Cited by 126Infection Control and VentilationOccupational Health and Safety in WorkplacesCOVID-19 Prevention and Impact

Comparing the fit of N95, KN95, surgical, and cloth face masks and assessing the accuracy of fit checking

Open access
O’Kelly, Eugenia, Arora, Anmol, Pirog, Sophia, Ward, James, Clarkson, P. John·2021·PLOS ONE

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has made well-fitting face masks a critical piece of protective equipment for healthcare workers and civilians. While the importance of wearing face masks has been acknowledged, there remains a lack of understanding about the role of good fit in rendering protective equipment useful. In addition, supply chain constraints have caused some organizations to abandon traditional quantitative or/and qualitative fit testing, and instead, have implemented subjective fit checking. Our study seeks to quantitatively evaluate the level of fit offered by various types of masks, and most importantly, assess the accuracy of implementing fit checks by comparing fit check results to quantitative fit testing results. Methods: Seven participants first evaluated N95 and KN95 respirators by performing a fit check. Participants then underwent quantitative fit testing wearing five N95 respirators, a KN95 respirator, a surgical mask, and fabric masks. Results: N95 respirators offered higher degrees of protection than the other categories of masks tested; however, it should be noted that most N95 respirators failed to fit the participants adequately. Fit check responses had poor correlation with quantitative fit factor scores. KN95, surgical, and fabric masks achieved low fit factor scores, with little protective difference recorded between respiratory protection options. In addition, small facial differences were observed to have a significant impact on quantitative fit. Conclusion: Fit is critical to the level of protection offered by respirators. For an N95 respirator to provide the promised protection, it must fit the participant. Performing a fit check via NHS self-assessment guidelines was an unreliable way of determining fit.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0245688

Cites

8 of 8 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?

  • 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 [13]

    The Results (‘Protection and fit’; page unavailable) show substantial fit differences between the tested KN95 and some N95 respirators. Although the Methods describe several cloth-covering designs, the Results say their fit factors were similar, not that substantial discrepancies were demonstrated between them. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
O’Kelly, E., Arora, A., Pirog, S., Ward, J., & Clarkson, P. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
  • O’Kelly, Eugenia
  • Arora, Anmol
  • Pirog, Sophia
  • Ward, James
  • Clarkson, P. John
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2021-01-22
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
e0245688
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3121645079
Cited by
123
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 23
FWCI
17.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Infection Control and Ventilation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › COVID-19 Prevention and Impact
Keywords
N95 respirators, surgical masks, cloth masks, quantitative fit testing, fit factor, COVID-19 pandemic, respiratory protection, healthcare workers, facial shape
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, N95 Respirators, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Masks, Middle Aged, Textiles, Occupational Exposure, Young Adult

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