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 Jean-Michel Wendling
A1 Thibaut Fabacher
A1 Philippe-Pierre Pébaÿ
A1 Isabelle Cosperec
A1 Michaël Rochoy
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/01/17/2020.11.23.20237149.abstract
AB There is currently not sufficient evidence to support the effectiveness of face shields for source control. In order to evaluate the comparative barrier performance effect of face masks versus face shields, we used an aerosol generator and a particle counter to evaluate the performance of the various devices in comparable situations. We tested different configurations in an experimental setup with manikin heads wearing masks (surgical type I), face shields (22.5 cm high with overhang under the chin of 7 cm and circumference of 35 cm) on an emitter or a receiver manikin head, or both. The mannequins were face to face, 25 cm apart, with an intense particle emission (52.5 l/min) for 30 seconds. In our experimental conditions, when the receiver alone wore a protection, the face shield was more effective (reduction factor=54.8%), while reduction was lower with a mask (reduction factor=21.8%) (p=0.002). The wearing of a protective device by the emitter alone reduced the level of received particles by 96.8% for both the mask and face shield (p= NS). When both the emitter and receiver manikin heads wore a face shield, the ensuing double protection allowed for better results: 98% reduction for the face shields vs. 97.3% for the masks (p=0.01). Face shields offered an even better barrier effect than the mask against small inhaled particles (<0.3µm – 0.3 to 0.5µm – 0.5 to 1µm) in all configurations. Therefore, it would be interesting to include face shields as used in our study as part of strategies to safely significantly reduce transmission within the community setting.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.