Comparing the fit of N95, KN95, surgical, and cloth face masks and assessing the accuracy of fit checking.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
16
08
2020
accepted:
05
01
2021
entrez:
22
1
2021
pubmed:
23
1
2021
medline:
3
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The COVID-19 pandemic has made well-fitting face masks a critical piece of protective equipment for healthcare workers and civilians. While the importance of wearing face masks has been acknowledged, there remains a lack of understanding about the role of good fit in rendering protective equipment useful. In addition, supply chain constraints have caused some organizations to abandon traditional quantitative or/and qualitative fit testing, and instead, have implemented subjective fit checking. Our study seeks to quantitatively evaluate the level of fit offered by various types of masks, and most importantly, assess the accuracy of implementing fit checks by comparing fit check results to quantitative fit testing results. Seven participants first evaluated N95 and KN95 respirators by performing a fit check. Participants then underwent quantitative fit testing wearing five N95 respirators, a KN95 respirator, a surgical mask, and fabric masks. N95 respirators offered higher degrees of protection than the other categories of masks tested; however, it should be noted that most N95 respirators failed to fit the participants adequately. Fit check responses had poor correlation with quantitative fit factor scores. KN95, surgical, and fabric masks achieved low fit factor scores, with little protective difference recorded between respiratory protection options. In addition, small facial differences were observed to have a significant impact on quantitative fit. Fit is critical to the level of protection offered by respirators. For an N95 respirator to provide the promised protection, it must fit the participant. Performing a fit check via NHS self-assessment guidelines was an unreliable way of determining fit.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33481870
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245688
pii: PONE-D-20-25645
pmc: PMC7822328
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0245688Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Am J Infect Control. 2008 May;36(4):276-82
pubmed: 18455048
Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2011 May;5(3):170-9
pubmed: 21477136
J Hosp Infect. 2011 Mar;77(3):252-6
pubmed: 21236516
Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1983 Feb;44(2):78-87
pubmed: 6837444
Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1983 Oct;44(10):720-6
pubmed: 6650392
Lancet Respir Med. 2017 Jul;5(7):555-556
pubmed: 28664860
Ann Occup Hyg. 2011 Apr;55(3):264-71
pubmed: 21177265