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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |