Abstract
Introduction There is a growing body of evidence to support the wearing of face masks to reduce spread of infectious respiratory pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2. However, the literature exploring the effectiveness of homemade fabric face masks is still in its infancy. Developing an evidence base is an important step to ensure that public policy is evidence based and truly effective.
Methods Two methodologies were used in this study: quantitative fit testing of various face masks to indicate their effectiveness and a survey of 710 US residents about their perceptions of face mask effectiveness. N95, surgical and two fabric face masks were tested on an individual twenty five times each using a TSI 8038+ machine. Our survey was distributed by Qualtrics XM, asking participants to estimate the effectiveness of N95, surgical and fabric face masks.
Results and Discussion Our results indicate that fabric face masks blocked between 62.6% and 87.1% of fine particles, whereas surgical masks protected against an average of 78.2% of fine particles. N95 masks blocked 99.6% of fine particles. Survey respondents tended to underestimate the effectiveness of masks, especially fabric masks. Together these results suggest that fabric masks may be a useful tool in the battle against the COVID-19 pandemic and that increasing public awareness of the effectiveness of fabric masks may help in this endeavour.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding was received.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Study was approved by the Cambridge University Department of Engineering Ethics Comittee.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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
Author details: Eugenia O’Kelly, BA (Hon): Email: eo339{at}cam.ac.uk, Anmol Arora, BA (Hons): Email: aa957{at}cam.ac.uk, James Ward, PhD: Email: jrw38{at}cam.ac.uk, P John Clarkson, ScD: Email: pjc10{at}cam.ac.uk
Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflicts of interest: None
Data Availability
All relevant data are contained within the article.
