Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36497628›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Comparative Mask Protection against Inhaling Wildfire Smoke, Allergenic Bioaerosols, and Infectious Particles.

Jeff Wagner, Janet M Macher, Wenhao Chen, Kazukiyo Kumagai

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Variation in the fitted filtration efficiency of disposable face masks by sex.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2025
    Article
  5. 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
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 · 2024
    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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jeff WagnerEnvironmental Health Laboratory Branch, California Department of Public Health, 850 Marina Bay Parkway, Richmond, CA 94804, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4337-622X
Janet M MacherEnvironmental Health Laboratory Branch, California Department of Public Health, 850 Marina Bay Parkway, Richmond, CA 94804, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1449-8623
Wenhao ChenEnvironmental Health Laboratory Branch, California Department of Public Health, 850 Marina Bay Parkway, Richmond, CA 94804, USA.
Kazukiyo KumagaiEnvironmental Health Laboratory Branch, California Department of Public Health, 850 Marina Bay Parkway, Richmond, CA 94804, USA.
California Department of Public Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Respiratory Protective DevicesAerosolsAllergensHumansMasksParticle SizeSmokeAerosolsAllergensSmokeaerosol modelsCOVID-19exposure assessmentriskwildfires

Identifiers

PMID36497628
PMCPMC9735667
OpenAlexW4309829702

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.