Cited by 164Infection Control and VentilationAerosol Filtration and Electrostatic PrecipitationOccupational Health and Safety in Workplaces

Filtration Efficiency of Hospital Face Mask Alternatives Available for Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Open access
Sickbert-Bennett, Emily E., Samet, James M., Clapp, Phillip W., Chen, Hao, Berntsen, Jon, Zeman, Kirby L., Tong, Haiyan, Weber, David J. +1 more·2020·JAMA Internal Medicine

Abstract

Importance: Procuring respiratory protection for clinicians and other health care workers has become a major challenge of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and has resulted in nonstandard practices such as the use of expired respirators and various decontamination processes to prolong the useful life of respirators in health care settings. In addition, imported, non-National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-approved respirators have been donated or acquired by hospitals as a potential replacement for limited NIOSH-approved N95 respirators. Objective: To assess fitted filtration efficiencies (FFEs) for face mask alternatives used during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this quality-improvement study conducted between April and June 2020, we used the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Quantitative Fit Testing Protocol for Filtering Facepiece Respirators in a laboratory atmosphere supplemented with sodium chloride particles to assess the FFEs of a variety of respirators worn by a male volunteer and female volunteer. Main Outcomes and Measures: The FFEs of respirators commonly worn by clinicians and other health care workers and available respirator alternatives during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Of the 29 different fitted face mask alternatives tested on 1 man and 1 woman, expired N95 respirators with intact elastic straps and respirators subjected to ethylene oxide and hydrogen peroxide sterilization had unchanged FFE (>95%). The performance of N95 respirators in the wrong size had slightly decreased performance (90%-95% FFE). All of the respirators not listed as approved in this evaluation (n = 6) failed to achieve 95% FFE. Neither of the 2 imported respirators authorized for use by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that were not NIOSH-approved tested in this study achieved 95% FFE, and the more effective of the 2 functioned at approximately 80% FFE. Surgical and procedural face masks had filtering performance that was lower relative to that of N95 respirators (98.5% overall FFE), with procedural face masks secured with elastic ear loops showing the lowest efficiency (38.1% overall FFE). Conclusions and Relevance: This quality-improvement study evaluating 29 face mask alternatives for use by clinicians interacting with patients during the COVID-19 pandemic found that expired N95 respirators and sterilized, used N95 respirators can be used when new N95 respirators are not available. Other alternatives may provide less effective filtration.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.4221

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Sickbert-Bennett et al. evaluated multiple brands of surgical and procedure face masks on one test subject, obtaining mean values of 3.5 and 1.6 respectively.

    “Similarly, a recent study by Sickbert-Bennett et al. [84] showed PF results where they evaluated multiple brands of surgical and procedure face masks on one test subject, obtaining mean values of 3.5 and 1.6 respectively.”

    From The protective performance of reusable cloth face masks, disposable procedure masks, KN95 masks and N95 respirators: Filtration and total inward leakage (2021) · cites this paper as [84]

    The Methods describe testing masks on an adult male volunteer, with an additional female volunteer tested for comparison. Table 1 reports four surgical masks with ties at 71.5% mean fitted filtration efficiency and three ear-loop masks at 38.1%; those percentages imply protection factors of approximately 3.5 and 1.6, respectively. The paper does not report those values as protection factors or establish that the masks were from multiple brands. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Inward leakage due to gaps in the fit has been demonstrated to play a critical role in the ability of a mask or respirator to protect against exposure to particulates.

    “Inward leakage due to gaps in the fit has been demonstrated to play a critical role in the ability of a mask or respirator to protect against exposure to particulates [4, 59, 82–84].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 8 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sickbert-Bennett, E. E., Samet, J. M., Clapp, P. W., Chen, H., Berntsen, J., Zeman, K. L., Tong, H., Weber, D. J., & Bennett, W. D.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Environmental Protection Agency (US)
  • Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (US)
  • TRC, Raleigh, North Carolina
Corresponding author
Sickbert-Bennett, Emily E.
Venue
JAMA Internal Medicine
Published
2020-12-01
Volume
180
Issue
12
Pages
1607
ISSN
2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3048060588
Cited by
164
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 13
FWCI
19.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Infection Control and Ventilation
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Aerosol Filtration and Electrostatic Precipitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
Keywords
filtration efficiency, N95 respirators, face masks, COVID-19 pandemic, respiratory protection, healthcare workers, ethylene oxide sterilization, hydrogen peroxide sterilization, surgical masks, respirator fit testing, respirator shortage, sodium chloride particles
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, N95 Respirators, Disinfectants, Equipment Contamination, Ethylene Oxide, Filtration, Health Personnel, Humans, Hydrogen Peroxide, Masks, Materials Testing, Sterilization, Infection Control, Equipment Reuse, Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional, Equipment Failure Analysis, Quality Improvement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review