Abstract
Background Face shields are used as an alternative to facemasks, but their effectiveness in mitigating the spread of SARS-CoV-2 is unclear. The goal of this study is to compare the performance of face shields, surgical facemasks, and cloth facemasks for mitigation of droplet transmission during close contact conditions.
Methods A novel test system was developed to simulate droplet transmission during close contact conditions using two breathing headforms (transmitter and receiver) placed 4 feet apart with one producing droplets containing a DNA marker. Sampling coupons were placed throughout the test setup and subsequently analyzed for presence of DNA marker using quantitative PCR.
Results All PPE donned on the transmitter headform provided a significant reduction in transmission of DNA marker to the receiver headform: cloth facemask (78.5%), surgical facemask (89.4%), and face shield (96.1%). All PPE resulted in increased contamination of the eye region of the transmitter headform (9,525.4% average for facemasks and 765.8% for the face shield). Only the face shield increased contamination of the neck region (207.4%), with the cloth facemask and surgical facemask resulting in reductions of 85.9% and 90.2%, respectively.
Conclusions This study demonstrates face shields can provide similar levels of protection against direct droplet exposure compared to surgical and cloth masks. However, all PPE tested resulted in release of particles that contaminated surfaces. Contamination caused by deflection of the user’s exhalation prompts concerns for contact transmission via surfaces in exhalation flow path (e.g., face, eyeglasses, etc.).
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) under Prime contract #1605DC–19–A–0010.
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:
IRB approval and/or exemption was not necessary for this study.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, D. Harnish, upon reasonable request.
