ArticleScientific reports2024
Evaluation of the penetration capacity of bacteria through layers of different face mask types and wearing conditions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to quantify the number of non-airborne bacteria that can passively penetrate the layers of four mask types (surgical mask, community face mask type 1 (CFM1), biocidal CFM1 and CFM2) and to determine the influence of wearing conditions for the surgical type. A mask wearer simulator consisting of a 3D anatomical replica of the upper airway connected to a breathing pump was used. Wearing time, filtration quality of the mask, fit (loose vs. tight) and breathing parameters (tidal volume, respiratory rate) were tested. A Staphylococcus epidermidis inoculum was applied to the inner layer. After the wearing simulation, the layers were separated and the bacteria counted. After four hours, no or only a few bacteria were present in the middle and outer layers. Most remained in the inner layer. Surgical mask and CFM1 retained more bacteria and provided a breeding ground for germs. The biocidal CFM1 rapidly reduced the number in the inner layer. The breathing parameters had no influence, in contrast to fit and wearing time. These results confirm that the standard test for bacterial filtration efficiency, which includes the active penetration of airborne bacteria into aerosol droplets, is the most objective measure of the ability of bacteria to penetrate through the mask layers, as the passive penetration ability of non-airborne bacteria is insignificant.
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.