Effects of a taped filter mask on peak power, perceived breathlessness, heart rate, blood lactate and oxygen saturation during a graded exercise test in young healthy adults: a randomized controlled trial.
COVID-19
Exercise test
Masks
SARS-CoV-2
Journal
BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation
ISSN: 2052-1847
Titre abrégé: BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101605016
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Feb 2022
07 Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
24
06
2021
accepted:
27
01
2022
entrez:
8
2
2022
pubmed:
9
2
2022
medline:
9
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Face masks are an effective, non-pharmacological strategy to reduce the transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 and other pathogens. However, it is a challenge to keep masks sealed during exercise, as ventilation can increase from 5 to 10 L/min at rest to up to 200 L/min so that masks may be blown away from the face. To reduce leakage e.g. during exercise, a face mask was developed that is taped onto the face. The aim of this study was to investigate during a graded exercise test the effect of a taped filter mask on the perception of breathlessness, heart rate, blood lactate concentration, and oxygen saturation when compared to a surgical mask and no mask. Eight healthy trained participants (4 females), aged 24.5 ± 3.3 years performed graded exercise test until volitional exhaustion under three conditions: (1) No mask/control, (2) surgical mask or (3) taped filter mask. During these tests, we measured perception of breathlessness, heart rate, blood lactate concentration and peripheral oxygen saturation and analysed the resultant data with one or two-way repeated measures ANOVAs. We also used a questionnaire to evaluate mask comfort and analysed the data with paired t-tests. When compared to wearing no mask, maximal workload was significantly reduced with a taped filter face mask by 12 ± 6% (p < 0.001) and with a surgical mask by 3 ± 6% (p > 0.05). Moreover, subjects perceive the sensation of "severe breathlessness" at a 12 ± 9% lower workload (p = 0.012) with a taped face mask, and 7 ± 13% lower workload with a surgical mask (p > 0.05) when compared to wearing no mask. Oxygen saturation at 65% of the maximal workload is 1.5% lower (p = 0.018) with a taped mask than no mask. Heart rate and blood lactate concentration are not significantly different in-between no mask, surgical mask and taped mask at any workload. When compared to wearing a surgical mask, wearing a taped filter face mask has a significantly better wearing comfort (p = 0.038), feels better on the skin (p = 0.004), there is a lower sensation of moisture (p = 0.026) and wearers perceive that less heat is generated (p = 0.021). We found no sex/gender differences for any of the measured parameters. A taped mask is well tolerated during light and moderate exercise intensity but reduces maximal exercise capacity.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Face masks are an effective, non-pharmacological strategy to reduce the transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 and other pathogens. However, it is a challenge to keep masks sealed during exercise, as ventilation can increase from 5 to 10 L/min at rest to up to 200 L/min so that masks may be blown away from the face. To reduce leakage e.g. during exercise, a face mask was developed that is taped onto the face. The aim of this study was to investigate during a graded exercise test the effect of a taped filter mask on the perception of breathlessness, heart rate, blood lactate concentration, and oxygen saturation when compared to a surgical mask and no mask.
METHODS
METHODS
Eight healthy trained participants (4 females), aged 24.5 ± 3.3 years performed graded exercise test until volitional exhaustion under three conditions: (1) No mask/control, (2) surgical mask or (3) taped filter mask. During these tests, we measured perception of breathlessness, heart rate, blood lactate concentration and peripheral oxygen saturation and analysed the resultant data with one or two-way repeated measures ANOVAs. We also used a questionnaire to evaluate mask comfort and analysed the data with paired t-tests.
RESULTS
RESULTS
When compared to wearing no mask, maximal workload was significantly reduced with a taped filter face mask by 12 ± 6% (p < 0.001) and with a surgical mask by 3 ± 6% (p > 0.05). Moreover, subjects perceive the sensation of "severe breathlessness" at a 12 ± 9% lower workload (p = 0.012) with a taped face mask, and 7 ± 13% lower workload with a surgical mask (p > 0.05) when compared to wearing no mask. Oxygen saturation at 65% of the maximal workload is 1.5% lower (p = 0.018) with a taped mask than no mask. Heart rate and blood lactate concentration are not significantly different in-between no mask, surgical mask and taped mask at any workload. When compared to wearing a surgical mask, wearing a taped filter face mask has a significantly better wearing comfort (p = 0.038), feels better on the skin (p = 0.004), there is a lower sensation of moisture (p = 0.026) and wearers perceive that less heat is generated (p = 0.021). We found no sex/gender differences for any of the measured parameters.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
A taped mask is well tolerated during light and moderate exercise intensity but reduces maximal exercise capacity.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35130956
doi: 10.1186/s13102-022-00410-8
pii: 10.1186/s13102-022-00410-8
pmc: PMC8819930
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
19Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Clin Res Cardiol. 2020 Dec;109(12):1522-1530
pubmed: 32632523
PLoS One. 2014 Nov 26;9(11):e113884
pubmed: 25426954
Transp Res Interdiscip Perspect. 2020 Nov;8:100255
pubmed: 34173481
BMJ Glob Health. 2020 May;5(5):
pubmed: 32467353
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2021 Jan;31(1):70-75
pubmed: 32969531
Asia Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol. 2020 Jul 28;22:39-44
pubmed: 32821648
Phys Fluids (1994). 2020 Jun 1;32(6):063303
pubmed: 32574231
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2014 Sep;9(5):825-31
pubmed: 24436355
N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 16;382(16):1564-1567
pubmed: 32182409
Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2021 Mar;18(3):399-407
pubmed: 33196294
Multidiscip Respir Med. 2014 Apr 02;9(1):20
pubmed: 24694313
J Appl Physiol Respir Environ Exerc Physiol. 1983 Aug;55(2):440-6
pubmed: 6618937
Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Nov;26(11):2607-2616
pubmed: 32931726
Indian J Orthop. 2020 May 7;54(3):231-232
pubmed: 32391129
J Athl Train. 2021 Nov 18;:
pubmed: 34793596
Clin Chem. 2010 Jul;56(7):1080-5
pubmed: 20511448
Intern Med J. 2011 May;41(5):416-22
pubmed: 20059599
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2005 Jul;78(6):501-9
pubmed: 15918037
J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2021 Jan 1;41(1):1-5
pubmed: 33351538
JAMA. 2020 Dec 8;324(22):2323-2324
pubmed: 33125030
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Nov 03;17(21):
pubmed: 33153145
Nat Med. 2020 May;26(5):676-680
pubmed: 32371934
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018 Oct;50(10):1992-1997
pubmed: 29771822
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Jan 26;118(4):
pubmed: 33431650
Sci Rep. 2020 Dec 21;10(1):22363
pubmed: 33349641
Phys Sportsmed. 2021 May 10;:1-12
pubmed: 33902400
Rev Port Pneumol (2006). 2015 Jul-Aug;21(4):192-7
pubmed: 25926244
Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):497-506
pubmed: 31986264
J Infect Dis. 2020 Apr 16;:
pubmed: 32301491
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Sep 12;17(18):
pubmed: 32932652
Lancet. 2020 Jun 27;395(10242):1973-1987
pubmed: 32497510
Med Devices (Auckl). 2014 Jul 08;7:231-9
pubmed: 25031547