A highly efficient cloth facemask design
Open accessAbstract
Wearing masks and face coverings helps reduce transmission of respiratory diseases. Much prior research on mask filtration efficiency has focused on fabric type, with less consideration given to mask design and shape. Here, we present evidence that increasing the mouth-mask separation distance engenders an increase in the mask-fabric filtration efficiency toward expiratory aerosols emitted via vocalization, which we attribute to a decrease in the expiratory jet velocity and expansion of the breath-mask contact area. We further assess the performance of a new reusable cloth facemask design, originally made for, but not exclusive to, professional singers and having a large mouth-mask separation distance. With proper fitting, these masks achieve overall filtering efficiencies of >93% for both exhaled expiratory aerosols >0.5 microns in diameter from singing and speaking and for inhaled ambient aerosols, better than surgical masks and approaching N95 respirators. Air exchange between the mask deadspace and the ambient environment limits the extent of CO2 buildup and in inhaled air and maintains O2 levels near ambient. The mask design also provides for less inhibited mouth and jaw movement and lower relative humidity, suggesting it may provide a more palatable, high-efficiency alternative to medical-grade masks for the public.Copyright © 2021 American Association for Aerosol Research
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Substantial variation exists within each general mask class, for example between KN95 and N95 respirators or different designs of cloth coverings.
“Substantial variation exists within each of these general classes, however. For example, substantial fit and performance discrepancies have been demonstrated for KN95 vs. N95 respirators, or different designs of cloth coverings [11,12,13,14].”
From Comparative Mask Protection against Inhaling Wildfire Smoke, Allergenic Bioaerosols, and Infectious Particles (2022) · cites this paper as [12]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 43 · Cited by 17
- Authors
- Cappa, C. D., The San Francisco Opera Costume Department, Ristenpart, W. D., Barreda, S., Bouvier, N. M., Levintal, E., Wexler, A. S., & Roman, S. A.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Davis (US)
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- Corresponding author
- Cappa, Christopher D.
- Roman, Sanziana A.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Aerosol Science and Technology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2021-08-19
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 12-28
- ISSN
- 0278-6826 (ISSN-L)
- 1521-7388
- OpenAlex
- W3188137758
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 2.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- figshare.com
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Aerosol Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Figshare (cc-by)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Infection Control and Ventilation
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Aerosol Filtration and Electrostatic Precipitation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › COVID-19 Prevention and Impact
- Keywords
- mask filtration efficiency, respiratory disease transmission, mask comfort
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