Making cotton face masks extra-protective by use of impervious cloth as the front layer to restrict flow of aerosols and droplets

  1. Priyanka L. Shahane-Kapse
  2. M R Shende
  3. Sumit Kar
  4. Pradeep Deshmukh
  5. Dhiraj Bhandari
  6. Rahul Narang

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Introduction

One of the important measures to prevent spread of COVID-19 in community is use of face mask. Though the debate is going on regarding the airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 it makes reasonable point for universal use of face masks. A large variety of face masks are available in the market or people can make their own using household items. The efficacy of masks depends upon the type of cloth and number of layers of the cloth.

Material and methods

We have created an innovative mask with two layers of cotton and an impervious layer. The impervious layer made from polypropylene coated with polyurethane was applied on the outer side in the middle half of the mask in front of mouth and nose. The efficacy of this test mask was measured against N95FFR (reference standard), triple layer surgical masks and single layer cotton mask. A manikin was used wearing these masks/respirator and aerosols/droplets of diluted red coloured carbol fuchsin and fluorescent Auramine O were sprayed from distance of 1m and 2m. We also tested use of face shield. Both macroscopic and microscopic examination of the dissected masks and respirator was performed.

Results

The N95FFR was able to block the aerosols/droplets by its front layer. One triple layer surgical mask showed microscopic presence of stain in its innermost layer while the other blocked it with middle layer. The single layer cotton mask was not able to protect as we observed stain on the face itself. The test mask blocked most of the stain on impervious layer and also on the front cotton layer on lateral sides, where impervious layer was absent. When fluorescent stain was used, ultraviolet examination demonstrated that the whole area covered by test mask was clean while the other non covered area was fluorescent.

Conclusion

We believe that our innovation can be used in the community as well as in general areas of the hospital like, offices, labs, etc. and can be a better alternative to single use triple layer surgical masks. Further testing may be done by other organizations to rule out bias in our study.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.30.20165563: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.07.30.20165563v1 on medRxiv