ArticleScientific reports2026
A system for invitro inhaled/exhaled aerosol testing of personal protective equipment.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Social distancing at six feet (about two meters), frequent hand hygiene, and using personal protective equipment (PPE) such as masks and shields are common practices to reduce the transmission of airborne viruses. An in-vitro system for testing and comparing a selection of PPE to prevent aerosol escape and aerosol intrusion at three distances and three angles is described. In the system tested, at six feet, face masks or shields provided markedly decreased aerosol transmission in a room with limited ventilation. At two feet, with a type of protection wearing manikin emitting aerosols of normal saline and a non-barrier receiver, the aerosol transmission increased with the use of a KN95 (+ 20%), a washable cloth mask (+ 25%), a disposable shield (+ 7%), a 3D printed shield (+ 3%), and a shop shield (+ 15%) compared to the case with no PPE used on either. Changing the angle at which the two manikins are facing each other affected aerosol transmission; compared to the manikins wearing an N95 mask and facing each other, an angle of 45° and 90° increased transmission by 43% and 52%, respectively. With both the generator and receiver wearing a disposable medical mask, aerosols detected at all distances were significantly attenuated. In the system tested, masks generally provided superior aerosol transmission reduction when compared to face shields. These resultsare not intended to guide PPE selection but may serve as a framework for future research and advanced testing methodology. It is reassuring to confirm however that the distance between the aerosol transmitter and receiver significantly reduced aerosol exposure and that a simple surgical mask worn by both transmitter and receiver markedly reduced transmission to near background levels. The manikin represents a scaled-down model; therefore, absolute flow fields differ from adult physiology. The findings should be interpreted in relative rather than absolute terms.
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.