ArticlePloS one2025
Measuring the fitted filtration efficiency of cloth masks, medical masks and respirators.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
importanceMasks reduce transmission of SARS-CoV2 and other respiratory pathogens. Comparative studies of the fitted filtration efficiency of different types of masks are scarce.
objectiveTo describe the fitted filtration efficiency against small aerosols (0.02-1 µm) of medical and non-medical masks and respirators when worn, and how this is affected by user modifications (hacks) and by overmasking with a cloth mask.
designWe tested a 2-layer woven-cotton cloth mask of a consensus design, ASTM-certified level 1 and level 3 masks, a non-certified mask, KF94s, KN95s, an N95 and a CaN99.
settingClosed rooms with ambient particles supplemented by salt particles.
participants12 total participants; 21-55 years, 68% female, 77% white, NIOSH 1-10. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: Using standard methods and a PortaCount 8038, we counted 0.02-1 µm particles inside and outside masks and respirators, expressing results as the percentage filtered by each mask. We also studied level 1 and level 3 masks with earguards, scrub caps, the knot-and-tuck method, and the effects of braces or overmasking with a cloth mask.
resultsFiltration efficiency for the cloth mask was 47-55%, for level 1 masks 52-60%, for level 3 masks 60-77%. A non-certified KN95 look-alike, two KF94s, and three KN95s filtered 57-77%, and the N95 and CaN99 97-98% without fit testing. External braces and overmasking with a well-fitting cloth mask increased filtration, but earguards, scrub caps, and the knot-and-tuck method did not. LIMITATIONS: Limited number of masks of each type sampled; no adjustment for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Well-fitting 2-layer cotton masks filter in the same range as level 1 masks when worn: around 50%. Level 3 masks and KN95s/KF94s filter around 70%. Over a level 1 mask, external braces or overmasking with a cloth-mask-on-ties produced filtration around 90%. Only N95s and CaN99s, both of which have overhead elastic, performed close to the occupational health and safety standards for fit tested PPE (>99%), filtering at 97-99% when worn, without formal fit testing. These findings inform public health messaging about relative protection from aerosols afforded by different mask types and explain the effectiveness of cloth masks observed in numerous epidemiologic studies conducted in the first year of the pandemic. A plain language summary of these findings is available at https://maskevidence.org/masks-compared.
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.