Design considerations for protective mask development: A remote mask usability evaluation

Cloet, Alison; Griffin, Linsey; Yu, Minji; Durfee, William K.

doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103751

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other subjects’ studies were as follows: five studies: college or university students [ 75 , 90 – 92 , 99 ], one study: UK employees [ 100 ], two studies: industry workforce or workplace participants [ 101 , 102 ], two studies: Japan University of Occupational and Environmental Health [ 103 , 104 ], one study: employees of the National Institute for Occupational Health (NIOH) [ 105 ], and one study: American Society of Safety Professionals (ASSP) [ 54 ]. Notably, the HCW subjects’ occupations or professional groups were not mentioned in nineteen studies [ 32 , 33 , 42 , 51 , 53 , 58 , 88 , 106 – 117 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seven studies evaluated the subjective indices (comfort, usability, activity, speech intelligibility, etc.) regarding the respirators tested [ 52 , 66 , 75 , 80 , 90 , 91 , 96 ]. In the research by Ng et al, among four respirator styles, overall comfort and overall assessment values were highest for the three-panel flat-fold respirator and lowest for the semi-rigid cup respirator.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic review of passing fit testing of the masks and respirators used during the COVID-19 pandemic: Part 1-quantitative fit test procedures

Fakherpour,

Jahangiri,

Jansz

2023

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background During respiratory infection pandemics, masks and respirators are highly sought after, especially for frontline healthcare workers and patients carrying respiratory viruses. The objective of this study was to systematically review fit test pass rates and identify factors influencing the fitting characteristics. Methods Potentially relevant studies were identified using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct during the COVID-19 pandemic from February 5, 2020, to March 21, 2023. The search strategy using the following keywords was conducted: Quantitative Fit Test, Condensation Nuclei Counter, Controlled Negative Pressure, PortaCount, Sibata, Accufit, Fit, Seal, Mask, Respirator, Respiratory Protective Device, Respiratory Protective Equipment, Protective Device, Personal Protective Equipment, COVID-19, Coronavirus, and SARS-CoV-2. The quality of the included studies was also assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results A total of 137 articles met the eligibility criteria. Fifty articles had a quality score of less than 7 (good quality). A total of 21 studies had a fit test pass rate of less than 50%. 26 studies on disposable respirators and 11 studies on reusable respirators had an FF of less than 50 and less than 200, respectively. The most influential factors include respirator brand/model, style, gender, ethnicity, facial dimensions, facial hair, age, reuse, extensive movement, seal check, comfort and usability assessment, and training. Conclusion 37.36% of the disposable respirator studies and 43% of the reusable respirator studies did not report fit test results. 67.86% of the disposable respirator studies had a fit test pass rate greater than 50%, and 35.84% of these studies had an FF greater than 100. Also, 85.71% of the reusable respirator studies had a fit test pass rate greater than 50%, and 52.77% of these studies had an FF greater than 1000. Overall, the fit test pass rate was relatively acceptable. Newly developed or modified respirators must undergo reliable testing to ensure the protection of HCWs. Subject and respirator characteristics should be considered when implementing fit testing protocols. An optimal fit test panel should be developed prior to respirator design, certification, procurement decisions, and selection procedures.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of passing fit testing of the masks and respirators used during the COVID-19 pandemic: Part 1-quantitative fit test procedures

Fakherpour,

Jahangiri,

Jansz

2023

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Training can play a pivotal role by providing MRI workers with the knowledge and skills, which may enhance their comfort and confidence when wearing the respirators. 14 A reasonable alternative is to provide a “conditionally MRI-safe” respirator for those who either fail the QNFT on the Eagle AG2200 or do not find the Eagle AG2200 comfortable. This study showed that the Care Essentials MSK-002 could potentially be a good alternative given its reasonably high QNFT pass rate and usability and comfort rating scores.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Magnetic resonance imaging respirators: a randomized crossover trial to assess respiratory protection, usability, and comfort

Williams,

Kave,

Bodas

et al. 2024

ASHE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Many available facepiece filtering respirators contain ferromagnetic components, which may cause significant problems in the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) environment. We conducted a randomized crossover trial to assess the effectiveness, usability, and comfort of 3 types of respirators, judged to be “conditionally MRI safe” with an aluminum nosepiece (Halyard 46727 duckbill-type respirators and Care Essentials MSK-002 bifold cup-type respirators) or “MRI safe” completely metal free (Eagle AG2200 semirigid cup-type respirators). Design and setting: We recruited 120 participants to undergo a quantitative fit test (QNFT) on each of the 3 respirators in a randomized order. Participants then completed a usability and comfort assessment of each respirator. Results: There were significant differences in the QNFT pass rates (51% for Halyard 46727, 73% for Care Essentials MSK-002, and 86% for Eagle AG2200, P < .001). The first-time fit test pass rate and overall fit factor were significantly higher for Eagle AG2200 compared with the other 2 respirators. Eagle AG2200 scored the lowest ratings in the ease of use and overall comfort. There were no significant differences in other modalities, including the seal rating, breathability, firmness, and overall assessment. Conclusions: Our study supports the utility of the Eagle AG2200 and Care Essentials MSK-002 respirators for healthcare professionals working in an MRI environment, based on their high QNFT pass rates and reasonably good overall usability and comfort scores. Eagle AG2200 is unique because of its metal-free construction. However, its comparatively lower usability and comfort ratings raise questions about practicality, which may be improved by greater user training.

show abstract

“…If the systems within smart masks became more complicated, these could become more uncomfortable and make users reluctant to wear them. Detailed surveys on usability and performance evaluation from daily life trials need to be conducted to ascertain the usability of smart masks [ 92 - 94 ]. Maximizing and optimizing the battery lifetime of the smart mask ensures user satisfaction and comfort [ 95 , 96 ].…”

Section: Ergonomic Design For Usabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Pathogen Filtration: Possibility of Smart Masks as Wearable Devices for Personal and Group Health and Safety Management

Lee¹,

Kim²,

Kim³

et al. 2022

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Face masks are an important way to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the prolonged pandemic has revealed confounding problems with the current face masks, including not only the spread of the disease but also concurrent psychological, social, and economic complications. As face masks have been worn for a long time, people have been interested in expanding the purpose of masks from protection to comfort and health, leading to the release of various “smart” mask products around the world. To envision how the smart masks will be extended, this paper reviewed 25 smart masks (12 from commercial products and 13 from academic prototypes) that emerged after the pandemic. While most smart masks presented in the market focus on resolving problems with user breathing discomfort, which arise from prolonged use, academic prototypes were designed for not only sensing COVID-19 but also general health monitoring aspects. Further, we investigated several specific sensors that can be incorporated into the mask for expanding biophysical features. On a larger scale, we discussed the architecture and possible applications with the help of connected smart masks. Namely, beyond a personal sensing application, a group or community sensing application may share an aggregate version of information with the broader population. In addition, this kind of collaborative sensing will also address the challenges of individual sensing, such as reliability and coverage. Lastly, we identified possible service application fields and further considerations for actual use. Along with daily-life health monitoring, smart masks may function as a general respiratory health tool for sports training, in an emergency room or ambulatory setting, as protection for industry workers and firefighters, and for soldier safety and survivability. For further considerations, we investigated design aspects in terms of sensor reliability and reproducibility, ergonomic design for user acceptance, and privacy-aware data-handling. Overall, we aim to explore new possibilities by examining the latest research, sensor technologies, and application platform perspectives for smart masks as one of the promising wearable devices. By integrating biomarkers of respiration symptoms, a smart mask can be a truly cutting-edge device that expands further knowledge on health monitoring to reach the next level of wearables.

show abstract

Design considerations for protective mask development: A remote mask usability evaluation

Cited by 10 publications

References 35 publications

A systematic review of passing fit testing of the masks and respirators used during the COVID-19 pandemic: Part 1-quantitative fit test procedures

A systematic review of passing fit testing of the masks and respirators used during the COVID-19 pandemic: Part 1-quantitative fit test procedures

Magnetic resonance imaging respirators: a randomized crossover trial to assess respiratory protection, usability, and comfort

Beyond Pathogen Filtration: Possibility of Smart Masks as Wearable Devices for Personal and Group Health and Safety Management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About