Cargando…

Preliminary Evaluation of Filtration Efficiency and Differential Pressure ASTM F3502 Testing Methods of Non-Medical Masks Using a Face Filtration Mount

Research surrounding the mandated use of non-medical fabric masks is inconsistent and often confusing when compared to the standard N95. A recently published standard from ASTM International and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention attempts to normalize evaluation procedures. The purpose o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Freeman, Charles, Burch, Reuben, Strawderman, Lesley, Black, Catherine, Saucier, David, Rickert, Jaime, Wilson, John, Bealor, Sarah Ashley, Ratledge, Madison, Fava, Sydney, Smith, Brian, Waggoner, Charlie, Taylor, Courtney, Nichols, Abigail, Skaggs, Gregory, Callans, Thomas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8070197/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33924707
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084124
_version_ 1783683414197534720
author Freeman, Charles
Burch, Reuben
Strawderman, Lesley
Black, Catherine
Saucier, David
Rickert, Jaime
Wilson, John
Bealor, Sarah Ashley
Ratledge, Madison
Fava, Sydney
Smith, Brian
Waggoner, Charlie
Taylor, Courtney
Nichols, Abigail
Skaggs, Gregory
Callans, Thomas
author_facet Freeman, Charles
Burch, Reuben
Strawderman, Lesley
Black, Catherine
Saucier, David
Rickert, Jaime
Wilson, John
Bealor, Sarah Ashley
Ratledge, Madison
Fava, Sydney
Smith, Brian
Waggoner, Charlie
Taylor, Courtney
Nichols, Abigail
Skaggs, Gregory
Callans, Thomas
author_sort Freeman, Charles
collection PubMed
description Research surrounding the mandated use of non-medical fabric masks is inconsistent and often confusing when compared to the standard N95. A recently published standard from ASTM International and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention attempts to normalize evaluation procedures. The purpose of this study is to conduct a preliminary evaluation of the new methods for testing filtration efficiency of masks outlined by ASTM International F3502, where results can be directly compared to standards outlined for non-medical fabric masks. Eleven consumer non-medical fabric masks were tested for filtration efficiency and airflow resistance using a face filtration mount in accordance with the newly released ASTM International standard for facial barriers. The mean FE% (SD) ranged from 0.46% (0.44) to 11.80% (2.76) with the 3-layer athletic mesh having the highest performance and the highest deviations. All the masks tested following the procedure failed to meet to minimum FE of 20%; however all masks performed below the minimum upper limits for airflow resistance. Using a non-medical fabric masks as the sole mitigation strategy may not be as effective, as previously reported. With efforts to standardize and regulate the non-medical fabric mask market, this study demonstrates a variety of currently available consumer mask products do not meet the minimum standards nor are these remotely close to the standards of surgical or N95 masks.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8070197
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80701972021-04-26 Preliminary Evaluation of Filtration Efficiency and Differential Pressure ASTM F3502 Testing Methods of Non-Medical Masks Using a Face Filtration Mount Freeman, Charles Burch, Reuben Strawderman, Lesley Black, Catherine Saucier, David Rickert, Jaime Wilson, John Bealor, Sarah Ashley Ratledge, Madison Fava, Sydney Smith, Brian Waggoner, Charlie Taylor, Courtney Nichols, Abigail Skaggs, Gregory Callans, Thomas Int J Environ Res Public Health Article Research surrounding the mandated use of non-medical fabric masks is inconsistent and often confusing when compared to the standard N95. A recently published standard from ASTM International and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention attempts to normalize evaluation procedures. The purpose of this study is to conduct a preliminary evaluation of the new methods for testing filtration efficiency of masks outlined by ASTM International F3502, where results can be directly compared to standards outlined for non-medical fabric masks. Eleven consumer non-medical fabric masks were tested for filtration efficiency and airflow resistance using a face filtration mount in accordance with the newly released ASTM International standard for facial barriers. The mean FE% (SD) ranged from 0.46% (0.44) to 11.80% (2.76) with the 3-layer athletic mesh having the highest performance and the highest deviations. All the masks tested following the procedure failed to meet to minimum FE of 20%; however all masks performed below the minimum upper limits for airflow resistance. Using a non-medical fabric masks as the sole mitigation strategy may not be as effective, as previously reported. With efforts to standardize and regulate the non-medical fabric mask market, this study demonstrates a variety of currently available consumer mask products do not meet the minimum standards nor are these remotely close to the standards of surgical or N95 masks. MDPI 2021-04-13 /pmc/articles/PMC8070197/ /pubmed/33924707 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084124 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Freeman, Charles
Burch, Reuben
Strawderman, Lesley
Black, Catherine
Saucier, David
Rickert, Jaime
Wilson, John
Bealor, Sarah Ashley
Ratledge, Madison
Fava, Sydney
Smith, Brian
Waggoner, Charlie
Taylor, Courtney
Nichols, Abigail
Skaggs, Gregory
Callans, Thomas
Preliminary Evaluation of Filtration Efficiency and Differential Pressure ASTM F3502 Testing Methods of Non-Medical Masks Using a Face Filtration Mount
title Preliminary Evaluation of Filtration Efficiency and Differential Pressure ASTM F3502 Testing Methods of Non-Medical Masks Using a Face Filtration Mount
title_full Preliminary Evaluation of Filtration Efficiency and Differential Pressure ASTM F3502 Testing Methods of Non-Medical Masks Using a Face Filtration Mount
title_fullStr Preliminary Evaluation of Filtration Efficiency and Differential Pressure ASTM F3502 Testing Methods of Non-Medical Masks Using a Face Filtration Mount
title_full_unstemmed Preliminary Evaluation of Filtration Efficiency and Differential Pressure ASTM F3502 Testing Methods of Non-Medical Masks Using a Face Filtration Mount
title_short Preliminary Evaluation of Filtration Efficiency and Differential Pressure ASTM F3502 Testing Methods of Non-Medical Masks Using a Face Filtration Mount
title_sort preliminary evaluation of filtration efficiency and differential pressure astm f3502 testing methods of non-medical masks using a face filtration mount
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8070197/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33924707
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084124
work_keys_str_mv AT freemancharles preliminaryevaluationoffiltrationefficiencyanddifferentialpressureastmf3502testingmethodsofnonmedicalmasksusingafacefiltrationmount
AT burchreuben preliminaryevaluationoffiltrationefficiencyanddifferentialpressureastmf3502testingmethodsofnonmedicalmasksusingafacefiltrationmount
AT strawdermanlesley preliminaryevaluationoffiltrationefficiencyanddifferentialpressureastmf3502testingmethodsofnonmedicalmasksusingafacefiltrationmount
AT blackcatherine preliminaryevaluationoffiltrationefficiencyanddifferentialpressureastmf3502testingmethodsofnonmedicalmasksusingafacefiltrationmount
AT saucierdavid preliminaryevaluationoffiltrationefficiencyanddifferentialpressureastmf3502testingmethodsofnonmedicalmasksusingafacefiltrationmount
AT rickertjaime preliminaryevaluationoffiltrationefficiencyanddifferentialpressureastmf3502testingmethodsofnonmedicalmasksusingafacefiltrationmount
AT wilsonjohn preliminaryevaluationoffiltrationefficiencyanddifferentialpressureastmf3502testingmethodsofnonmedicalmasksusingafacefiltrationmount
AT bealorsarahashley preliminaryevaluationoffiltrationefficiencyanddifferentialpressureastmf3502testingmethodsofnonmedicalmasksusingafacefiltrationmount
AT ratledgemadison preliminaryevaluationoffiltrationefficiencyanddifferentialpressureastmf3502testingmethodsofnonmedicalmasksusingafacefiltrationmount
AT favasydney preliminaryevaluationoffiltrationefficiencyanddifferentialpressureastmf3502testingmethodsofnonmedicalmasksusingafacefiltrationmount
AT smithbrian preliminaryevaluationoffiltrationefficiencyanddifferentialpressureastmf3502testingmethodsofnonmedicalmasksusingafacefiltrationmount
AT waggonercharlie preliminaryevaluationoffiltrationefficiencyanddifferentialpressureastmf3502testingmethodsofnonmedicalmasksusingafacefiltrationmount
AT taylorcourtney preliminaryevaluationoffiltrationefficiencyanddifferentialpressureastmf3502testingmethodsofnonmedicalmasksusingafacefiltrationmount
AT nicholsabigail preliminaryevaluationoffiltrationefficiencyanddifferentialpressureastmf3502testingmethodsofnonmedicalmasksusingafacefiltrationmount
AT skaggsgregory preliminaryevaluationoffiltrationefficiencyanddifferentialpressureastmf3502testingmethodsofnonmedicalmasksusingafacefiltrationmount
AT callansthomas preliminaryevaluationoffiltrationefficiencyanddifferentialpressureastmf3502testingmethodsofnonmedicalmasksusingafacefiltrationmount