Abstract
Objective With much of the public around the world depending on fabric face masks to protect themselves and others, it is essential to understand how the protective ability of fabric masks can be enhanced. This study evaluated the protection offered by eighteen fabric masks designs. In addition, it assessed the benefit of including three design features: insert filters, surgical mask underlayers, and nose wires.
Methods Quantitative fit tests were conducted on different masks and with some additional design features. An array of fabric masks were tested on a single participant to account for variability in face shapes. The effects of insert filters, surgical mask underlayers and nose wires were also assessed.
Results As expected, the fabric masks offered low degrees of protection; however, alterations in design showed significant increase in their protective ability. The most effective designs were multi-layered masks that fit tightly to the face and lacked dead space between the user and mask. Also, low air-resistance insert filters and surgical mask underlays provided the greatest increase in protection.
Conclusions Our findings indicate substantial heterogeneity in the protection offered by various fabric face masks. We also note some design features which may enhance the protection these masks offer.
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:
The study has been reviewed by the Cambridge University's Engineering Department Division C ethical review board.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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: Email: eo339{at}cam.ac.uk
Anmol Arora: Email: aa957{at}cam.ac.uk
Sophia Pirog: Email: sophia.pirog{at}northwestern.edu
James Ward: Email: jrw38{at}cam.ac.uk
P John Clarkson: Email: pjc10{at}cam.ac.uk
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
No external funding was used in this study.
Data Availability
Full data from this study is freely availible at the University of Cambridge open repository Apollo: https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.58287
