Cargando…
Respiratory Source Control Using Surgical Masks With Nanofiber Media
BACKGROUND: Potentially infected individuals (‘source’) are sometimes encouraged to use face masks to reduce exposure of their infectious aerosols to others (‘receiver’). To improve compliance with Respiratory Source Control via face mask and therefore reduce receiver exposure, a mask should be comf...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4090760/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24737728 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/meu023 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Potentially infected individuals (‘source’) are sometimes encouraged to use face masks to reduce exposure of their infectious aerosols to others (‘receiver’). To improve compliance with Respiratory Source Control via face mask and therefore reduce receiver exposure, a mask should be comfortable and effective. We tested a novel face mask designed to improve breathability and filtration using nanofiber filtration. METHODS: Using radiolabeled test aerosols and a calibrated exposure chamber simulating source to receiver interaction, facepiece function was measured with a life-like ventilated manikin model. Measurements included mask airflow resistance (pressure difference during breathing), filtration, (mask capture of exhaled radiolabeled test aerosols), and exposure (the transfer of ‘infectious’ aerosols from the ‘source’ to a ‘receiver’). Polydisperse aerosols were measured at the source with a mass median aerodynamic diameter of 0.95 µm. Approximately 90% of the particles were <2.0 µm. Tested facepieces included nanofiber prototype surgical masks, conventional surgical masks, and for comparison, an N95-class filtering facepiece respirator (commonly known as an ‘N95 respirator’). Airflow through and around conventional surgical face mask and nanofiber prototype face mask was visualized using Schlieren optical imaging. RESULTS: Airflow resistance [ΔP, cmH(2)O] across sealed surgical masks (means: 0.1865 and 0.1791 cmH(2)O) approached that of the N95 (mean: 0.2664 cmH(2)O). The airflow resistance across the nanofiber face mask whether sealed or not sealed (0.0504 and 0.0311 cmH(2)O) was significantly reduced in comparison. In addition, ‘infected’ source airflow filtration and receiver exposure levels for nanofiber face masks placed on the source were comparable to that achieved with N95 placed on the source; 98.98% versus 82.68% and 0.0194 versus 0.0557, respectively. Compared to deflection within and around the conventional face masks, Schlieren optical imaging demonstrated enhanced airflow through the nanofiber mask. CONCLUSIONS: Substituting nanofiber for conventional filter media significantly reduced face mask airflow resistance directing more airflow through the face mask resulting in enhanced filtration. Respiratory source control efficacy similar to that achieved through the use of an N95 respirator worn by the source and decreased airflow resistance using nanofiber masks may improve compliance and reduce receiver exposure. |
---|