- Advertisement -
HomeCoronavirusDouble masking amid COVID-19 not backed by research, experts say

Double masking amid COVID-19 not backed by research, experts say

- Advertisement -

A study concluding that carrying a disposable medical process masks underneath a reusable fabric face masking protects the wearer towards COVID-19 an infection higher than a masks alone has some scientists frightened that it may inadvertently result in a false sense of safety, dangerous behaviors, and infections.

The research, one in every of a collection on pandemic face coverings funded partially by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), was printed on Apr 16 in JAMA Internal Medicine. The CDC used the research as a foundation for its Apr 6 up to date face masking guidelines, which name for the usage of a multilayered fabric masks or a disposable masks underneath a fabric masks to press the perimeters of the disposable masks towards the face.

Testing procedures

At a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill lab, the researchers measured the focus of particles contained in the face coverings as a share of the sodium chloride particle focus in a 10-by-10-foot stainless-steel publicity chamber meant to imitate ambient air. The face coverings had been connected by tubing to the publicity chamber.

The three contributors had been requested to make a collection of actions of the face, head, and torso, as described by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Quantitative Fit Testing protocol, whereas carrying a nonwoven polypropylene Intco process masks both alone or topped by one other process masks, a Hanes cotton face masks with ear loops, a cotton bandanna, or a polyester gaiter.

The researchers mentioned they discovered {that a} process masks alone was capable of block 43% (customary deviation [SD], 2%) to 62% (SD, 11%) of air particles and that including a second process masks blocked, on common, 66% (SD, 12%)—in contrast with 55% (SD, 11%), on common, for a single process masks. Single fabric face coverings blocked 41% (SD, 12%) to 44% (SD, 12%), whereas two such coverings blocked extra particles.

Wearing a process masks over a fabric face masking blocked about the identical variety of particles on common (61% [SD, 13%] vs 55% [SD, 10%] to 60% (SD, 14%]). “The overall performance was no different than wearing the procedure mask by itself,” the authors mentioned. But carrying a process masks underneath a fabric face masking improved efficiency by a mean of 66% (SD, 5%) to 81% (SD, 6%).

The authors concluded that carrying a medical process masks, reminiscent of these out there to the general public, beneath a fabric face masking dramatically improves total COVID-19 safety by enhancing the seal between the masks and face, “suggesting that fit, not material, is the intrinsic limiting factor for procedure masks.”

‘Time will finally betray you’

Lisa Brosseau, ScD, a analysis guide on the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) on the University of Minnesota, writer of CIDRAP News, nevertheless, mentioned the research was overly simplistic and sends the flawed message.

“It tells people it’s going to be fine, that you can now wear a cotton bandanna over a procedure mask, and you’re going to be protected,” she mentioned. “But if you’re going to spend any period of time in a space wearing a cotton mask over a procedure mask, time will eventually betray you. The small amount of protection you will get will get negated.”

Simon Smith, PhD, a retired researcher in respirator design and growth in Canada, mentioned that the very small research inhabitants generated knowledge which might be tough to interpret, with huge customary deviations. “The spread in data is such that you can’t derive a conclusion from it,” he mentioned. “Is it the actual change or the in-person difference you would see anyway?”

According to the research’s lead writer, Emily Sickbert-Bennett, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the research was designed to measure how effectively two masks defend the wearer towards COVID-19 airborne particles, or aerosols, reasonably than how effectively they defend individuals within the neighborhood. “We were measuring how well the mask protects you if are coming into contact with aerosols,” she mentioned in an interview. “Fitted filtration efficiency is how well a mask keeps what’s outside from coming inside.”

Sickbert-Bennett mentioned, “It’s not so much a matter of adding layers of materials as much as it is that the cloth mask, bandanna, and gaiter have so much more fabric that wraps around the face. It really serves to enhance the fit.”

Minutes, not hours, of safety

The downside, Brousseau mentioned, is that the research ignored filter effectivity as outlined in requirements and within the scientific literature.

“What they’re missing is that filter efficiency is a big player in how well something fits,” Brosseau mentioned, including that almost all process masks have poor filter effectivity, which suggests they let a good quantity of airborne particles by means of.

“And what they’re measuring is not fit; when we fit-test respirators, we use a method that evaluates only the amount that goes around the edges of the facepiece. When you use this same method with a face covering that has a poor filter, you’re measuring leakage through the filter and around the edges. There is quite a lot of penetration through the filter itself.”

Even if double masks conferred the 81% most effectiveness discovered within the research, it’s nonetheless overselling what process masks and fabric face coverings can do over time, Brosseau added. “No, you will not get 80% protection,” she mentioned. “A face covering will give you only minutes. Only a fitted N95 respirator will give you hours.”

Neither does the research specify the particle sizes used within the research or focus on the variations within the universe of face coverings, which might have an effect on efficiency, in line with Brousseau. “All four performance factors—filter efficiency, airflow resistance, and inward and outward leakage—need to be considered,” she mentioned.

The research authors touched on respiratory resistance, noting that double masking can scale back breathability. “That is an important issue and one that has not been recognized by CDC,” Brousseau mentioned. “The higher breathing resistance causes discomfort and makes it unlikely that people will wear the face covering snugly or correctly on their face.”

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -

Stay Connected


Must Read

Related News

- Advertisement -spot_img
Visit Us On FacebookVisit Us On Twitter