Quantitative fit testing of filtering face-piece respirators during the COVID-19 pandemic reveals anthropometric deficits in most respirators available in Iran

Masks and respirators for prevention of respiratory infections: a state of the science review

SUMMARYThis narrative review and meta-analysis summarizes a broad evidence base on the benefits-and also the practicalities, disbenefits, harms and personal, sociocultural and environmental impacts-of masks and masking. Our synthesis of evidence from over 100 published reviews and selected primary studies, including re-analyzing contested meta-analyses of key clinical trials, produced seven key findings. First, there is strong and consistent evidence for airborne transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and other respiratory pathogens. Second, masks are, if correctly and consistently worn, effective in reducing transmission of respiratory diseases and show a dose-response effect. Third, respirators are significantly more effective than medical or cloth masks. Fourth, mask mandates are, overall, effective in reducing community transmission of respiratory pathogens. Fifth, masks are important sociocultural symbols; non-adherence to masking is sometimes linked to political and ideological beliefs and to widely circulated mis- or disinformation. Sixth, while there is much evidence that masks are not generally harmful to the general population, masking may be relatively contraindicated in individuals with certain medical conditions, who may require exemption. Furthermore, certain groups (notably D/deaf people) are disadvantaged when others are masked. Finally, there are risks to the environment from single-use masks and respirators. We propose an agenda for future research, including improved characterization of the situations in which masking should be recommended or mandated; attention to comfort and acceptability; generalized and disability-focused communication support in settings where masks are worn; and development and testing of novel materials and designs for improved filtration, breathability, and environmental impact.

Study on the relationship between the fitness of three types of N95 respirators and facial dimensions

N95 respirators are the core equipment used by healthcare workers to prevent the spread of respiratory diseases. The protective effect of N95 against infection spread depends on the fit of the N95 to the wearer, which is related to the wearer's facial dimensions. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to assess the relationship between the fit of three types of N95 and facial dimensions. A total of 305 healthcare workers from ten hospitals in Beijing were recruited for this study. Facial dimensions of workers were measured using Intel RealSense Depth Camera D435. Fit testing was conducted on three types of N95 using the TSI-8038 Porta Count Pro + Respirator Fit Tester. Possible associations between the fit test results and facial dimension data were examined. A Porta Count reading of 100 was used as the criterion for an acceptable fit. The fit of the folding respirators was positively correlated with nose length (r = 0.13, p = 0.02), nose height (r = 0.14, p = 0.02), and face width (r = 0.12, p = 0.03), whereas that of flat respirators was correlated with nose width (r = 0.16, p < 0.01), chin length (r = 0.18, p < 0.01), and pro-face width (r = 0.13, p = 0.02), and that of arched respirators was correlated with the nose length (r = 0.13, p = 0.03). The fit of N95 for wearers depends on their facial features. The results of this study can provide advice for medical workers to choose the appropriate N95. Medical staff should fully consider their facial dimensions when choosing an appropriate N95 to improve the protective efficacy of respirators and to reduce the risk of infection by respiratory diseases.

Striving to be the fittest: quantitative P2/N95 respirator fit test results among hospital staff during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objective

To provide fit rates for specific P2/N95 respirators and compare these results by age, sex, clean-shaven status, and fit tester experience.

Design

Exploratory audit involving secondary analysis of existing quantitative fit testing data.

Setting

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare services across Australia implemented respiratory protection protocols. This study details healthcare workers' (HCWs) fit testing results from a large Victorian public health service.

Participants

Fit-tested employees of a large tertiary public health network.

Methods

Fit rates for ten individual P2/N95 respirators were calculated, and the effect of age, sex, clean-shaven status, and fit tester experience was examined via logistic regression.

Results

4593 employees were included, with 97.98% successfully fitting at least one respirator. Males were found to have significantly increased odds of achieving fit success compared to females (OR 11.61 95%CI 1.60-84.10). Fit rates dropped by 4% with each 1-year age increase (OR 0.96 95%CI 0.94-0.98). Clean-shaven individuals were also more likely to achieve a fit compared to non-clean-shaved individuals (OR 79.23 95%CI 10.21-614.62). More experienced fit testers also yielded significantly higher fit rates (OR 3.95, 95%CI 2.34-6.67).

Conclusions

98% of staff achieved a successful fitting of at least one respirator, with three-panel flat fold models (Industree Trident, 3M Aura 9320A+, and 3M Aura 1870+) performing the most consistently. An individual's ability to achieve a successful fit was associated with; male sex, younger age, clean-shaven status, and fit tester experience.

The effect of N95 designs on respirator fit and its associations with gender and facial dimensions

This study examined the association of various brands of NIOSH-certified N95 filtering face-piece respirators (FFR) fit with facial dimensions and gender. One hundred and thirty-five participants (77 females and 58 males) were recruited from the previous facial anthropometry study among Malaysians in 2020. Quantitative respirator fit testing of six FFR were performed using the TSI Portacount Pro+ 8038 which comprised of four exercises (bending over, talking, up-down head movement, and side to side head movement). An overall fit factor (FF) of ≥ 100 was considered a pass for each FFR. Analysis was done using T-test, Pearson's correlations, and generalised linear regression. The passing rates for the six FFR were 36.3% (Cup B), 50.4% (Trifold A), 54.1% (Duckbill A), 57.0% (Cup A), 74.1% (Trifold B), and 83.7% (Duckbill B). Both Duckbill B and Trifold B had the highest passing rates for both genders. However, certain FFR models (Cup B, Trifold A, Trifold B, and Duckbill A) fit better for participants with large facial size who were mostly males, while others (Cup A and Duckbill B) specifically fit better for those with small facial size, who were mostly females. This study showed significant positive effect of nose protrusion, nasal root and subnasale-sellion and the negative effect of menton-sellion, bigonial breadth and nose breadth on fit factors of various FFR. The results of this study emphasized the importance of choosing and designing FFR based on local anthropometry data, with careful consideration on the dimensions that affect the respirator fit. Since N95 are commonly used in the healthcare settings to prevent airborne transmission, the practice of respirator fit testing and selecting N95 with high passing rates for healthcare workers need to be emphasized.

A systematic review of passing fit testing of the masks and respirators used during the COVID-19 pandemic: Part 1-quantitative fit test procedures

BACKGROUND

During respiratory infection pandemics, masks and respirators are highly sought after, especially for frontline healthcare workers and patients carrying respiratory viruses. The objective of this study was to systematically review fit test pass rates and identify factors influencing the fitting characteristics.

METHODS

Potentially relevant studies were identified using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct during the COVID-19 pandemic from February 5, 2020, to March 21, 2023. The search strategy using the following keywords was conducted: Quantitative Fit Test, Condensation Nuclei Counter, Controlled Negative Pressure, PortaCount, Sibata, Accufit, Fit, Seal, Mask, Respirator, Respiratory Protective Device, Respiratory Protective Equipment, Protective Device, Personal Protective Equipment, COVID-19, Coronavirus, and SARS-CoV-2. The quality of the included studies was also assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

RESULTS

A total of 137 articles met the eligibility criteria. Fifty articles had a quality score of less than 7 (good quality). A total of 21 studies had a fit test pass rate of less than 50%. 26 studies on disposable respirators and 11 studies on reusable respirators had an FF of less than 50 and less than 200, respectively. The most influential factors include respirator brand/model, style, gender, ethnicity, facial dimensions, facial hair, age, reuse, extensive movement, seal check, comfort and usability assessment, and training.

CONCLUSION

37.36% of the disposable respirator studies and 43% of the reusable respirator studies did not report fit test results. 67.86% of the disposable respirator studies had a fit test pass rate greater than 50%, and 35.84% of these studies had an FF greater than 100. Also, 85.71% of the reusable respirator studies had a fit test pass rate greater than 50%, and 52.77% of these studies had an FF greater than 1000. Overall, the fit test pass rate was relatively acceptable. Newly developed or modified respirators must undergo reliable testing to ensure the protection of HCWs. Subject and respirator characteristics should be considered when implementing fit testing protocols. An optimal fit test panel should be developed prior to respirator design, certification, procurement decisions, and selection procedures.

Retrospective evaluation of factors affecting successful fit testing of respiratory protective equipment during the early phase of COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

Respiratory protective equipment is critical to protect healthcare workers from COVID-19 infection, which includes filtering facepiece respirators (FFP3). There are reports of fitting issues within healthcare workers, although the factors affecting fitting outcomes are largely unknown. This study aimed to evaluate factors affecting respirator fitting outcomes.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective evaluation study. We conducted a secondary analysis of a national database of fit testing outcomes in England between July and August 2020.

SETTINGS

The study involves National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 9592 observations regarding fit test outcomes from 5604 healthcare workers were included in the analysis.

INTERVENTION

Fit testing of FFP3 on a cohort of healthcare workers in England, working in the NHS.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measure was the fit testing result, that is, pass or fail with a specific respirator. Key demographics, including age, gender, ethnicity and face measurements of 5604 healthcare workers, were used to compare fitting outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 9592 observations from 5604 healthcare workers were included in the analysis. A mixed-effects logistic regression model was used to determine the factors which affected fit testing outcome. Results showed that males experienced a significantly (p<0.05) higher fit test success than females (OR 1.51; 95% CI 1.27 to 1.81). Those with non-white ethnicities demonstrated significantly lower odds of successful respirator fitting; black (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.83), Asian (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.74) and mixed (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.79.

CONCLUSION

During the early phase of COVID-19, females and non-white ethnicities were less likely to have a successful respirator fitting. Further research is needed to design new respirators which provide equal opportunity for comfortable, effective fitting of these devices.

A critical review on the role of leakages in the facemask protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection with consideration of vaccination and virus variants

The protection provided by facemasks has been extensively investigated since the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, focusing mostly on the filtration efficiency of filter media for filtering face pieces (FFP), surgical masks, and cloth masks. However, faceseal leakage is a major contributor to the number of potentially infectious airborne droplets entering the respiratory system of a susceptible individual. The identification of leaking spots and the quantification of leaking flows are crucial to estimate the protection provided by facemasks. This study presents a critical review on the measurement and calculation of facemask leakages and a quantitative analysis of their role in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. It shows that the pairing between the mask dimensions and the wearer's face is essential to improve protection efficiency, especially for FFP2 masks, and summarizes the most common leaking spots at the interface between the mask and the wearer's face. Leakage is a crucial factor in the calculation of the protection provided by facemasks and outweighs the filtration performances. The fit factors measured among mask users were summarized for different types of face protection. The reviewed data were integrated into a computational model to compare the mitigation impact of facemasks with vaccination with consideration of new variants of SARS-CoV-2. Combining a high adoption rate of facemasks and a high vaccination rate is crucial to efficiently control the spread of highly infectious variants.

The influence of gender and ethnicity on facemasks and respiratory protective equipment fit: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) people are disproportionately affected by COVID-19. Respiratory protective equipment (RPE) has conventionally been developed for a predominantly white male population that does not represent the healthcare workforce. The literature was reviewed to determine the protection offered to female and BAME users.

METHODS

Five databases were searched. Eligible studies related to respirator fit in the context of anthropometrics, gender and ethnicity. Meta-analysis was performed for gender-based anthropometric differences. A priori protocol registration was not performed.

RESULTS

32 studies were included and anthropometric data was extracted from 15 studies. Meta-analysis revealed 14 anthropometric measurements were significantly smaller for females. Mean differences ranged from 0.37 mm to 22.05 mm. Gender-based anthropometric differences did not always translate to lower fit factor scores, with 12 studies reporting worse performance and fit for females and 10 reporting no gender effect. No studies provided disaggregate anthropometric data by ethnic group. Pass rates (PR) were low or moderate in 12 BAME or mixed-ethnicity cohorts. 14 studies reported associations between facial dimensions (FD) and respirator fit. Three comparative studies showed lower PR among selective BAME people. 18 studies reported RPE performance differed with model and design. Most studies did not prespecify inclusion/exclusion criteria. Small sample size and lack of justification or power calculations was a concern. Significant heterogeneity in study designs limited comparisons, particularly relating to respirator selection or availability and defining study outcomes relating to RPE performance.

CONCLUSION

The literature reports on largely Caucasian or single ethnic populations, and BAME people remain under-represented, limiting comparisons between ethnic groups. Facial anthropometrics vary between gender and likely between ethnicity, which may contribute to lower PR among females and ethnic minorities, particularly Asians. There is a need for studies including a broader spectrum of ethnicities and for consideration of female and BAME users during RPE development.