ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Comparative Mask Protection against Inhaling Wildfire Smoke, Allergenic Bioaerosols, and Infectious Particles.
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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- N95 filtering facepiece respirator fit assessment outcomes by gender, age, race, and facial hair in a community population sample.Annals of work exposures and health · 2026Article
- Narrative review of wildfire smoke interventions: considering the unique vulnerabilities of children and pregnant individuals.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2026Review
- Barriers and Facilitators to Early-life Wildfire Smoke Protection in a Rural Population: The Role of Community in Research and Public Health Practice.Research square · 2025Article
- Variation in the fitted filtration efficiency of disposable face masks by sex.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2025Article
- Perceptions of and Responses to Wildfire Smoke Among New York State Residents: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Behavioral Responses to Wildfire Smoke: A Case Study in Western Montana.Journal of community health · 2025Article
- Factors associated with the mask-wearing behavior of university students in Japan: a cross-sectional study of the post-mask-mandate period.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- A Review of the Increasing Global Impact of Climate Change on Human Health and Approaches to Medical Preparedness.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This work compares relative mask inhalation protection against a range of airborne particle sizes that the general public may encounter, including infectious particles, wildfire smoke and ash, and allergenic fungal and plant particles. Several mask types available to the public were modeled with respirable fraction deposition. Best-case collection efficiencies for cloth, surgical, and respirator masks were predicted to be lowest (0.3, 0.6, and 0.8, respectively) for particle types with dominant sub-micrometer modes (wildfire smoke and human-emitted bronchial particles). Conversely, all mask types were predicted to achieve good collection efficiency (up to ~1.0) for the largest-sized particle types, including pollen grains, some fungal spores, and wildfire ash. Polydisperse infectious particles were predicted to be captured by masks with efficiencies of 0.3-1.0 depending on the pathogen size distribution and the type of mask used. Viruses aerosolized orally are predicted to be captured efficiently by all mask types, while those aerosolized from bronchiolar or laryngeal-tracheal sites are captured with much lower efficiency by surgical and cloth masks. The predicted efficiencies changed very little when extrathoracic deposition was included (inhalable rather than respirable fraction) or when very large (100 µm) particles were neglected. Actual mask fit and usage will determine protection levels in practice, but the relative comparisons in this work can inform mask guidance for different inhalation hazards, including particles generated by yard work, wildfires, and infections.
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.