (C) AIR+ Smart Mask (D) Experimental set up.
Figure 2Process flow of the study design.
Physiological parameters of the study subjects.
| Physiological parameters (N = 106) | Without mask (Control) | With mask only (A) | With mask and with micro fan (B) |
|---|---|---|---|
| At rest (Reading) | 30.9(3.37) | 34.3(3.32) | 32.2(3.27) |
| On mild exertion (Brisk walking) | 28.2(2.8) | 32.0(2.8) | 30.6 (3.1) |
| At rest (Reading) | 8.2 (1.94) | 10.7 (2.61) | 7.8 (2.15) |
| On mild exertion (Brisk walking) | 9.9 (1.69) | 12.1 (2.47) | 10.8 (2.33) |
| At rest (Reading) | 18.0 (3.21) | 17.4 (3.57) | 16.8 (3.33) |
| On mild exertion (Brisk walking) | 23.5 (3.53) | 23.2 (3.73) | 23.2 (3.88) |
| At rest (Reading) | 89.6 (11.31) | 90.7(11.37) | 89.2 (11.27) |
| On mild exertion (Brisk walking) | 108.4 (9.84) | 110.2(7.73) | 109.5 (7.78) |
| At rest (Reading) | 99.6 (0.52) | 99.5 (0.51) | 99.6 (0.54) |
| On mild exertion (Brisk walking) | 99.2 (0.81) | 99.2 (0.65) | 99.2 (0.78) |
ETCO2 = end-tidal carbon dioxide, FICO2 = fractional inspired carbon dioxide, RR = respiratory rate, SpO2 = oxygen saturation, HR = Heart rate.
Figure 3Mean ETCO2 values at rest and on mild exertion for Control, Intervention (A) and Intervention (B).
Figure 4Mean FICO2 values at rest and on mild exertion for Control, Intervention (A) and Intervention (B).
Figure 5Percentage change in ETCO2 and FICO2 for Intervention (A) and Intervention (B).
Comparison of the mean ETCO2, FICO2 and other physiological parameters for subjects indicating experiencing mild breathing difficulty on VAS (7) vs the rest of the participants (99).
| Physiological parameters | Without mask (Control) | With mask only (A) | With mask and with micro fan (B) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 subjects | 99 subjects | 7 subjects | 99 | 7 subjects | 99 subjects | |
| At rest (Reading) | 29.1 (2.89) | 30.9(3.4) | 32.9 (3.18) | 34.3 (3.3) | 30.1 (4.16) | 32.2 (3.3) |
| On mild exertion (Brisk walking on treadmill) | 27.1 (2.02) | 28.2 (2.8) | 31.2 (1.61) | 32.0(2.8) | 29.8 (1.27) | 30.6 (3.1) |
| At rest (Reading) | 7.9 (2.11) | 8.2 (1.9) | 9.8 (2.58) | 10.7 (2.6) | 7.7 (1.52) | 7.8 (2.1) |
| On mild exertion (Brisk walking on treadmill) | 9.4 (1.46) | 9.9 (1.7) | 11.7 (2.05) | 12.1 (2.5) | 10.6 (2.41) | 10.8 (2.3) |
| At rest (Reading) | 17.6 (3.15) | 18.0 (3.2) | 16.7 (3.67) | 17.4 (3.6) | 16.2 (3.47) | 16.8 (3.3) |
| On mild exertion (Brisk walking on treadmill) | 23.4(2.79) | 23.5 (3.5) | 23.5 (4.28) | 23.2 (3.7) | 23.4 (4.04) | 23.2 (3.9) |
| At rest (Reading) | 91.8 (10.67) | 89.6 (11.3) | 92.3(11.91) | 90.7 (11.4) | 91.1(12.77) | 89.2 (11.3) |
| On mild exertion (Brisk walking on treadmill) | 108.7(11.66) | 108.4 (9.8) | 109.4(9.82) | 110.2 (7.7) | 110.5(7.63) | 109.5 (7.8) |
| At rest (Reading) | 99.1 (0.75) | 99.6 (0.5) | 99.0 (0.77) | 99.5 (0.5) | 99.1 (0.77) | 99.6 (0.5) |
| On mild exertion (Brisk walking on treadmill) | 99.0 (0.61) | 99.2 (0.8) | 99.1 (0.45) | 99.2 (0.6) | 99.1 (0.49) | 99.2 (0.8) |
ETCO2 = end-tidal carbon dioxide, FICO2 = fractional inspired carbon dioxide, RR = respiratory rate, SpO2 = oxygen saturation, HR = Heart rate.
Figure 6Sequence AB and BA did not have noticeable impact on ETCO2 results.