Protective Masks Utilizing Nonendangered Components.

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic when traditional N95 respirators were in short supply in the United States, there was a need for alternative products that did not rely on traditional avenues of sourcing and manufacturing. The purpose of this research was to develop and test alternatives to N95 respirators that could be produced locally without specialized materials and processes. Through an interdisciplinary team of experts, new mask designs that use repurposed filtration media and commercially available components were developed and tested for filtration and fit against current N95 standards. Filtration efficiency test results showed that the filtration media can be used for high-quality facemasks and quantitative fit testing demonstrated that the new mask designs could be viable alternatives to traditional N95 facemasks when those masks are in short supply. Manufacturing viability was tested utilizing a workforce to create 6000 masks over 10 days. The ability to quickly produce masks at scale using a workforce without specialized skills demonstrated the feasibility of the mask designs and manufacturing approach to address shortages of critical healthcare equipment, mitigate risk for healthcare and essential workers, and minimize the transmission and spread of disease.

Design considerations for protective mask development: A remote mask usability evaluation.

The design of N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) continues to pose usability concerns for healthcare workers, which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to develop a holistic model to guide mask design improvement. Dental students (n = 38) with experience wearing N95 FFRs participated in a randomized wear trial of three alternative protective masks. A mixed methods survey was used to examine usability of individual mask design components, the relationship of facial/head area to mask features, and overall mask design. Survey results indicated MNmask v1 demonstrated higher usability in seal confidence (M = 3.46), while MNmask v2 performed higher in satisfactory fit (M = 3.50). Design components of nose wire and head/neck bands were the most problematic, while conditions of skin irritation and tight/loose fit created an unfavorable wear experience. To consider healthcare workers' needs in improving the usability of protective masks, a model is presented to consider characteristics of fit, comfort, material, and design.