Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34753968›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Systematic experimental comparison of particle filtration efficiency test methods for commercial respirators and face masks.

Joel C Corbin, Greg J Smallwood, Ian D Leroux, Jalal Norooz Oliaee, Fengshan Liu, Timothy A Sipkens, Richard G Green, Nathan F Murnaghan, Triantafillos Koukoulas, Prem Lobo

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 80% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Constant vs. cyclic flow when testing face masks and respirators as source control devices for simulated respiratory aerosols.Aerosol science and technology : the journal of the American Association for Aerosol Research · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joel C CorbinMetrology Research Centre, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0R6, Canada. Joel.Corbin@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca.
Greg J SmallwoodMetrology Research Centre, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0R6, Canada.
Ian D LerouxMetrology Research Centre, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0R6, Canada.
Jalal Norooz OliaeeMetrology Research Centre, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0R6, Canada.
Fengshan LiuMetrology Research Centre, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0R6, Canada.
Timothy A SipkensMetrology Research Centre, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0R6, Canada.
Richard G GreenMetrology Research Centre, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0R6, Canada.
Nathan F MurnaghanMetrology Research Centre, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0R6, Canada.
Triantafillos KoukoulasMetrology Research Centre, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0R6, Canada.
Prem LoboMetrology Research Centre, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0R6, Canada.
National Research Council Canada · CA

Funding

National Research Council Canada Pillar 4 of the NRC Pandemic Response Challenge Program
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Respirators, medical masks, and barrier face coverings all filter airborne particles using similar physical principles. However, they are tested for certification using a variety of standardized test methods, creating challenges for the comparison of differently certified products. We have performed systematic experiments to quantify and understand the differences between standardized test methods for N95 respirators (NIOSH TEB-APR-STP-0059 under US 42 CFR 84), medical face masks (ASTM F2299/F2100), and COVID-19-related barrier face coverings (ASTM F3502-21). Our experiments demonstrate the role of face velocity, particle properties (mean size, size variability, electric charge, density, and shape), measurement techniques, and environmental preconditioning. The measured filtration efficiency was most sensitive to changes in face velocity and particle charge. Relative to the NIOSH method, users of the ASTM F2299/F2100 method have commonly used non-neutralized (highly charged) aerosols as well as smaller face velocities, each of which may result in approximately 10% higher measured filtration efficiencies. In the NIOSH method, environmental conditioning at elevated humidity increased filtration efficiency in some commercial samples while decreasing it in others, indicating that measurement should be performed both with and without conditioning. More generally, our results provide an experimental basis for the comparison of respirators certified under various international methods, including FFP2, KN95, P2, Korea 1st Class, and DS2.

Indexed as

COVID-19FiltrationMasksN95 RespiratorsParticle SizeSARS-CoV-2HumansMaterials TestingRespiratory Protective Devices

Identifiers

PMID34753968
PMCPMC8578374
OpenAlexW3206112080

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.