title: Respiratory source control using surgical masks with nanofiber media.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Potentially infected individuals ('source') are sometimes encouraged to use face masks to reduce exposure of their infectious aerosols to others ('receiver'). To improve compliance with Respiratory Source Control via face mask and therefore reduce receiver exposure, a mask should be comfortable and effective. We tested a novel face mask designed to improve breathability and filtration using nanofiber filtration.
  
  
  METHODS
  Using radiolabeled test aerosols and a calibrated exposure chamber simulating source to receiver interaction, facepiece function was measured with a life-like ventilated manikin model. Measurements included mask airflow resistance (pressure difference during breathing), filtration, (mask capture of exhaled radiolabeled test aerosols), and exposure (the transfer of 'infectious' aerosols from the 'source' to a 'receiver'). Polydisperse aerosols were measured at the source with a mass median aerodynamic diameter of 0.95 µm. Approximately 90% of the particles were <2.0 µm. Tested facepieces included nanofiber prototype surgical masks, conventional surgical masks, and for comparison, an N95-class filtering facepiece respirator (commonly known as an 'N95 respirator'). Airflow through and around conventional surgical face mask and nanofiber prototype face mask was visualized using Schlieren optical imaging.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Airflow resistance [ΔP, cmH2O] across sealed surgical masks (means: 0.1865 and 0.1791 cmH2O) approached that of the N95 (mean: 0.2664 cmH2O). The airflow resistance across the nanofiber face mask whether sealed or not sealed (0.0504 and 0.0311 cmH2O) was significantly reduced in comparison. In addition, 'infected' source airflow filtration and receiver exposure levels for nanofiber face masks placed on the source were comparable to that achieved with N95 placed on the source; 98.98% versus 82.68% and 0.0194 versus 0.0557, respectively. Compared to deflection within and around the conventional face masks, Schlieren optical imaging demonstrated enhanced airflow through the nanofiber mask.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Substituting nanofiber for conventional filter media significantly reduced face mask airflow resistance directing more airflow through the face mask resulting in enhanced filtration. Respiratory source control efficacy similar to that achieved through the use of an N95 respirator worn by the source and decreased airflow resistance using nanofiber masks may improve compliance and reduce receiver exposure.
authors.affiliation: Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care & Sleep Medicine, Stony Brook University Medical Center, 100 Nicolls Road, HSC T-17-040, Stony Brook, NY 11794-8172, USA.
authors.forename: Shaji D
authors.initials: SD
authors.lastname: Skaria
authors.affiliation: Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care & Sleep Medicine, Stony Brook University Medical Center, 100 Nicolls Road, HSC T-17-040, Stony Brook, NY 11794-8172, USA gerald.smaldone@stonybrook.edu.
authors.forename: Gerald C
authors.initials: GC
authors.lastname: Smaldone
mesh_terms: D000336:Aerosols / Q000032:analysis*; D004867:Equipment Design / Q000379:methods; D005374:Filtration; D006801:Humans; D019570:Inhalation Exposure / Q000517:prevention & control*; D008348:Manikins; D008397:Masks; D057139:Nanofibers; D016273:Occupational Exposure / Q000517:prevention & control; D010316:Particle Size
chemical_list: D000336:Aerosols
keywords: healthcare worker protection; mask comfort; mask compliance
references.citation: BMJ. 2009 Sep 21;339:b3675
references.pmid: 19773323
references.citation: PLoS One. 2010 Nov 17;5(11):e13998
references.pmid: 21103330
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e50845
references.pmid: 23239991
references.citation: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997 Jan;18(1):49-57
references.pmid: 9013247
references.citation: Emerg Infect Dis. 2009 Feb;15(2):233-41
references.pmid: 19193267
references.citation: Am J Infect Control. 2010 Sep;38(7):501-8
references.pmid: 20736113
references.citation: PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e21392
references.pmid: 21731730
references.citation: Am J Infect Control. 2007 Dec;35(10 Suppl 2):S65-164
references.pmid: 18068815
references.citation: J R Soc Interface. 2009 Dec 6;6 Suppl 6:S727-36
references.pmid: 19815575
references.citation: Public Health Nurs. 2011 Jan-Feb;28(1):13-23
references.pmid: 21198810
references.citation: J Occup Environ Hyg. 2012;9(1):59-64
references.pmid: 22168256
references.citation: Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2005 Jul;78(6):501-9
references.pmid: 15918037
references.citation: J Hosp Infect. 2011 Mar;77(3):213-22
references.pmid: 21194796
references.citation: Am J Infect Control. 2012 Sep;40(7):611-6
references.pmid: 22575285
references.citation: Public Health Rep. 2010 Mar-Apr;125(2):178-91
references.pmid: 20297744
references.citation: Am J Infect Control. 2010 Feb;38(1):18-25
references.pmid: 20036443
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 2009 Oct 6;151(7):437-46
references.pmid: 19652172
references.citation: PLoS One. 2013 Dec 27;8(12):e84901
references.pmid: 24386434
references.citation: Am J Infect Control. 2013 Dec;41(12):1224-30
references.pmid: 23726655
references.citation: J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. 2013 Jun;26(3):131-7
references.pmid: 23544951
references.citation: JAMA. 2009 Jan 7;301(1):36-8
references.pmid: 19126810