Phillip W Clapp1,2, Emily E Sickbert-Bennett3, James M Samet4, Jon Berntsen5, Kirby L Zeman2, Deverick J Anderson6, David J Weber3,7, William D Bennett2,7. 1. Department of Pediatrics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill. 2. Center for Environmental Medicine, Asthma and Lung Biology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill. 3. UNC Health Care, Infection Prevention Department, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 4. Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 5. TRC, Raleigh, North Carolina. 6. Duke Center for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 7. Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill.
Abstract
Importance: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the general public has been advised to wear masks or improvised face coverings to limit transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, there has been considerable confusion and disagreement regarding the degree to which masks protect the wearer from airborne particles. Objectives: To evaluate the fitted filtration efficiency (FFE) of various consumer-grade and improvised face masks, as well as several popular modifications of medical procedure masks that are intended to improve mask fit or comfort. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this study conducted in a research laboratory between June and August 2020, 7 consumer-grade masks and 5 medical procedure mask modifications were fitted on an adult male volunteer, and FFE measurements were collected during a series of repeated movements of the torso, head, and facial muscles as outlined by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration Quantitative Fit Testing Protocol. The consumer-grade masks tested included (1) a 2-layer nylon mask with ear loops that was tested with an optional aluminum nose bridge and filter insert in place, (2) a cotton bandana folded diagonally once (ie, "bandit" style) or in a (3) multilayer rectangle according to the instructions presented by the US Surgeon General, (4) a single-layer polyester/nylon mask with ties, (5) a polypropylene mask with fixed ear loops, (6) a single-layer polyester gaiter/neck cover balaclava bandana, and (7) a 3-layer cotton mask with ear loops. Medical procedure mask modifications included (1) tying the mask's ear loops and tucking in the side pleats, (2) fastening ear loops behind the head with 3-dimensional-printed ear guards, (3) fastening ear loops behind the head with a claw-type hair clip, (4) enhancing the mask/face seal with rubber bands over the mask, and (5) enhancing the mask/face seal with a band of nylon hosiery over the fitted mask. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study outcome was the measured FFE of common consumer-grade and improvised face masks, as well as several popular modifications of medical procedure masks. Results: The mean (SD) FFE of consumer grade masks tested on 1 adult male with no beard ranged from 79.0% (4.3%) to 26.5% (10.5%), with the 2-layer nylon mask having the highest FFE. Unmodified medical procedure masks with ear loops had a mean (SD) FFE of 38.5% (11.2%). All modifications evaluated in this study increased procedure mask FFE (range [SD], 60.3% [11.1%] to 80.2% [3.1%]), with a nylon hosiery sleeve placed over the procedure mask producing the greatest improvement. Conclusions and Relevance: While modifications to improve medical procedure mask fit can enhance the filtering capability and reduce inhalation of airborne particles, this study demonstrates that the FFEs of consumer-grade masks available to the public are, in many cases, nearly equivalent to or better than their non-N95 respirator medical mask counterparts.
Importance: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the general public has been advised to wear masks or improvised face coverings to limit transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, there has been considerable confusion and disagreement regarding the degree to which masks protect the wearer from airborne particles. Objectives: To evaluate the fitted filtration efficiency (FFE) of various consumer-grade and improvised face masks, as well as several popular modifications of medical procedure masks that are intended to improve mask fit or comfort. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this study conducted in a research laboratory between June and August 2020, 7 consumer-grade masks and 5 medical procedure mask modifications were fitted on an adult male volunteer, and FFE measurements were collected during a series of repeated movements of the torso, head, and facial muscles as outlined by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration Quantitative Fit Testing Protocol. The consumer-grade masks tested included (1) a 2-layer nylon mask with ear loops that was tested with an optional aluminum nose bridge and filter insert in place, (2) a cotton bandana folded diagonally once (ie, "bandit" style) or in a (3) multilayer rectangle according to the instructions presented by the US Surgeon General, (4) a single-layer polyester/nylon mask with ties, (5) a polypropylene mask with fixed ear loops, (6) a single-layer polyester gaiter/neck cover balaclava bandana, and (7) a 3-layer cotton mask with ear loops. Medical procedure mask modifications included (1) tying the mask's ear loops and tucking in the side pleats, (2) fastening ear loops behind the head with 3-dimensional-printed ear guards, (3) fastening ear loops behind the head with a claw-type hair clip, (4) enhancing the mask/face seal with rubber bands over the mask, and (5) enhancing the mask/face seal with a band of nylon hosiery over the fitted mask. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study outcome was the measured FFE of common consumer-grade and improvised face masks, as well as several popular modifications of medical procedure masks. Results: The mean (SD) FFE of consumer grade masks tested on 1 adult male with no beard ranged from 79.0% (4.3%) to 26.5% (10.5%), with the 2-layer nylon mask having the highest FFE. Unmodified medical procedure masks with ear loops had a mean (SD) FFE of 38.5% (11.2%). All modifications evaluated in this study increased procedure mask FFE (range [SD], 60.3% [11.1%] to 80.2% [3.1%]), with a nylon hosiery sleeve placed over the procedure mask producing the greatest improvement. Conclusions and Relevance: While modifications to improve medical procedure mask fit can enhance the filtering capability and reduce inhalation of airborne particles, this study demonstrates that the FFEs of consumer-grade masks available to the public are, in many cases, nearly equivalent to or better than their non-N95 respirator medical mask counterparts.
Authors: William G Lindsley; Francoise M Blachere; Donald H Beezhold; Brandon F Law; Raymond C Derk; Justin M Hettick; Karen Woodfork; William T Goldsmith; James R Harris; Matthew G Duling; Brenda Boutin; Timothy Nurkiewicz; Theresa Boots; Jayme Coyle; John D Noti Journal: Aerosol Sci Technol Date: 2021-06-14 Impact factor: 4.809
Authors: Kevin Escandón; Angela L Rasmussen; Isaac I Bogoch; Eleanor J Murray; Karina Escandón; Saskia V Popescu; Jason Kindrachuk Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2021-07-27 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Steven E Prince; Hao Chen; Haiyan Tong; Jon Berntsen; Syed Masood; Kirby L Zeman; Phillip W Clapp; William D Bennett; James M Samet Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 5.563
Authors: John T Brooks; Donald H Beezhold; John D Noti; Jayme P Coyle; Raymond C Derk; Francoise M Blachere; William G Lindsley Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Charles Freeman; Reuben Burch; Lesley Strawderman; Catherine Black; David Saucier; Jaime Rickert; John Wilson; Sarah Ashley Bealor; Madison Ratledge; Sydney Fava; Brian Smith; Charlie Waggoner; Courtney Taylor; Abigail Nichols; Gregory Skaggs; Thomas Callans Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: William G Lindsley; Francoise M Blachere; Donald H Beezhold; Brandon F Law; Raymond C Derk; Justin M Hettick; Karen Woodfork; William T Goldsmith; James R Harris; Matthew G Duling; Brenda Boutin; Timothy Nurkiewicz; John D Noti Journal: medRxiv Date: 2021-02-19