RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Experimental efficacy of the face shield and the mask against emitted and potentially received particles
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.11.23.20237149
DO 10.1101/2020.11.23.20237149
A1 Michaël Rochoy
A1 Thibaut Fabacher
A1 Isabelle Cosperec
A1 Jean-Michel Wendling
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/24/2020.11.23.20237149.abstract
AB The aim of this study was to evaluate the comparative performance of masks and face shields in different experimental configurations. An experimental setup with two mannequin heads positioned at 1.70m high and at 25 cm each other was used. A fogger generated a particle’s airflow with a speed of 5m/sec from the emitter to the receiver head mannequin. Our aerosol generator produced 3 000 times more particles than a physiological cough situation. A particle counter allowed us to evaluate the number of particles received on a mannequin head located at a very short distance of 25 cm. The amount of all particles up to the selected particle sizes were counted with an optical particle counter on channels 0.3 µm, 0.5 µm, 1 µm, 2.5 µm, 5 µm and 10 µm. The reduction factors with a protection worn by the receiver alone, by the emitter alone and then the double protection of emitter and receiver were calculated. When the receiver alone wore a face shield, the amount of total particles was reduced (54.8%), while the reduction was less when the receiver alone wore a mask (21.8%) (p = 0.003). Wearing a protection by the emitter alone reduced much more the level of particles received by 96.8% for both mask and face shield. The double protection allowed for even better results, but close to the protection of the emitter alone: 98% reduction for the face shields and 97.3% for the masks (p=0.022). Even with small particle size emission (≤0.3µm), results were of the same order. Considering our results, protection of the emitter alone or double protection is much more effective than protection of the receiver only. Validated face shield should be included as part of strategies to safely and significantly reduce transmission in the community setting, in addition to masks or for people with disabilities or medical intolerance to masks.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo external funding was receivedAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:ExemptionAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesData are available in manuscript.