Comparative Performance Testing of Respirator versus Surgical Mask Using a Water Droplet Spray Model.
Aerosols
/ adverse effects
COVID-19
/ prevention & control
Humans
Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional
/ prevention & control
Masks
/ standards
Occupational Exposure
/ prevention & control
Personal Protective Equipment
/ standards
Respiratory Protective Devices
/ standards
SARS-CoV-2
Ventilators, Mechanical
Water
COVID-19 pandemic
aerosols
particle size distribution
respiratory protective equipment
virus transmission
Journal
International journal of environmental research and public health
ISSN: 1660-4601
Titre abrégé: Int J Environ Res Public Health
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101238455
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 02 2021
08 02 2021
Historique:
received:
11
01
2021
revised:
31
01
2021
accepted:
04
02
2021
entrez:
11
2
2021
pubmed:
12
2
2021
medline:
18
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, there was shortage of the standard respiratory protective equipment (RPE). The aim of this study was to develop a procedure to test the performance of alternative RPEs used in the care of COVID-19 patients. A laboratory-based test was developed to compare RPEs by total inward leakage (TIL). We used a crossflow nebulizer to produce a jet spray of 1-100 µm water droplets with a fluorescent marker. The RPEs were placed on a dummy head and sprayed at distances of 30 and 60 cm. The outcome was determined as the recovery of the fluorescent marker on a membrane filter placed on the mouth of the dummy head. At 30 cm, a type IIR surgical mask gave a 17.7% lower TIL compared with an FFP2 respirator. At 60 cm, this difference was similar, with a 21.7% lower TIL for the surgical mask compared to the respirator. When adding a face shield, the TIL at 30 cm was further reduced by 9.5% for the respirator and 16.6% in the case of the surgical mask. A safe, fast and very sensitive test method was developed to assess the effectiveness of RPE by comparison under controlled conditions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, there was shortage of the standard respiratory protective equipment (RPE). The aim of this study was to develop a procedure to test the performance of alternative RPEs used in the care of COVID-19 patients.
METHODS
A laboratory-based test was developed to compare RPEs by total inward leakage (TIL). We used a crossflow nebulizer to produce a jet spray of 1-100 µm water droplets with a fluorescent marker. The RPEs were placed on a dummy head and sprayed at distances of 30 and 60 cm. The outcome was determined as the recovery of the fluorescent marker on a membrane filter placed on the mouth of the dummy head.
RESULTS
At 30 cm, a type IIR surgical mask gave a 17.7% lower TIL compared with an FFP2 respirator. At 60 cm, this difference was similar, with a 21.7% lower TIL for the surgical mask compared to the respirator. When adding a face shield, the TIL at 30 cm was further reduced by 9.5% for the respirator and 16.6% in the case of the surgical mask.
CONCLUSIONS
A safe, fast and very sensitive test method was developed to assess the effectiveness of RPE by comparison under controlled conditions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33567665
pii: ijerph18041599
doi: 10.3390/ijerph18041599
pmc: PMC7915861
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Aerosols
0
Water
059QF0KO0R
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Références
Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Jul;26(7):1583-1591
pubmed: 32275497
J Aerosol Sci. 2021 Feb;152:105693
pubmed: 33078030
Environ Res. 2019 Nov;178:108728
pubmed: 31520834
Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2020 Jul;14(4):365-373
pubmed: 32246890
J Evid Based Med. 2020 May;13(2):93-101
pubmed: 32167245
Nature. 2020 Apr;580(7802):175
pubmed: 32242113
N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 16;382(16):1564-1567
pubmed: 32182409
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2020 Sep 9;9(1):151
pubmed: 32900385
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Aug 28;:
pubmed: 32857833
Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Sep;26(9):
pubmed: 32568661