Facemasks were in high demand due to the COVID-19 epidemic. The scarcity of N95 respirators and surgical masks has led many public health officials to suggest homemade masks as an alternative. The purpose of masks is to protect others from viruses in the air, but few studies have examined what particles mask wearers are releasing into the air.
We measured the outward emission of micron-scale aerosol particles from healthy people who were performing different expiratory activities while wearing various types of masks, whether they be medical-grade or homemade.
Even without fitting testing, both surgical masks, as well as unvented KN95 Mask respirators, reduce outward particle emission rates by 90%, 74%, and on average, during speaking and coughing. This supports their effectiveness in reducing outward emissions. The outward particle emission rate of a super emitter who coughs up to two orders-of-magnitude more exhaled particles than the average person also decreased by using these masks.
However, the shedding of nonexpiratory micron-scale particulates by friable cellulosic fibers in homemade cotton-fabric Masks did not allow for an explicit determination of whether they are effective at reducing expiratory particle emissions. A microphone analysis of speech and coughing intensities revealed that masks make people cough louder, but they speak louder.
Introduction
The transmission of viruses to vulnerable individuals can occur through physical contact with aerosols and droplets, reaerosolization following deposition, direct droplet deposition on mucosal surfaces (e.g. mouth, eyes), inhalation of virus-laden aerosols, or via direct inhalation. It is still unclear how specific respiratory diseases, such as COVID-19, can be transmitted across space by the various modes of transmission (contact, droplet spray, or aerosol inhalation).
However, airborne transmission begins with the initial emission of aerosols and droplets. As a way to reduce disease transmission in healthcare settings, N95 Mask or KN95 Masks should be worn. Although masks provide protection, proper fitting is crucial to maximizing their benefits. There has been much research. Masks may also help to reduce the spread of infection by others. Asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19 have been reported to infect others. This has led to increased calls for universal masking and face coverings to be worn by all members of the public to reduce disease transmission during pandemics. Understanding the effectiveness of different masks and face covers in reducing outward transmissions of aerosols from expiratory activities is important.
Even though the use of masks has some benefit for reducing disease transmission, the clinical and epidemiological studies that evaluated their effectiveness often found that the results were not statistically significant.
Another way to determine or assess mask effectiveness is through laboratory studies. While measuring material filtration efficiency can indicate potential mask effectiveness in preventing outward transmission, it does not directly address the mask's performance when worn. Early photographic evidence shows that masks can reduce the spread of cough-generated particles.
Tests using artificial breathing showed that the concentrations of particles varied between 0.02 mm-1.mm in different mask types. Green et. al. also used simulated breathing. Green et al. found that surgical masks reduced the outward transmission endospores as well as vegetative cells. They also observed a greater reduction in particles larger than 0.7mm. This is in contrast to Leung et. al.'s recent results, which showed a statistically significant decrease in influenza shedding from people who wore surgical masks. However, they did find that masks decreased seasonal coronavirus shedding from breathing for coarse and fine particles. However, viral RNA was still detected in less than half the samples, complicating their assessment.
All of the above studies indicate that masks can reduce the transmission of respiratory diseases. However, no studies have examined the effectiveness of masks across different expiratory activities. Also, there has not been much consideration given to different types of masks. Moreover, there have been no studies that examined masks as possible sources of aerosol particles. It is known that large amounts of dust can be released from fibrous cellulosic materials like paper and cotton. These particles were not considered to be a concern for respiratory viral diseases such as influenza or COVID-19. Instead, they have been believed to transmit the disease via exhaled particles directly from infected persons' respiratory tracts. However, early research in the 1940s showed that the infectious influenza virus could be extracted from the air by shaking a contaminated blanket.
Despite this discovery, little attention was paid to the possibility that respiratory virus transmission via environmental dust over the next 70-years. Khare and Marr were the exceptions, who developed a theoretical model for the resuspension by walking of contaminated dust from a surface. Asadi and colleagues have done some recent work. Experimentally, influenza virus research has shown that non-respiratory particles called "aerosolized fogites" can carry the virus and infect animals.
This observation suggests that masks and other personal protective equipment (PPE) could be sources of aerosolized fomites. Recent work by Liu and co. Recent work by Liu et al. It is not clear what role aerosolized fomites have in the transmission of infectious respiratory diseases between people. Also, it isn't known if certain types of masks can simultaneously block the emission of respiratory particles and minimize non-expiratory (cellulosic), particles.
Comments