IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i4p1942-d500730.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Experimental Efficacy of the Face Shield and the Mask against Emitted and Potentially Received Particles

Author

Listed:
  • Jean-Michel Wendling

    (Occupational Health and Safety, ACST, F-67000 Strasbourg, France)

  • Thibaut Fabacher

    (Department of Public Health, GMRC, CHRU, F-67000 Strasbourg, France)

  • Philippe-Pierre Pébaÿ

    (NexGen Analytics, Sheridan, WY 82801, USA)

  • Isabelle Cosperec

    (PharmD, F-94210 St Maur-des-Fossés, France)

  • Michaël Rochoy

    (General Medicine Department, University Lille, CERIM, ULR 2694, F-59000 Lille, France)

Abstract

There is currently not sufficient evidence to support the effectiveness of face shields for source control. In order to evaluate the comparative barrier performance effect of face masks and face shields, we used an aerosol generator and a particle counter to evaluate the performance of the various devices in comparable situations. We tested different configurations in an experimental setup with manikin heads wearing masks (surgical type I), face shields (22.5 cm high with overhang under the chin of 7 cm and circumference of 35 cm) on an emitter or a receiver manikin head, or both. The manikins were face to face, 25 cm apart, with an intense particle emission (52.5 L/min) for 30 s. The particle counter calculated the total cumulative particles aspirated on a volume of 1.416 L In our experimental conditions, when the receiver alone wore a protection, the face shield was more effective (reduction factor = 54.8%), while reduction was lower with a mask (reduction factor = 21.8%) ( p = 0.002). The wearing of a protective device by the emitter alone reduced the level of received particles by 96.8% for both the mask and face shield ( p = NS). When both the emitter and receiver manikin heads wore a face shield, the protection allowed for better results in our experimental conditions: 98% reduction for the face shields versus 97.3% for the masks ( p = 0.01). Face shields offered an even better barrier effect than the mask against small inhaled particles (<0.3 µm–0.3 to 0.5 µm–0.5 to 1 µm) in all configurations. Therefore, it would be interesting to include face shields as used in our experimental study as part of strategies to reduce transmission within the community setting.

Suggested Citation

  • Jean-Michel Wendling & Thibaut Fabacher & Philippe-Pierre Pébaÿ & Isabelle Cosperec & Michaël Rochoy, 2021. "Experimental Efficacy of the Face Shield and the Mask against Emitted and Potentially Received Particles," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-14, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:4:p:1942-:d:500730
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/4/1942/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/4/1942/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lynne Peeples, 2020. "Face masks: what the data say," Nature, Nature, vol. 586(7828), pages 186-189, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wolfgang Schade & Vladislav Reimer & Martin Seipenbusch & Ulrike Willer, 2021. "Experimental Investigation of Aerosol and CO 2 Dispersion for Evaluation of COVID-19 Infection Risk in a Concert Hall," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-11, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Abigail B. Schneider & Bridget Leonard, 2022. "From anxiety to control: Mask‐wearing, perceived marketplace influence, and emotional well‐being during the COVID‐19 pandemic," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(1), pages 97-119, March.
    2. Shockey, James W, 2021. "Social Aspects of COVID Mitigation," SocArXiv sgjvp, Center for Open Science.
    3. Kalgotra, Pankush & Gupta, Ashish & Sharda, Ramesh, 2021. "Pandemic information support lifecycle: Evidence from the evolution of mobile apps during COVID-19," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 540-559.
    4. Francis L. Huang & Wendy Reinke & Keith Herman, 2021. "Does Worrying Matter? Priming and Attitudes Toward Mask Wearing in a Midwestern State," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, November.
    5. Cliodhna O’Connor & Nicola O’Connell & Emma Burke & Ann Nolan & Martin Dempster & Christopher D. Graham & Gail Nicolson & Joseph Barry & Gabriel Scally & Philip Crowley & Lina Zgaga & Luke Mather & Ca, 2021. "Media Representations of Science during the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Analysis of News and Social Media on the Island of Ireland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-23, September.
    6. Ge Song & Hu Cao & Lanyi Liu & Min Jin, 2022. "Analysis of Marine Microplastic Pollution of Disposable Masks under COVID-19 Epidemic—A DPSIR Framework," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-15, December.
    7. Eitan Altman & Mandar Datar & Francesco Pellegrini & Samir Perlaza & Daniel Sadoc Menasché, 2022. "The Mask Game with Multiple Populations," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 147-167, March.
    8. Shumway, Spencer & Hopper, Jonas & Tolman, Ethan Richard & Ferguson, Daniel & Hubble, Gabriella & Patterson, David & Jensen, Jamie, 2020. "Using structural equation modeling to model compliance with COVID-19 related non-pharmaceutical interventions amongst university students in the United States," SocArXiv 9nzr7, Center for Open Science.
    9. Molin, Eric & Kroesen, Maarten, 2022. "Train travel in corona time: Safety perceptions of and support for policy measures," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 196-209.
    10. Mélanie Schmutz & Roland Hischier & Till Batt & Peter Wick & Bernd Nowack & Patrick Wäger & Claudia Som, 2020. "Cotton and Surgical Masks—What Ecological Factors Are Relevant for Their Sustainability?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-13, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:4:p:1942-:d:500730. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.