RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 How well do face masks protect the wearer compared to public perceptions?
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.01.27.21250645
DO 10.1101/2021.01.27.21250645
A1 O’Kelly, Eugenia
A1 Arora, Anmol
A1 Ward, James
A1 Clarkson, P John
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/01/31/2021.01.27.21250645.abstract
AB Introduction There is a growing body of evidence to support the wearing of face masks to reduce spread of infectious respiratory pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2. However, the literature exploring the effectiveness of homemade fabric face masks is still in its infancy. Developing an evidence base is an important step to ensure that public policy is evidence based and truly effective.Methods Two methodologies were used in this study: quantitative fit testing of various face masks to indicate their effectiveness and a survey of 710 US residents about their perceptions of face mask effectiveness. N95, surgical and two fabric face masks were tested on an individual twenty five times each using a TSI 8038+ machine. Our survey was distributed by Qualtrics XM, asking participants to estimate the effectiveness of N95, surgical and fabric face masks.Results and Discussion Our results indicate that fabric face masks blocked between 62.6% and 87.1% of fine particles, whereas surgical masks protected against an average of 78.2% of fine particles. N95 masks blocked 99.6% of fine particles. Survey respondents tended to underestimate the effectiveness of masks, especially fabric masks. Together these results suggest that fabric masks may be a useful tool in the battle against the COVID-19 pandemic and that increasing public awareness of the effectiveness of fabric masks may help in this endeavour.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo external funding was received.Author 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:Study was approved by the Cambridge University Department of Engineering Ethics Comittee.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as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).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.YesAll relevant data are contained within the article.