ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Do They Really Work? Quantifying Fabric Mask Effectiveness to Improve Public Health Messaging.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Roll-To-Roll Coated Metal-Organic Framework (MOF)-Fabric-Based Filters for Particulate Matter Filtration and Chemical Warfare Agent Degradation.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2026Article
- Measuring the fitted filtration efficiency of cloth masks, medical masks and respirators.PloS one · 2025Article
- Potential Impacts of Prolonged Face Mask Use on Temporomandibular Joint Health as Neglected Lifestyle Repercussions of COVID-19 Pandemic-A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- 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 · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to compare masks (non-medical/fabric, surgical, and N95 respirators) on filtration efficiency, differential pressure, and leakage with the goal of providing evidence to improve public health messaging. Masks were tested on an anthropometric face filtration mount, comparing both sealed and unsealed. Overall, surgical and N95 respirators provided significantly higher filtration efficiency (FE) and differential pressure (dP). Leakage comparisons are one of the most significant factors in mask efficiency. Higher weight and thicker fabric masks had significantly higher filtration efficiency. The findings of this study have important implications for communication and education regarding the use of masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and other respiratory illnesses, specifically the differences between sealed and unsealed masks. The type and fabric of facial masks and whether a mask is sealed or unsealed has a significant impact on the effectiveness of a mask. Findings related to differences between sealed and unsealed masks are of critical importance for health care workers. If a mask is not completely sealed around the edges of the wearer, FE for this personal protective equipment is misrepresented and may create a false sense of security. These results can inform efforts to educate health care workers and the public on the importance of proper mask fit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.