Abstract
In response to the critical shortage of medical masks resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, large portions of the population are mobilizing to produce cloth masks using locally-sourced fabrics, however the efficacy of these masks as a means of protecting the wearer from airborne particles carrying virus is not well known. Further, existing protocols are designed for testing the fit and performance N95 respirators and tight-fitting facemasks rather than the relatively more loose-fitting surgical mask style most cloth masks follow. In this study tools and methods typically used to assess tight-fitting facemasks were modified to assess the efficacy of community-produced fabric and commercially-produced surgical masks in terms of protecting the wearer from airborne particles that may be carrying virus. Two TSI PortaCount (model 8028) instruments were operated concurrently to collect particle counts (particles/cm3) in size range 0.02 to >1 µm from ambient air and air just inside the breathing zone of the mask (1 measurement per second, evaluation period of 1 minute per test). Percent particle removal was determined for ten home-made, fabric masks of different designs, with and without filter layers, as well as three commercially-produced surgical-type masks. N95 masks were used to validate the method, and a 3M model 1826 surgical mask was used as a baseline for comparison of other masks of this style. Home-made masks worn as designed always had lower particle removal rates than the 3M masks, achieving between 38% and 96% of this baseline. As has been previously observed by Cooper et al. (1983), adding a layer of nylon stocking over the masks minimized the flow of air around the edges of the masks and improved particle filtration efficiency for all masks, including all commercial products tested. Use of a nylon stocking overlayer brought the particle filtration efficiency for five of the ten fabric masks above the 3M surgical mask baseline. This rapid testing method (<2 hours per mask design) provides a holistic evaluation of mask particle removal efficacy (material, design, and fit), and use of this method for testing a wider range of mask materials and designs will provide the public and health care providers with information needed to optimize health protection given resources at hand.
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
Data Availability
Data referred to in this manuscript is available upon request from the authors.
