Fit factor of masks used by Physicians in Clinical Settings

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.

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.

Fit factor compliance of masks and FFP3 respirators in nurses: A case-control gender study

AIMS

To determine the fit factor and compliance with American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements of surgical masks and filtering respirators in male versus female nurses.

DESIGN

A case-control gender study performed from 2016 to 2019.

METHODS

A gender and age matched-paired sample of 74 nurses was recruited and divided into men (n = 37) and women (n = 37). FFP3 filtering respirators and surgical masks fit factors were compared between male and female nurses by Mann-Whitney U tests. These measurements were tested to pass or fail according to the OSHA (≥100) and AIHA (≥50) criteria by Fisher exact tests for a 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Global fit factor mean (standard deviation) was 2.86 (2.73) and 3.55 (6.34) for male and female nurses wearing surgical masks (p = .180), respectively, and nobody passed neither OSHA nor AIHA criteria (p = 1.00). Nevertheless, global fit factor were 30.82 (28.42) and 49.65 (43.04) for male and female nurses wearing FFP3 respirators, respectively, being significantly lower and worse in male nurses (p = .037). According to OSHA criteria, only 2.70% and 13.51% of male and females nurses, respectively, passed with non-significant difference (p = .199), meanwhile 21.62% and 48.64% of male and female nurses, respectively, passed AIHA criteria showing significant differences (p = .027) wearing FFP3 respirators.

CONCLUSIONS

All male and female nurses wearing surgical masks failed to pass OSHA and AIHA criteria. Global fit factor of the proposed FFP3 filtering respirators was decreased and worse in male than female nurses.

IMPACT

Our recommendation is to avoid surgical masks use for protective purposes and use the proposed FFP3 filtering respirators among nurses. Each nurse should be fit tested for its own respirator with special caution in male nurses due to their lower fit factor achieved and most of them failed to pass OSHA and AIHA criteria, especially during COVID-19 pandemic.

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

PURPOSE

Frontline health care workers (HCWs) must wear a standard N95 or FFP2 respirator during worldwide pandemics of respiratory diseases including COVID-19 to protect against airborne infectious pathogens when performing care activities. This study aimed to quantitatively investigate the fit of most of the common FFRs used during the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran.

METHODS

A total of 37 volunteers were fit tested in 20 selected FFRs in a randomized order. The selected FFRs were underwent quantitative fit testing by PortaCount® model 8038. To determine the effects of face sizes on respirator fit, the participants' facial dimensions were measured using a digital caliper.

RESULTS

The rate of passing fit tests for the studied FFRs were surprisingly low with 11 out of 20 FFRs having less than 10% passing fit tests and the best performers having only 43% and 27% passing fit tests (brands 2 and 20, respectively). Cup-shaped respirators provided significantly greater fit than the vertical flat-fold ones (p < 0.001). A significantly different FFs were found among the respirator brands (F = 13.60, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Overall, unacceptably low fit factors were obtained from the studied FFRs. The main reasons for this are suspected to single size and style for each studied FFR. It confirms the importance and requirement of the proper respirator selection in that way fitted optimally into facial dimensions, appropriate usage, and properly performing the fit testing procedure. A unique fit test panel should be developed to guide respirator wearers in selecting the appropriate FFR for their specific face sizes.