Simple Respiratory Mask

Dato, Virginia; Hostler, David; Hahn, Michael E.

doi:10.3201/eid1206.051468

Cited by 60 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As expected, a previous study using a manikin showed greater particle penetration for loosely held fabric materials than fully sealed materials around edges (Guyton et al, 1959). Interestingly, however, some studies have reported that improvised fabric materials can provide a good fit and measurable protection level against test aerosols (Dato et al, 2006;Sandee et al, 2009). In one study, fit factors between 13 and 67 were obtained for three subjects using hand-fashioned masks out of a Hanes T-shirt, a modest level of protection to the wearer (Dato et al, 2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interestingly, however, some studies have reported that improvised fabric materials can provide a good fit and measurable protection level against test aerosols (Dato et al, 2006;Sandee et al, 2009). In one study, fit factors between 13 and 67 were obtained for three subjects using hand-fashioned masks out of a Hanes T-shirt, a modest level of protection to the wearer (Dato et al, 2006). Similarly, home-made face masks made of tea cloths tested on human subjects provided marginal protection as measured by a PortaCount Ò Plus (TSI, Inc.) that also uses 20-1000 nm size ambient air particles compared to surgical and CEmarked FFP2 masks (Sandee et al, 2009).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Simple Respiratory Protection—Evaluation of the Filtration Performance of Cloth Masks and Common Fabric Materials Against 20–1000 nm Size Particles

2010

The Annals of Occupational Hygiene

234

240

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A shortage of disposable filtering facepiece respirators can be expected during a pandemic respiratory infection such as influenza A. Some individuals may want to use common fabric materials for respiratory protection because of shortage or affordability reasons. To address the filtration performance of common fabric materials against nano-size particles including viruses, five major categories of fabric materials including sweatshirts, T-shirts, towels, scarves, and cloth masks were tested for polydisperse and monodisperse aerosols (20-1000 nm) at two different face velocities (5.5 and 16.5 cm s⁻¹) and compared with the penetration levels for N95 respirator filter media. The results showed that cloth masks and other fabric materials tested in the study had 40-90% instantaneous penetration levels against polydisperse NaCl aerosols employed in the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health particulate respirator test protocol at 5.5 cm s⁻¹. Similarly, varying levels of penetrations (9-98%) were obtained for different size monodisperse NaCl aerosol particles in the 20-1000 nm range. The penetration levels of these fabric materials against both polydisperse and monodisperse aerosols were much higher than the penetrations for the control N95 respirator filter media. At 16.5 cm s⁻¹ face velocity, monodisperse aerosol penetrations slightly increased, while polydisperse aerosol penetrations showed no significant effect except one fabric mask with an increase. Results obtained in the study show that common fabric materials may provide marginal protection against nanoparticles including those in the size ranges of virus-containing particles in exhaled breath.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simple Respiratory Protection—Evaluation of the Filtration Performance of Cloth Masks and Common Fabric Materials Against 20–1000 nm Size Particles

2010

The Annals of Occupational Hygiene

234

240

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As it is not clear that cloth masks or improvised masks can meet the standards set by regulatory bodies and without better testing and more research, cloth masks or improvised masks generally have not been recommended as effective respiratory protective devices, or as devices to prevent exposure to splashes [72]. Currently there is no clinical trial data on the efficacy of cloth masks and most of the available studies are in-vitro [79][80][81][82][83][84]. Available evidence suggest that cloth masks may provide some protection, it is assumed to be considerable less when compared to the use of surgical masks and respirators [85].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Availability, consistency and evidence-base of policies and guidelines on the use of mask and respirator to protect hospital health care workers: a global analysis

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCurrently there is an ongoing debate and limited evidence on the use of masks and respirators for the prevention of respiratory infections in health care workers (HCWs). This study aimed to examine available policies and guidelines around the use of masks and respirators in HCWs and to describe areas of consistency between guidelines, as well as gaps in the recommendations, with reference to the WHO and the CDC guidelines.MethodsPolicies and guidelines related to mask and respirator use for the prevention of influenza, SARS and TB were examined. Guidelines from the World Health Organization (WHO), the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), three high-income countries and six low/middle-income countries were selected.ResultsUniform recommendations are made by the WHO and the CDC in regards to protecting HCWs against seasonal influenza (a mask for low risk situations and a respirator for high risk situations) and TB (use of a respirator). However, for pandemic influenza and SARS, the WHO recommends mask use in low risk and respirators in high risk situations, whereas, the CDC recommends respirators in both low and high risk situations. Amongst the nine countries reviewed, there are variations in the recommendations for all three diseases. While, some countries align with the WHO recommendations, others align with those made by the CDC. The choice of respirator and the level of filtering ability vary amongst the guidelines and the different diseases. Lastly, none of the policies discuss reuse, extended use or the use of cloth masks.ConclusionCurrently, there are significant variations in the policies and recommendations around mask and respirator use for protection against influenza, SARS and TB. These differences may reflect the scarcity of level-one evidence available to inform policy development. The lack of any guidelines on the use of cloth masks, despite widespread use in many low and middle-income countries, remains a policy gap. Health organizations and countries should jointly evaluate the available evidence, prioritize research to inform evidence gaps, and develop consistent policy on masks and respirator use in the health care setting.

show abstract

“…Cloth masks usually have one to two layers of protection compared with the fourlayered N95 respirator. 52 Similar to medical-grade masks, fit is an important factor in the effectiveness of improvised masks. 27 52-54 Peripheral air leakage can expose the wearer to airborne viral particles.…”

Section: Improvised Masksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facial protection for healthcare workers during pandemics: a scoping review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to personal protective equipment (PPE) shortages, requiring mask reuse or improvisation. We provide a review of medical-grade facial protection (surgical masks, N95 respirators and face shields) for healthcare workers, the safety and efficacy of decontamination methods, and the utility of alternative strategies in emergency shortages or resource-scarce settings.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review of PubMed and grey literature related to facial protection and potential adaptation strategies in the setting of PPE shortages (January 2000 to March 2020). Limitations included few COVID-19-specific studies and exclusion of non-English language articles. We conducted a narrative synthesis of the evidence based on relevant healthcare settings to increase practical utility in decision-making.ResultsWe retrieved 5462 peer-reviewed articles and 41 grey literature records. In total, we included 67 records which met inclusion criteria. Compared with surgical masks, N95 respirators perform better in laboratory testing, may provide superior protection in inpatient settings and perform equivalently in outpatient settings. Surgical mask and N95 respirator conservation strategies include extended use, reuse or decontamination, but these strategies may result in inferior protection. Limited evidence suggests that reused and improvised masks should be used when medical-grade protection is unavailable.ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to critical shortages of medical-grade PPE. Alternative forms of facial protection offer inferior protection. More robust evidence is required on different types of medical-grade facial protection. As research on COVID-19 advances, investigators should continue to examine the impact on alternatives of medical-grade facial protection.

show abstract

Simple Respiratory Mask

Cited by 60 publications

References 3 publications

Simple Respiratory Protection—Evaluation of the Filtration Performance of Cloth Masks and Common Fabric Materials Against 20–1000 nm Size Particles

Simple Respiratory Protection—Evaluation of the Filtration Performance of Cloth Masks and Common Fabric Materials Against 20–1000 nm Size Particles

Availability, consistency and evidence-base of policies and guidelines on the use of mask and respirator to protect hospital health care workers: a global analysis

Facial protection for healthcare workers during pandemics: a scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About