Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Do N95 respirators provide 95% protection level against airborne viruses, and how adequate are surgical masks?
Am J Infect Control. 2006 Mar; 34(2):51-7.AJ

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Respiratory protection devices are used to protect the wearers from inhaling particles suspended in the air. Filtering face piece respirators are usually tested utilizing nonbiologic particles, whereas their use often aims at reducing exposure to biologic aerosols, including infectious agents such as viruses and bacteria.

METHODS

The performance of 2 types of N95 half-mask, filtering face piece respirators and 2 types of surgical masks were determined. The collection efficiency of these respiratory protection devices was investigated using MS2 virus (a nonharmful simulant of several pathogens). The virions were detected in the particle size range of 10 to 80 nm.

RESULTS

The results indicate that the penetration of virions through the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-certified N95 respirators can exceed an expected level of 5%. As anticipated, the tested surgical masks showed a much higher particle penetration because they are known to be less efficient than the N95 respirators. The 2 surgical masks, which originated from the same manufacturer, showed tremendously different penetration levels of the MS2 virions: 20.5% and 84.5%, respectively, at an inhalation flow rate of 85 L/min.

CONCLUSION

The N95 filtering face piece respirators may not provide the expected protection level against small virions. Some surgical masks may let a significant fraction of airborne viruses penetrate through their filters, providing very low protection against aerosolized infectious agents in the size range of 10 to 80 nm. It should be noted that the surgical masks are primarily designed to protect the environment from the wearer, whereas the respirators are supposed to protect the wearer from the environment.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Bałazy A
Center for Health-Related Aerosol Studies, Department of Environmental Health, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Toivola M
No affiliation info available
Adhikari A
No affiliation info available
Sivasubramani SK
No affiliation info available
Reponen T
No affiliation info available
Grinshpun SA
No affiliation info available

MeSH

Air MicrobiologyAir Pollutants, OccupationalHumansInfection ControlInhalation ExposureLevivirusMasksOccupational ExposureRespiratory Protective DevicesViruses

Pub Type(s)

Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

16490606

Citation

Bałazy, Anna, et al. "Do N95 Respirators Provide 95% Protection Level Against Airborne Viruses, and How Adequate Are Surgical Masks?" American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 34, no. 2, 2006, pp. 51-7.
Bałazy A, Toivola M, Adhikari A, et al. Do N95 respirators provide 95% protection level against airborne viruses, and how adequate are surgical masks? Am J Infect Control. 2006;34(2):51-7.
Bałazy, A., Toivola, M., Adhikari, A., Sivasubramani, S. K., Reponen, T., & Grinshpun, S. A. (2006). Do N95 respirators provide 95% protection level against airborne viruses, and how adequate are surgical masks? American Journal of Infection Control, 34(2), 51-7.
Bałazy A, et al. Do N95 Respirators Provide 95% Protection Level Against Airborne Viruses, and How Adequate Are Surgical Masks. Am J Infect Control. 2006;34(2):51-7. PubMed PMID: 16490606.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Do N95 respirators provide 95% protection level against airborne viruses, and how adequate are surgical masks? AU - Bałazy,Anna, AU - Toivola,Mika, AU - Adhikari,Atin, AU - Sivasubramani,Satheesh K, AU - Reponen,Tiina, AU - Grinshpun,Sergey A, PY - 2005/07/14/received PY - 2005/08/18/revised PY - 2005/08/22/accepted PY - 2006/2/24/pubmed PY - 2006/5/11/medline PY - 2006/2/24/entrez SP - 51 EP - 7 JF - American journal of infection control JO - Am J Infect Control VL - 34 IS - 2 N2 - BACKGROUND: Respiratory protection devices are used to protect the wearers from inhaling particles suspended in the air. Filtering face piece respirators are usually tested utilizing nonbiologic particles, whereas their use often aims at reducing exposure to biologic aerosols, including infectious agents such as viruses and bacteria. METHODS: The performance of 2 types of N95 half-mask, filtering face piece respirators and 2 types of surgical masks were determined. The collection efficiency of these respiratory protection devices was investigated using MS2 virus (a nonharmful simulant of several pathogens). The virions were detected in the particle size range of 10 to 80 nm. RESULTS: The results indicate that the penetration of virions through the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-certified N95 respirators can exceed an expected level of 5%. As anticipated, the tested surgical masks showed a much higher particle penetration because they are known to be less efficient than the N95 respirators. The 2 surgical masks, which originated from the same manufacturer, showed tremendously different penetration levels of the MS2 virions: 20.5% and 84.5%, respectively, at an inhalation flow rate of 85 L/min. CONCLUSION: The N95 filtering face piece respirators may not provide the expected protection level against small virions. Some surgical masks may let a significant fraction of airborne viruses penetrate through their filters, providing very low protection against aerosolized infectious agents in the size range of 10 to 80 nm. It should be noted that the surgical masks are primarily designed to protect the environment from the wearer, whereas the respirators are supposed to protect the wearer from the environment. SN - 0196-6553 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/16490606/Do_N95_respirators_provide_95_protection_level_against_airborne_viruses_and_how_adequate_are_surgical_masks DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -