Cargando…
Quantitative Method for Comparative Assessment of Particle Removal Efficiency of Fabric Masks as Alternatives to Standard Surgical Masks for PPE
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cloth masks are being used to control the spread of virus, but the efficacy of these loose-fitting masks is not well known. Here, tools and methods typically used to assess tight-fitting respirators were modified to quantify the efficacy of community-produced an...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7346791/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32838296 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matt.2020.07.006 |
_version_ | 1783556464764256256 |
---|---|
author | Mueller, Amy V. Eden, Matthew J. Oakes, Jessica M. Bellini, Chiara Fernandez, Loretta A. |
author_facet | Mueller, Amy V. Eden, Matthew J. Oakes, Jessica M. Bellini, Chiara Fernandez, Loretta A. |
author_sort | Mueller, Amy V. |
collection | PubMed |
description | In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cloth masks are being used to control the spread of virus, but the efficacy of these loose-fitting masks is not well known. Here, tools and methods typically used to assess tight-fitting respirators were modified to quantify the efficacy of community-produced and commercially produced fabric masks as personal protective equipment. Two particle counters concurrently sample ambient air and air inside the masks; mask performance is evaluated by mean particle removal efficiency and statistical variability when worn as designed and with a nylon overlayer, to independently assess fit and material. Worn as designed, both commercial surgical masks and cloth masks had widely varying effectiveness (53%–75% and 28%–91% particle removal efficiency, respectively). Most surgical-style masks improved with the nylon overlayer, indicating poor fit. This rapid testing method uses widely available hardware, requires only a few calculations from collected data, and provides both a holistic and aspect-wise evaluation of mask performance. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7346791 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Elsevier Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73467912020-07-10 Quantitative Method for Comparative Assessment of Particle Removal Efficiency of Fabric Masks as Alternatives to Standard Surgical Masks for PPE Mueller, Amy V. Eden, Matthew J. Oakes, Jessica M. Bellini, Chiara Fernandez, Loretta A. Matter Article In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cloth masks are being used to control the spread of virus, but the efficacy of these loose-fitting masks is not well known. Here, tools and methods typically used to assess tight-fitting respirators were modified to quantify the efficacy of community-produced and commercially produced fabric masks as personal protective equipment. Two particle counters concurrently sample ambient air and air inside the masks; mask performance is evaluated by mean particle removal efficiency and statistical variability when worn as designed and with a nylon overlayer, to independently assess fit and material. Worn as designed, both commercial surgical masks and cloth masks had widely varying effectiveness (53%–75% and 28%–91% particle removal efficiency, respectively). Most surgical-style masks improved with the nylon overlayer, indicating poor fit. This rapid testing method uses widely available hardware, requires only a few calculations from collected data, and provides both a holistic and aspect-wise evaluation of mask performance. Elsevier Inc. 2020-09-02 2020-07-09 /pmc/articles/PMC7346791/ /pubmed/32838296 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matt.2020.07.006 Text en © 2020 Elsevier Inc. Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. |
spellingShingle | Article Mueller, Amy V. Eden, Matthew J. Oakes, Jessica M. Bellini, Chiara Fernandez, Loretta A. Quantitative Method for Comparative Assessment of Particle Removal Efficiency of Fabric Masks as Alternatives to Standard Surgical Masks for PPE |
title | Quantitative Method for Comparative Assessment of Particle Removal Efficiency of Fabric Masks as Alternatives to Standard Surgical Masks for PPE |
title_full | Quantitative Method for Comparative Assessment of Particle Removal Efficiency of Fabric Masks as Alternatives to Standard Surgical Masks for PPE |
title_fullStr | Quantitative Method for Comparative Assessment of Particle Removal Efficiency of Fabric Masks as Alternatives to Standard Surgical Masks for PPE |
title_full_unstemmed | Quantitative Method for Comparative Assessment of Particle Removal Efficiency of Fabric Masks as Alternatives to Standard Surgical Masks for PPE |
title_short | Quantitative Method for Comparative Assessment of Particle Removal Efficiency of Fabric Masks as Alternatives to Standard Surgical Masks for PPE |
title_sort | quantitative method for comparative assessment of particle removal efficiency of fabric masks as alternatives to standard surgical masks for ppe |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7346791/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32838296 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matt.2020.07.006 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT muelleramyv quantitativemethodforcomparativeassessmentofparticleremovalefficiencyoffabricmasksasalternativestostandardsurgicalmasksforppe AT edenmatthewj quantitativemethodforcomparativeassessmentofparticleremovalefficiencyoffabricmasksasalternativestostandardsurgicalmasksforppe AT oakesjessicam quantitativemethodforcomparativeassessmentofparticleremovalefficiencyoffabricmasksasalternativestostandardsurgicalmasksforppe AT bellinichiara quantitativemethodforcomparativeassessmentofparticleremovalefficiencyoffabricmasksasalternativestostandardsurgicalmasksforppe AT fernandezlorettaa quantitativemethodforcomparativeassessmentofparticleremovalefficiencyoffabricmasksasalternativestostandardsurgicalmasksforppe |