Possible toxicity of chronic carbon dioxide exposure associated with face mask use, particularly in pregnant women, children and adolescents - A scoping review

Wearing face masks while climbing stairs influences respiratory physiology

During the COVID-19 pandemic wearing face masks was mandatory. Nowadays, face masks are still encouraged indoors, especially in hospitals. People climbing stairs with masks describe unpredictable dyspnea. In this study, healthy adults climbed 5 floors with and without a mask. Various cardio-respiratory parameters were measured, including O2-saturation (O2-Sat) and end-tidal CO2(EtCO2), at baseline and on the top floor. Subjective indexes, such as Borg's scale, were evaluated. Thirty-two volunteers (16 males), median age 39 years (IQR 32.5-43), median BMI = 23.6 (IQR 21.5-25.1), with good fitness levels, participated. Comparing baseline to end-activity, median (IQR): O2-Sat change was -1.0% (-2-0) without mask, versus -3.0% (-4-0) with mask,p= 0.003; EtCO2+ 7.0 (+3.3-+9) without mask, versus +8.0 (+6-+12) with mask,p= 0.0001. Hypercarbia was seen in 5 (15.6%) participants without mask, median = 48 mmHg (IQR 47.5-51), and in 11 (34%) participants with mask, median = 50 mmHg (IQR 47-54),p< 0.001. Desaturation (O2-Sat < 95%) was seen in 5 (15.6%) participants without mask, median = 94% (IQR 93%-94%), and in 10 (31%) participants with mask, median = 91.5% (IQR 90%-93%),p= 0.06. Regression analysis demonstrated that only male sex was significantly associated with abnormal EtCO2(OR = 26.4, 95% CI = 1.9-366.4,p= 0.005). Ascent duration increased from median (IQR) of 94 s (86-100) without mask to 98 s (89-107) with mask,p< 0.001. Borg's scale of perceived exertion (range 0-10) increased from median (IQR) of 3.0 (2.5-3.87) without mask to 4.0 (3.0-4.37) with mask,p< 0.001. To conclude, during routine daily activities, such as stair-climbing, face masks cause dyspnea, and have measurable influences on ventilation, including true desaturation and hypercapnia, especially in males.

Wearing face masks as a potential source for inhalation and oral uptake of inanimate toxins - A scoping review

BACKGROUND

From 2020 to 2023 many people around the world were forced to wear masks for large proportions of the day based on mandates and laws. We aimed to study the potential of face masks for the content and release of inanimate toxins.

METHODS

A scoping review of 1003 studies was performed (database search in PubMed/MEDLINE, qualitative and quantitative evaluation).

RESULTS

24 studies were included (experimental time 17 min to 15 days) evaluating content and/or release in 631 masks (273 surgical, 228 textile and 130 N95 masks). Most studies (63%) showed alarming results with high micro- and nanoplastics (MPs and NPs) release and exceedances could also be evidenced for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), xylene, acrolein, per-/polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), phthalates (including di(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate, DEHP) and for Pb, Cd, Co, Cu, Sb and TiO2.

DISCUSSION

Of course, masks filter larger dirt and plastic particles and fibers from the air we breathe and have specific indications, but according to our data they also carry risks. Depending on the application, a risk-benefit analysis is necessary.

CONCLUSION

Undoubtedly, mask mandates during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic have been generating an additional source of potentially harmful exposition to toxins with health threatening and carcinogenic properties at population level with almost zero distance to the airways.

Ethics of Nudging in the COVID-19 Crisis and the Necessary Return to the Principles of Shared Decision Making: A Critical Review

Nudging, a controversial technique for modifying people's behavior in a predictable way, is claimed to preserve freedom of choice while simultaneously influencing it. Nudging had been largely confined to situations such as promoting healthy eating choices but has been employed in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis in a shift towards measures that involve significantly less choice, such as shoves and behavioral prods. Shared decision making (SDM), a method for direct involvement and autonomy, is an alternative approach to communicate risk. Predominantly peer-reviewed scientific publications from standard literature databases like PubMed, PsycInfo, and Psyndex were evaluated in a narrative review. The so-called fear nudges, as well as the dissemination of strongly emotionalizing or moralizing messages can lead to intense psycho-physical stress. The use of these nudges by specialized units during the COVID-19 pandemic generated a societal atmosphere of fear that precipitated a deterioration of the mental and physical health of the population. Major recommendations of the German COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO) study, which are based on elements of nudging and coercive measures, do not comply with ethical principles, basic psychological principles, or evidence-based data. SDM was misused in the COVID-19 crisis, which helped to achieve one-sided goals of governments. The emphasis on utilitarian thinking is criticized and the unethical behavior of decision makers is explained by both using the concept of moral disengagement and the maturity level of coping strategies. There should be a return to an open-ended, democratic, and pluralistic scientific debate without using nudges. It is therefore necessary to return to the origins of SDM.

Interrogating the lack of diversity of thought in the pandemic response that led to mistakes - holistic evidence-based approach to deal with future pandemics

The COVID-19 pandemic, triggered by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), rapidly became a worldwide emergency. How it was managed garnered both commendation and vehement censure. This crisis profoundly affected healthcare, the economy, education, and public confidence in scientific endeavors. Our primary aim was to scrutinize the shortcomings in the pandemic management and to articulate a more effective strategy for handling prospective pandemics. We delved into the errors encountered in the COVID-19 response and posited a holistic, evidence-grounded approach for future pandemic mitigation.

Revisiting the rationale of mandatory masking

In this perspective, we review the evidence for the efficacy of face masks to reduce the transmission of respiratory viruses, specifically severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and consider the value of mandating universal mask wearing against the widespread negative impacts that have been associated with such measures. Before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, it was considered that there was little to no benefit in healthy people wearing masks as prophylaxis against becoming infected or as unwitting vectors of viral transmission. This accepted policy was hastily reversed early on in the pandemic, when districts and countries throughout the world imposed stringent masking mandates. Now, more than three years since the start of the pandemic, the amassed studies that have investigated the use of masks to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (or other pathogens) have led to conclusions that are largely inconsistent and contradictory. There is no statistically significant or unambiguous scientific evidence to justify mandatory masking for general, healthy populations with the intention of lessening the viral spread. Even if mask wearing could potentially reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in individual cases, this needs to be balanced against the physical, psychological and social harms associated with forced mask wearing, not to mention the negative impact of innumerable disposed masks entering our fragile environment. Given the lack of unequivocal scientific proof that masks have any effect on reducing transmission, together with the evident harms to people and the environment through the use of masks, it is our opinion that the mandatory use of face masks in the general population is unjustifiable and must be abandoned in future pandemic countermeasures policies.

Physio-metabolic and clinical consequences of wearing face masks—Systematic review with meta-analysis and comprehensive evaluation

Background

As face masks became mandatory in most countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, adverse effects require substantiated investigation.

Methods

A systematic review of 2,168 studies on adverse medical mask effects yielded 54 publications for synthesis and 37 studies for meta-analysis (on n = 8,641, m = 2,482, f = 6,159, age = 34.8 ± 12.5). The median trial duration was only 18 min (IQR = 50) for our comprehensive evaluation of mask induced physio-metabolic and clinical outcomes.

Results

We found significant effects in both medical surgical and N95 masks, with a greater impact of the second. These effects included decreased SpO2 (overall Standard Mean Difference, SMD = −0.24, 95% CI = −0.38 to −0.11, p &lt; 0.001) and minute ventilation (SMD = −0.72, 95% CI = −0.99 to −0.46, p &lt; 0.001), simultaneous increased in blood-CO2 (SMD = +0.64, 95% CI = 0.31–0.96, p &lt; 0.001), heart rate (N95: SMD = +0.22, 95% CI = 0.03–0.41, p = 0.02), systolic blood pressure (surgical: SMD = +0.21, 95% CI = 0.03–0.39, p = 0.02), skin temperature (overall SMD = +0.80 95% CI = 0.23–1.38, p = 0.006) and humidity (SMD +2.24, 95% CI = 1.32–3.17, p &lt; 0.001). Effects on exertion (overall SMD = +0.9, surgical = +0.63, N95 = +1.19), discomfort (SMD = +1.16), dyspnoea (SMD = +1.46), heat (SMD = +0.70), and humidity (SMD = +0.9) were significant in n = 373 with a robust relationship to mask wearing (p &lt; 0.006 to p &lt; 0.001). Pooled symptom prevalence (n = 8,128) was significant for: headache (62%, p &lt; 0.001), acne (38%, p &lt; 0.001), skin irritation (36%, p &lt; 0.001), dyspnoea (33%, p &lt; 0.001), heat (26%, p &lt; 0.001), itching (26%, p &lt; 0.001), voice disorder (23%, p &lt; 0.03), and dizziness (5%, p = 0.01).

Discussion

Masks interfered with O2-uptake and CO2-release and compromised respiratory compensation. Though evaluated wearing durations are shorter than daily/prolonged use, outcomes independently validate mask-induced exhaustion-syndrome (MIES) and down-stream physio-metabolic disfunctions. MIES can have long-term clinical consequences, especially for vulnerable groups. So far, several mask related symptoms may have been misinterpreted as long COVID-19 symptoms. In any case, the possible MIES contrasts with the WHO definition of health.

Conclusion

Face mask side-effects must be assessed (risk-benefit) against the available evidence of their effectiveness against viral transmissions. In the absence of strong empirical evidence of effectiveness, mask wearing should not be mandated let alone enforced by law.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021256694, identifier: PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021256694.