Improving Fabric Face Masks: Impact of Design Features on the Protection Offered by Fabric Face Masks
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
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.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.21.20228569: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization Two participants were randomly assigned to a fabric mask type during this testing. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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 …
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.21.20228569: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization Two participants were randomly assigned to a fabric mask type during this testing. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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.
-
