Which alternative well-fit masks can be used in medical procedures?

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the WHO and CDC recommended that healthcare personnel (HCPs) performing non-aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) don a properly fitted mask. We aimed to evaluate the fit factors (FFs) of eight alternative well-fit masks (AWMs) used by Thai HCPs.

METHODS

This comparative descriptive study was conducted on 33 HCPs between October and November 2022, categorized into three facial sizes: small, medium, and large. Each participant wore eight types of AWMs in random order: medical mask under adjustable ear-loop (AEL)-KF94 (MK), medical mask under AEL-KN95 with a hook (MN), medical mask under fabric mask (MF), AEL- KF94 (KF94), AEL-KF94 under fabric masks (KF), AEL-KF94 with a hook (KF94H), AEL-KN95 with a hook (KN95), and AEL-KN95 with a hook under fabric mask (NF). FFs were measured using a quantitative fit test.

RESULTS

The respective number of HCPs wearing small, medium, and large was 12, 12, and 9, and the mean±SD of face width and length was 132.98 ± 10.49 and 114.92 ± 10.10 mm. The highest respective median of FF was KN95 = 200, NF= 200, MN= 185, and KF94H = 171, and the respective passing fit-test rate was 97%, 84.8%, 63.6%, and 60.6%. There was no difference in FFs between the N95 and KN95 (p=0.72), the N95 and NF (p=0.202), and the three face sizes. Moreover, KF94H pass rates were significantly higher for females compared to males (OR = 13.3; p = 0.001) and for small facial sizes compared to either medium or large sizes (OR = 14.7; p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

The AEL-KN95 with hook and sponge at the nosepiece is an effective respirator for use by HCPs in non-AGPs, as the FF and fit test pass rates were comparable to those of N95, and there were no differences in FFs between facial sizes. However, the female who had a small face size may use a KF94H as an alternative PPE.

Physiologic and fit factor profiles of N95 and P100 filtering facepiece respirators for use in hot, humid environments

Background

To determine if hot, humid ambient conditions impact filtering facepiece respirators' (FFRs') fit, and to evaluate differences in physiologic and subjective responses between N95 FFRs and P100 FFRs.

Methods

Twelve subjects had physiologic monitoring and subjective perceptions monitored over 1 hour of treadmill exercise (5.6 km/h) in an environmental chamber (35°C, relative humidity 50%) wearing an N95 FFR, P100 FFR, or no respirator. Respirator quantitative fit testing was done before and after exercise.

Results

There was no significant difference in pass rates for both FFRs on initial fit testing, but subjects who passed were more likely to fail the postexercise test with N95 FFRs (P = .01). Wearing FFRs increased the temperature of facial skin covered by the FFR (P = .009) and breathing discomfort (P = .002). No significant differences were noted in other measured variables (heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, transcutaneous carbon dioxide level, rectal temperature, global skin temperature, core temperature, and subjective perceptions) between controls and FFRs and between FFR models.

Conclusion

After 1 hour of exercise in hot, humid ambient conditions, P100 FFRs retained better fit than N95 FFRs, without additional physiologic or subjective impact. Wearing FFRs under these conditions does not add to the body's thermophysiologic or perceptual burdens.

•

P100 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) retained their fit better than N95 FFRs in hot, humid environments.

•

At low to moderate work rates, P100 filtering facepiece respirators' (FFRs') physiologic impact was similar to N95 FFRs.

•

At low to moderate work rates, exhalation valves appeared to offer no benefit.

•

Filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) use in hot, humid environments did not add to body heat burden or perceptions.