CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 498Infection Control and VentilationInfluenza Virus Research StudiesCOVID-19 Prevention and Impact

Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks: Would They Protect in an Influenza Pandemic?

Open access
Davies, Anna, Thompson, Katy-Anne, Giri, Karthika, Kafatos, George, Walker, Jimmy, Bennett, Allan·2013·Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
DOI 10.1017/dmp.2013.43PMC PMC7108646
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objective: This study examined homemade masks as an alternative to commercial face masks. Methods: Several household materials were evaluated for the capacity to block bacterial and viral aerosols. Twenty-one healthy volunteers made their own face masks from cotton t-shirts; the masks were then tested for fit. The number of microorganisms isolated from coughs of healthy volunteers wearing their homemade mask, a surgical mask, or no mask was compared using several air-sampling techniques. Results: The median-fit factor of the homemade masks was one-half that of the surgical masks. Both masks significantly reduced the number of microorganisms expelled by volunteers, although the surgical mask was 3 times more effective in blocking transmission than the homemade mask. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that a homemade mask should only be considered as a last resort to prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals, but it would be better than no protection. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2013;0:1–6)

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 · 10.1017/dmp.2013.43

Cites

16 of 16 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?

  • N95 FFRs are employed as personal protective equipment (PPE) and they provide a high level of protection for filtering facepiece masks that cover only the nose and mouth.

    “N95 FFR are employed as personal protective equipment (PPE) and they provide a high level of protection for filtering facepiece masks that cover only the nose and mouth (as opposed to full and half-face respirators constructed from elastomeric materials) [3, 58–74].”

    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 [3]

    The introductory section describes N95 respirators as high-level respiratory protection worn by health care workers. The Discussion says masks must fit around the nose and mouth, but the paper does not identify N95s as filtering facepiece respirators or distinguish them from full- or half-face elastomeric respirators. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Davies et al. measured the filtration efficiency of a surgical mask at 90%-95%, similar to our results.

    “Davies et al. [3] measured the filtration efficiency of a surgical mask at 90%-95%, similar to our results.”

    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 [3]

    Davies et al. measured surgical-mask material filtration efficiency, but Table 1 reports 96.35% for B. atrophaeus and 89.52% for bacteriophage MS2. The cited 90%–95% range approximates those results but does not contain either reported mean. “Similar to our results” is the citing authors’ comparison, not a finding attributed to Davies et al. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The use of NaCl particles as a challenge aerosol, and its associated size distribution, has been shown to be an appropriate simulant to represent size ranges of both bacteria and viruses.

    “The use of NaCl particles as a challenge aerosol, and its associated size distribution, has been shown to be an appropriate simulant to represent size ranges of both bacteria and viruses [3, 59].”

    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 [3]

    The Microorganisms and Discussion sections describe bacterial and viral aerosols as size-based challenges, but neither identifies NaCl particles as a challenge aerosol. Searches for NaCl, sodium chloride, and salt aerosol found no passage assessing a NaCl size distribution as a simulant for bacteria and viruses; page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Wilkes AR, Benbough JE, Speight SE, Harmer M. The bacterial and viral filtration performance of breathing system filters. Anaesthesia. 2000;55:458-465.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Davies, A., Thompson, K.-A., Giri, K., Kafatos, G., Walker, J., & Bennett, A.
Affiliations
Public Health England (GB)
Corresponding author
Walker, Jimmy
ORCID
Venue
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2013-05-22
Volume
7
Issue
4
Pages
413-418
ISSN
  • 1935-7893 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-744X
DOI
10.1017/dmp.2013.43
PMC
PMC7108646
OpenAlex
W1999273822
Cited by
498
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 79 · 2021: 154 · 2020: 199 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
0.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)
Locations
  • Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Infection Control and Ventilation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Influenza Virus Research Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › COVID-19 Prevention and Impact
Keywords
surgical masks, pandemic influenza, droplet transmission, aerosol filtration, mask fit, bacterial aerosols, viral aerosols, cough, household materials, infection control
MeSH terms
Adult, Equipment Failure, Female, Humans, Influenza, Human, Male, Masks, Surveys and Questionnaires, Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype, Young Adult, Pandemics

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