Evaluation of cloth masks and modified procedure masks as personal protective equipment for the public during the COVID-19 pandemic
Open accessAbstract
Importance: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the general public has been advised to wear masks or improvised face coverings to limit transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, there has been considerable confusion and disagreement regarding the degree to which masks protect the wearer from airborne particles. Objectives: To evaluate the fitted filtration efficiency (FFE) of various consumer-grade and improvised face masks, as well as several popular modifications of medical procedure masks that are intended to improve mask fit or comfort. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this study conducted in a research laboratory between June and August 2020, 7 consumer-grade masks and 5 medical procedure mask modifications were fitted on an adult male volunteer, and FFE measurements were collected during a series of repeated movements of the torso, head, and facial muscles as outlined by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration Quantitative Fit Testing Protocol. The consumer-grade masks tested included (1) a 2-layer nylon mask with ear loops that was tested with an optional aluminum nose bridge and filter insert in place, (2) a cotton bandana folded diagonally once (ie, "bandit" style) or in a (3) multilayer rectangle according to the instructions presented by the US Surgeon General, (4) a single-layer polyester/nylon mask with ties, (5) a polypropylene mask with fixed ear loops, (6) a single-layer polyester gaiter/neck cover balaclava bandana, and (7) a 3-layer cotton mask with ear loops. Medical procedure mask modifications included (1) tying the mask's ear loops and tucking in the side pleats, (2) fastening ear loops behind the head with 3-dimensional-printed ear guards, (3) fastening ear loops behind the head with a claw-type hair clip, (4) enhancing the mask/face seal with rubber bands over the mask, and (5) enhancing the mask/face seal with a band of nylon hosiery over the fitted mask. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study outcome was the measured FFE of common consumer-grade and improvised face masks, as well as several popular modifications of medical procedure masks. Results: The mean (SD) FFE of consumer grade masks tested on 1 adult male with no beard ranged from 79.0% (4.3%) to 26.5% (10.5%), with the 2-layer nylon mask having the highest FFE. Unmodified medical procedure masks with ear loops had a mean (SD) FFE of 38.5% (11.2%). All modifications evaluated in this study increased procedure mask FFE (range [SD], 60.3% [11.1%] to 80.2% [3.1%]), with a nylon hosiery sleeve placed over the procedure mask producing the greatest improvement. Conclusions and Relevance: While modifications to improve medical procedure mask fit can enhance the filtering capability and reduce inhalation of airborne particles, this study demonstrates that the FFEs of consumer-grade masks available to the public are, in many cases, nearly equivalent to or better than their non-N95 respirator medical mask counterparts.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
To our knowledge, there have been two studies that have measured the total inward leakage on a variety of surgical and procedure masks, and currently only one study that has measured the TIL for home-made masks made of cloth materials with testing performed on only one volunteer.
“To our knowledge, there have been two studies that have measured the total inward leakage on a variety of surgical and procedure masks [55, 59], and currently only one study that has measured the TIL for home-made masks made of cloth materials with testing performed on only one volunteer [85].”
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 [85]
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
A novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China, 2019
Zhu, N., Zhang, D., Wang, W., Li, X., Yang, B., Song, J., Zhao, X., Huang, B., Shi, W., Lu, R., et al. (2020) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2001017 · Cited by 28,244 · see citing works
Chu, D. K., Akl, E. A., Duda, S., Solo, K., Yaacoub, S., Schünemann, H. J., Chu, D. K., Akl, E. A., El-harakeh, A., Bognanni, A., et al. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31142-9 · Cited by 3,843 · see citing works
Aerosol Technology Properties, Behavior, and Measurement of Airborne Particles
Laucks, M. L. (2000) · Journal of Aerosol Science · doi:10.1016/s0021-8502(99)00571-6 · Cited by 3,426 · see citing works
To, K. K., Tsang, O. T.-Y., Leung, W.-S., Tam, A. R., Wu, T.-C., Lung, D. C., Yip, C. C., Cai, J., Chan, J. M., Chik, T. S., et al. (2020) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(20)30196-1 · Cited by 3,045 · see citing works
Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks
Leung, N. H. L., Chu, D. K. W., Shiu, E. Y. C., Chan, K.-H., McDevitt, J. J., Hau, B. J. P., Yen, H.-L., Li, Y., Ip, D. K. M., Peiris, J. S. M., et al. (2020) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0843-2 · Cited by 2,270 · see citing works
SARS-CoV-2 Reverse Genetics Reveals a Variable Infection Gradient in the Respiratory Tract
Hou, Y. J., Okuda, K., Edwards, C. E., Martinez, D. R., Asakura, T., Dinnon, K. H., Kato, T., Lee, R. E., Yount, B. L., Mascenik, T. M., et al. (2020) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.05.042 · Cited by 1,488 · see citing works
Cheng, V. C., Wong, S., Chuang, V. W., So, S. Y.-C., Chen, J. H.-K., Sridhar, S., To, K. K., Chan, J. F., Hung, I. F., Ho, P., et al. (2020) · Journal of Infection · doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2020.04.024 · Cited by 875 · see citing works
Milton, D. K., Fabian, M. P., Cowling, B. J., Grantham, M. L., & McDevitt, J. J. (2013) · PLoS Pathogens · doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1003205 · Cited by 669 · see citing works
Offeddu, V., Yung, C. F., Low, M. S. F., & Tam, C. C. (2017) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/cix681 · Cited by 297 · see citing works
On the Minimum Efficiency and the Most Penetrating Particle Size for Fibrous Filters
Lee, K. W., & Liu, B. Y. H. (1980) · Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association · doi:10.1080/00022470.1980.10464592 · Cited by 268 · see citing works
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. (2020) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.4221 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
Self-citationMueller, A. V., Eden, M., Oakes, J. M., Bellini, C. M., & Fernandez, L. A. (2020) · Matter · doi:10.1016/j.matt.2020.07.006 · Cited by 146 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Duncan, S., Bodurtha, P., & Naqvi, S. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0258191 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Quantitative Protection Factors for Common Masks and Face Coverings
Leith, D., L’Orange, C., & Volckens, J. (2021) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.0c07291 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Study of the inward protection efficiency of various facial masks
El Khayri, H., Pieris, S., Peterson, S. D., & Yarusevych, S. (2025) · Aerosol Science and Technology · doi:10.1080/02786826.2025.2547901
- Authors
- Clapp, P. W., Sickbert-Bennett, E. E., Samet, J. M., Berntsen, J., Zeman, K. L., Anderson, D. J., Weber, D. J., Bennett, W. D., & Program, U. C. F. D. C. A. P. E.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Environmental Protection Agency (US)
- TRC, Raleigh, North Carolina
- Duke University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Clapp, Phillip W.
- ORCID
- Venue
- JAMA Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2021-04-01
- Volume
- 181
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 463
- ISSN
- 2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7729588
- OpenAlex
- W3113173460
- Cited by
- 167
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 19.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- JAMA Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
- UNC Libraries
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Infection Control and Ventilation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › COVID-19 Prevention and Impact
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Aerosol Filtration and Electrostatic Precipitation
- Keywords
- cloth masks, face masks, personal protective equipment, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 pandemic, filtration efficiency, mask fit, bandanas, quantitative fit testing
- MeSH terms
- COVID-19, Adult, Equipment Design, Filtration, Humans, Male, Masks, Nylons, Polyesters, Polypropylenes, Protective Clothing, Cotton Fiber
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