Cargando…

Comparative Mask Protection against Inhaling Wildfire Smoke, Allergenic Bioaerosols, and Infectious Particles

This work compares relative mask inhalation protection against a range of airborne particle sizes that the general public may encounter, including infectious particles, wildfire smoke and ash, and allergenic fungal and plant particles. Several mask types available to the public were modeled with res...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wagner, Jeff, Macher, Janet M., Chen, Wenhao, Kumagai, Kazukiyo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9735667/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36497628
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192315555
_version_ 1784846827043946496
author Wagner, Jeff
Macher, Janet M.
Chen, Wenhao
Kumagai, Kazukiyo
author_facet Wagner, Jeff
Macher, Janet M.
Chen, Wenhao
Kumagai, Kazukiyo
author_sort Wagner, Jeff
collection PubMed
description This work compares relative mask inhalation protection against a range of airborne particle sizes that the general public may encounter, including infectious particles, wildfire smoke and ash, and allergenic fungal and plant particles. Several mask types available to the public were modeled with respirable fraction deposition. Best-case collection efficiencies for cloth, surgical, and respirator masks were predicted to be lowest (0.3, 0.6, and 0.8, respectively) for particle types with dominant sub-micrometer modes (wildfire smoke and human-emitted bronchial particles). Conversely, all mask types were predicted to achieve good collection efficiency (up to ~1.0) for the largest-sized particle types, including pollen grains, some fungal spores, and wildfire ash. Polydisperse infectious particles were predicted to be captured by masks with efficiencies of 0.3–1.0 depending on the pathogen size distribution and the type of mask used. Viruses aerosolized orally are predicted to be captured efficiently by all mask types, while those aerosolized from bronchiolar or laryngeal-tracheal sites are captured with much lower efficiency by surgical and cloth masks. The predicted efficiencies changed very little when extrathoracic deposition was included (inhalable rather than respirable fraction) or when very large (100 µm) particles were neglected. Actual mask fit and usage will determine protection levels in practice, but the relative comparisons in this work can inform mask guidance for different inhalation hazards, including particles generated by yard work, wildfires, and infections.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9735667
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97356672022-12-11 Comparative Mask Protection against Inhaling Wildfire Smoke, Allergenic Bioaerosols, and Infectious Particles Wagner, Jeff Macher, Janet M. Chen, Wenhao Kumagai, Kazukiyo Int J Environ Res Public Health Article This work compares relative mask inhalation protection against a range of airborne particle sizes that the general public may encounter, including infectious particles, wildfire smoke and ash, and allergenic fungal and plant particles. Several mask types available to the public were modeled with respirable fraction deposition. Best-case collection efficiencies for cloth, surgical, and respirator masks were predicted to be lowest (0.3, 0.6, and 0.8, respectively) for particle types with dominant sub-micrometer modes (wildfire smoke and human-emitted bronchial particles). Conversely, all mask types were predicted to achieve good collection efficiency (up to ~1.0) for the largest-sized particle types, including pollen grains, some fungal spores, and wildfire ash. Polydisperse infectious particles were predicted to be captured by masks with efficiencies of 0.3–1.0 depending on the pathogen size distribution and the type of mask used. Viruses aerosolized orally are predicted to be captured efficiently by all mask types, while those aerosolized from bronchiolar or laryngeal-tracheal sites are captured with much lower efficiency by surgical and cloth masks. The predicted efficiencies changed very little when extrathoracic deposition was included (inhalable rather than respirable fraction) or when very large (100 µm) particles were neglected. Actual mask fit and usage will determine protection levels in practice, but the relative comparisons in this work can inform mask guidance for different inhalation hazards, including particles generated by yard work, wildfires, and infections. MDPI 2022-11-23 /pmc/articles/PMC9735667/ /pubmed/36497628 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192315555 Text en © 2022 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
Wagner, Jeff
Macher, Janet M.
Chen, Wenhao
Kumagai, Kazukiyo
Comparative Mask Protection against Inhaling Wildfire Smoke, Allergenic Bioaerosols, and Infectious Particles
title Comparative Mask Protection against Inhaling Wildfire Smoke, Allergenic Bioaerosols, and Infectious Particles
title_full Comparative Mask Protection against Inhaling Wildfire Smoke, Allergenic Bioaerosols, and Infectious Particles
title_fullStr Comparative Mask Protection against Inhaling Wildfire Smoke, Allergenic Bioaerosols, and Infectious Particles
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Mask Protection against Inhaling Wildfire Smoke, Allergenic Bioaerosols, and Infectious Particles
title_short Comparative Mask Protection against Inhaling Wildfire Smoke, Allergenic Bioaerosols, and Infectious Particles
title_sort comparative mask protection against inhaling wildfire smoke, allergenic bioaerosols, and infectious particles
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9735667/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36497628
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192315555
work_keys_str_mv AT wagnerjeff comparativemaskprotectionagainstinhalingwildfiresmokeallergenicbioaerosolsandinfectiousparticles
AT macherjanetm comparativemaskprotectionagainstinhalingwildfiresmokeallergenicbioaerosolsandinfectiousparticles
AT chenwenhao comparativemaskprotectionagainstinhalingwildfiresmokeallergenicbioaerosolsandinfectiousparticles
AT kumagaikazukiyo comparativemaskprotectionagainstinhalingwildfiresmokeallergenicbioaerosolsandinfectiousparticles