Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34541439›Full record

ArticleGeoHealth2021

Quantifying the Health Benefits of Face Masks and Respirators to Mitigate Exposure to Severe Air Pollution.

John K Kodros, Katelyn O'Dell, Jonathan M Samet, Christian L'Orange, Jeffrey R Pierce, John Volckens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GeoHealth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Health Effects of Wildfire Smoke Exposure.Annual review of medicine · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Variation in the fitted filtration efficiency of disposable face masks by sex.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2025
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Perceptions of and Responses to Wildfire Smoke Among New York State Residents: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Association between long-term PMEnvironmental monitoring and assessment · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

John K KodrosDepartment of Mechanical Engineering Colorado State University Fort Collins CO USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1791-0118
Katelyn O'DellDepartment of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University Fort Collins CO USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0198-6153
Jonathan M SametDepartment of Environmental & Occupational Health Colorado School of Public Health Aurora CO USA.
Christian L'OrangeDepartment of Mechanical Engineering Colorado State University Fort Collins CO USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1905-8694
Jeffrey R PierceDepartment of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University Fort Collins CO USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4241-838X
John VolckensDepartment of Mechanical Engineering Colorado State University Fort Collins CO USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Familiarity with the use of face coverings to reduce the risk of respiratory disease has increased during the coronavirus pandemic; however, recommendations for their use outside of the pandemic remains limited. Here, we develop a modeling framework to quantify the potential health benefits of wearing a face covering or respirator to mitigate exposure to particulate air pollution. This framework accounts for the wide range of available face coverings and respirators, fit factors and efficacy, air pollution characteristics, and exposure-response data. Our modeling shows that N95 respirators offer robust protection against different sources of particulate matter, reducing exposure by more than a factor of 14 when worn with a leak rate of 5%. Synthetic-fiber masks offer less protection with a strong dependence on aerosol size distribution (protection factors ranging from 4.4 to 2.2), while natural-fiber and surgical masks offer reductions in the exposure of 1.9 and 1.7, respectively. To assess the ability of face coverings to provide population-level health benefits to wildfire smoke, we perform a case study for the 2012 Washington state fire season. Our models suggest that although natural-fiber masks offer minor reductions in respiratory hospitalizations attributable to smoke (2%-11%) due to limited filtration efficiency, N95 respirators and to a lesser extent surgical and synthetic-fiber masks may lead to notable reductions in smoke-attributable hospitalizations (22%-39%, 9%-24%, and 7%-18%, respectively). The filtration efficiency, bypass rate, and compliance rate (fraction of time and population wearing the device) are the key factors governing exposure reduction potential and health benefits during severe wildfire smoke events.

Indexed as

air pollutionbiomass burningface maskshealth impact assessmentparticulate matterrespirators

Identifiers

PMID34541439
PMCPMC8438762

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.