Criticism of Workplace Protection Barrier Face Covering Article Mischaracterizes ASTM Standard and its Potential Utility

Editor's Note: This is a response to “Why a Workplace Barrier Face Covering is a Bad Idea” by Mark Nicas. DOI: 10.1177/10482911231193771 A commentary mischaracterizes the paper “Barrier Face Coverings for Workers.” The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Barrier Face Covering (BFC) F3502-21 standard established performance criteria for face coverings as source control. While the standard states that BFCs may offer some personal protection, this was never its primary goal. We described a proposal for BFCs to be worn in low-risk (nonhealth care) workplaces for the purpose of source control, not respiratory protection. We did not recommend BFCs as respiratory protection for any worker in any workplace. A BFC is not “another term for a cloth mask”; many higher performing products are based on nonwoven high-efficiency filter media. Our “time to infectious dose” table was included to illustrate the impact of different degrees of inward and outward leakage, not to describe a dose-response relationship, which includes time and airborne particle concentration.