Comparing the fit of N95, KN95, surgical, and cloth face masks and assessing the accuracy of fit checking
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 u...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2021-01, Vol.16 (1), p.e0245688 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | e0245688 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 16 |
creator | O'Kelly, Eugenia Arora, Anmol Pirog, Sophia Ward, James Clarkson, P John |
description | 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.
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.
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.
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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0245688 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2479993163</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A649336081</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_c4f386760adb4845818182f98f34e95c</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A649336081</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c758t-ae0d6911a64164b64e8e6a550ff898857447868c2e3701caf1e1a8f2992996933</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkm1r2zAUhc1YWbtu_2BshsFg0GSSJcvSl0EJewktK-ztq7iRJVupbaWSPdZ_PyVxSgwbDAtLXD33SDqcJHmB0RyTAr9bu8F30Mw3rtNzlNGccf4oOcOCZDOWIfL4aH2aPA1hjVBOOGNPklNCKMe8QGeJXbh2A952VdrXOjW2T51Jv4j8Ir3a_cPgK6uguUihK1PVuL5ODSidthBuw64IIegQDhKg1OBB3W91tnKq1uo2bj5LTgw0QT8f5_Pkx8cP3xefZ9c3n5aLy-uZKnLez0CjkgmMgVHM6IpRzTWDPEfGcMF5XlBacMZVpkmBsAKDNQZuMiHiYIKQ8-TVXnfTuCBHl4LMaCGEIJhtieWeKB2s5cbbFvy9dGDlruB8JcH3VjVaKmqiZQVDUK4op3l0DfPMCG4I1SJXUev9eNqwanWpdNd7aCai053O1rJyv2TBs4xkPAq8HgW8uxt06P9x5ZGqIN7KdsZFMdXaoOQlo_HVDHEcqflfqPiVurUq5sTYWJ80vJ00RKbXv_sKhhDk8tvX_2dvfk7ZN0dsraHp6-CaobeuC1OQ7kHlXQhemwfnMJLbmB_ckNuYyzHmse3lsesPTYdckz-omfSo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2479993163</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparing the fit of N95, KN95, surgical, and cloth face masks and assessing the accuracy of fit checking</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>O'Kelly, Eugenia ; Arora, Anmol ; Pirog, Sophia ; Ward, James ; Clarkson, P John</creator><contributor>Mukherjee, Amitava</contributor><creatorcontrib>O'Kelly, Eugenia ; Arora, Anmol ; Pirog, Sophia ; Ward, James ; Clarkson, P John ; Mukherjee, Amitava</creatorcontrib><description>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.
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.
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.
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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245688</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33481870</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Cloth ; Consent ; Coronaviruses ; COVID-19 ; COVID-19 - prevention & control ; COVID-19 - virology ; Data analysis ; Disease control ; Editing ; Engineering and Technology ; Face ; Female ; Guidelines ; Health care facilities ; Health facilities ; Humans ; Infection control ; Male ; Manufacturers ; Masks ; Masks - standards ; Masks - virology ; Medical research ; Medical supplies ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Methods ; Middle Aged ; N95 Respirators - standards ; N95 Respirators - virology ; Occupational Exposure - prevention & control ; Occupational health ; Occupational safety ; Pandemics ; Protective equipment ; Public health ; Respirators ; SARS-CoV-2 - isolation & purification ; Self evaluation ; Textiles - virology ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2021-01, Vol.16 (1), p.e0245688</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2021 O’Kelly et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2021 O’Kelly et al 2021 O’Kelly et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c758t-ae0d6911a64164b64e8e6a550ff898857447868c2e3701caf1e1a8f2992996933</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c758t-ae0d6911a64164b64e8e6a550ff898857447868c2e3701caf1e1a8f2992996933</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8018-7706 ; 0000-0003-4881-8293 ; 0000-0002-0362-4711 ; 0000-0002-4748-3957</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7822328/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7822328/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2095,2914,23846,27903,27904,53769,53771,79346,79347</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33481870$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Mukherjee, Amitava</contributor><creatorcontrib>O'Kelly, Eugenia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arora, Anmol</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pirog, Sophia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ward, James</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clarkson, P John</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing the fit of N95, KN95, surgical, and cloth face masks and assessing the accuracy of fit checking</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>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.
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.
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.
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.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Cloth</subject><subject>Consent</subject><subject>Coronaviruses</subject><subject>COVID-19</subject><subject>COVID-19 - prevention & control</subject><subject>COVID-19 - virology</subject><subject>Data analysis</subject><subject>Disease control</subject><subject>Editing</subject><subject>Engineering and Technology</subject><subject>Face</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Guidelines</subject><subject>Health care facilities</subject><subject>Health facilities</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infection control</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Manufacturers</subject><subject>Masks</subject><subject>Masks - standards</subject><subject>Masks - virology</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medical supplies</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>N95 Respirators - standards</subject><subject>N95 Respirators - virology</subject><subject>Occupational Exposure - prevention & control</subject><subject>Occupational health</subject><subject>Occupational safety</subject><subject>Pandemics</subject><subject>Protective equipment</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Respirators</subject><subject>SARS-CoV-2 - isolation & purification</subject><subject>Self evaluation</subject><subject>Textiles - virology</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkm1r2zAUhc1YWbtu_2BshsFg0GSSJcvSl0EJewktK-ztq7iRJVupbaWSPdZ_PyVxSgwbDAtLXD33SDqcJHmB0RyTAr9bu8F30Mw3rtNzlNGccf4oOcOCZDOWIfL4aH2aPA1hjVBOOGNPklNCKMe8QGeJXbh2A952VdrXOjW2T51Jv4j8Ir3a_cPgK6uguUihK1PVuL5ODSidthBuw64IIegQDhKg1OBB3W91tnKq1uo2bj5LTgw0QT8f5_Pkx8cP3xefZ9c3n5aLy-uZKnLez0CjkgmMgVHM6IpRzTWDPEfGcMF5XlBacMZVpkmBsAKDNQZuMiHiYIKQ8-TVXnfTuCBHl4LMaCGEIJhtieWeKB2s5cbbFvy9dGDlruB8JcH3VjVaKmqiZQVDUK4op3l0DfPMCG4I1SJXUev9eNqwanWpdNd7aCai053O1rJyv2TBs4xkPAq8HgW8uxt06P9x5ZGqIN7KdsZFMdXaoOQlo_HVDHEcqflfqPiVurUq5sTYWJ80vJ00RKbXv_sKhhDk8tvX_2dvfk7ZN0dsraHp6-CaobeuC1OQ7kHlXQhemwfnMJLbmB_ckNuYyzHmse3lsesPTYdckz-omfSo</recordid><startdate>20210122</startdate><enddate>20210122</enddate><creator>O'Kelly, Eugenia</creator><creator>Arora, Anmol</creator><creator>Pirog, Sophia</creator><creator>Ward, James</creator><creator>Clarkson, P John</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>COVID</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8018-7706</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4881-8293</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0362-4711</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4748-3957</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210122</creationdate><title>Comparing the fit of N95, KN95, surgical, and cloth face masks and assessing the accuracy of fit checking</title><author>O'Kelly, Eugenia ; Arora, Anmol ; Pirog, Sophia ; Ward, James ; Clarkson, P John</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c758t-ae0d6911a64164b64e8e6a550ff898857447868c2e3701caf1e1a8f2992996933</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Cloth</topic><topic>Consent</topic><topic>Coronaviruses</topic><topic>COVID-19</topic><topic>COVID-19 - prevention & control</topic><topic>COVID-19 - virology</topic><topic>Data analysis</topic><topic>Disease control</topic><topic>Editing</topic><topic>Engineering and Technology</topic><topic>Face</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Guidelines</topic><topic>Health care facilities</topic><topic>Health facilities</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infection control</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Manufacturers</topic><topic>Masks</topic><topic>Masks - standards</topic><topic>Masks - virology</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medical supplies</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>N95 Respirators - standards</topic><topic>N95 Respirators - virology</topic><topic>Occupational Exposure - prevention & control</topic><topic>Occupational health</topic><topic>Occupational safety</topic><topic>Pandemics</topic><topic>Protective equipment</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Respirators</topic><topic>SARS-CoV-2 - isolation & purification</topic><topic>Self evaluation</topic><topic>Textiles - virology</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>O'Kelly, Eugenia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arora, Anmol</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pirog, Sophia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ward, James</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clarkson, P John</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Coronavirus Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest advanced technologies & aerospace journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials science collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>O'Kelly, Eugenia</au><au>Arora, Anmol</au><au>Pirog, Sophia</au><au>Ward, James</au><au>Clarkson, P John</au><au>Mukherjee, Amitava</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparing the fit of N95, KN95, surgical, and cloth face masks and assessing the accuracy of fit checking</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2021-01-22</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>e0245688</spage><pages>e0245688-</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>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.
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.
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.
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.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>33481870</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0245688</doi><tpages>e0245688</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8018-7706</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4881-8293</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0362-4711</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4748-3957</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2021-01, Vol.16 (1), p.e0245688 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2479993163 |
source | MEDLINE; Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; EZB Electronic Journals Library |
subjects | Adolescent Adult Aged Biology and Life Sciences Cloth Consent Coronaviruses COVID-19 COVID-19 - prevention & control COVID-19 - virology Data analysis Disease control Editing Engineering and Technology Face Female Guidelines Health care facilities Health facilities Humans Infection control Male Manufacturers Masks Masks - standards Masks - virology Medical research Medical supplies Medicine and Health Sciences Methods Middle Aged N95 Respirators - standards N95 Respirators - virology Occupational Exposure - prevention & control Occupational health Occupational safety Pandemics Protective equipment Public health Respirators SARS-CoV-2 - isolation & purification Self evaluation Textiles - virology Young Adult |
title | Comparing the fit of N95, KN95, surgical, and cloth face masks and assessing the accuracy of fit checking |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T17%3A31%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparing%20the%20fit%20of%20N95,%20KN95,%20surgical,%20and%20cloth%20face%20masks%20and%20assessing%20the%20accuracy%20of%20fit%20checking&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=O'Kelly,%20Eugenia&rft.date=2021-01-22&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=e0245688&rft.pages=e0245688-&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0245688&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA649336081%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2479993163&rft_id=info:pmid/33481870&rft_galeid=A649336081&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_c4f386760adb4845818182f98f34e95c&rfr_iscdi=true |