Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Comparing the fit of N95, KN95, surgical, and cloth face masks and assessing the accuracy of fit checking.
O'Kelly, Eugenia; Arora, Anmol; Pirog, Sophia; Ward, James; Clarkson, P John.
  • O'Kelly E; Cambridge University, San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
  • Arora A; Cambridge University, San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
  • Pirog S; Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States of America.
  • Ward J; Cambridge University, San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
  • Clarkson PJ; Cambridge University, San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
PLoS One ; 16(1): e0245688, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1043475
Preprint
This scientific journal article is probably based on a previously available preprint. It has been identified through a machine matching algorithm, human confirmation is still pending.
See preprint
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

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.

METHODS:

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.

RESULTS:

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.

CONCLUSION:

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.
Subject(s)

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Textiles / N95 Respirators / COVID-19 / Masks Type of study: Experimental Studies / Prognostic study / Qualitative research Limits: Adolescent / Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged / Young adult Language: English Journal: PLoS One Journal subject: Science / Medicine Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Journal.pone.0245688

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Textiles / N95 Respirators / COVID-19 / Masks Type of study: Experimental Studies / Prognostic study / Qualitative research Limits: Adolescent / Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged / Young adult Language: English Journal: PLoS One Journal subject: Science / Medicine Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Journal.pone.0245688