Cited by 56Infection Control and VentilationAerosol Filtration and Electrostatic PrecipitationOccupational Health and Safety in Workplaces

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Does That Face Mask Really Protect You?

Bowen, Larry E.·2010·Applied Biosafety

Abstract

Various types of face masks available to the general public are worn for protection against inhalation of dust, pollutants, allergens, and pathogenic organisms. Recent news stories have illustrated the widespread use of face masks for protection against Swine flu (H1N1), Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (SARS), Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) virus outbreaks in Asia, and dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center. However, the level of protection provided by face masks is unknown. The objective of this study was to determine how efficiently face masks prevent respiratory exposure to potentially harmful aerosols. Three types of commonly available face masks were tested: a surgical mask, a pre-shaped dust mask, and a bandana. An N95 respirator was tested as the positive control. Masks were fit onto a Styrofoam™ mannequin head modified with a 5/8-inch diameter sample probe that was placed inside a 147.5 liter test plenum; a 5/8-inch diameter reference probe was positioned next to the mannequin head. Saline aerosols were generated in the test plenum using an IV HEART™ (Westmed, Inc., Tucson, AZ) nebulizer. Each face mask was challenged for 30 minutes. Filter samples were collected simultaneously from the mannequin and reference sample probes and used to calculate aerosol concentrations. The mannequin sample probe and the reference sample probe volumetric flow rates were 8.75 L/min and 1.72 L/min, respectively. The mean challenge aerosol concentration, determined from the reference sample probe, was 0.045 ± 0.008 mg/L with a mass median aerodynamic particle size of 1.6 μm. Face mask protective efficiency was calculated as the ratio of mannequin sample probe concentration to reference sample probe concentration. The protective efficiencies were 33.3%, 11.3%, and 6.1% for the surgical, bandana, and dust masks, respectively. The N95 mask protective efficiency was 89.6%. In conclusion, the surgical mask protected the best of the three face masks tested. However, it is important to note that all three masks offer very little protection when compared to the N95, and wearing these face masks may produce a false sense of protection.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/153567601001500204

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Masks with lower filtration efficiency, such as single-layer cloth masks, may produce a false sense of protection.

    “masks with lower filtration efficiency, such as single-layer cloth masks, may produce a false sense of protection [28].”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 3M Technical Data Bulletin #174 (2004). Respiratory protection against biohazards (p. 3). St. Paul, MN: 3M.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Bowen, L. E.
Affiliations
Southern Research Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Bowen, Larry E.
Venue
Applied Biosafety
Published
2010-06
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
67-71
ISSN
  • 1091-3505 (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-6760
  • 2470-1246
OpenAlex
W2555225954
Cited by
56
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Applied Biosafety (publishedVersion)
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 › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
Keywords
face masks, respiratory protection, aerosol filtration efficiency, surgical masks, N95 respirators, dust masks, bandanas, protective efficiency, airborne transmission, SARS, avian influenza, World Trade Center dust

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