Summary
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cloth masks are being used to control the spread of virus, but the efficacy of these loose-fitting masks is not well known. Here, tools and methods typically used to assess tight-fitting respirators were modified to quantify the efficacy of community- and commercially-produced fabric masks as PPE. Two particle counters concurrently sample ambient air and air inside the masks; mask performance is evaluated by mean particle removal efficiency and statistical variability when worn as designed and with a nylon overlayer, to independently assess fit and material. Worn as designed both commercial surgical masks and cloth masks had widely varying effectiveness (53-75% and 28-90% filtration efficiency, respectively). Most surgical-style masks improved with the nylon overlayer, indicating poor fit. This rapid testing method uses widely available hardware, requires only a few calculations from collected data, and provides both a holistic and aspect-wise evaluation of mask performance.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding was received for the this work.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Conceptualization, L. A. F. and A. V. M; Methodology, L. A. F. and A. V. M; Formal Analysis, A. V. M. and C. B.; Investigation, L. A. F., A. V. M., M. J. E., J. M. O., and C. B., Writing – Original Draft, L. A. F. and A. V. M.; Writing – Review & Editing, A. V. M., C. B., and L. A. F.
Data Availability
Data referred to in this manuscript is available upon request from the authors.
