IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i23p15555-d981815.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Mask Protection against Inhaling Wildfire Smoke, Allergenic Bioaerosols, and Infectious Particles

Author

Listed:
  • Jeff Wagner

    (Environmental Health Laboratory Branch, California Department of Public Health, 850 Marina Bay Parkway, Richmond, CA 94804, USA)

  • Janet M. Macher

    (Environmental Health Laboratory Branch, California Department of Public Health, 850 Marina Bay Parkway, Richmond, CA 94804, USA)

  • Wenhao Chen

    (Environmental Health Laboratory Branch, California Department of Public Health, 850 Marina Bay Parkway, Richmond, CA 94804, USA)

  • Kazukiyo Kumagai

    (Environmental Health Laboratory Branch, California Department of Public Health, 850 Marina Bay Parkway, Richmond, CA 94804, USA)

Abstract

This work compares relative mask inhalation protection against a range of airborne particle sizes that the general public may encounter, including infectious particles, wildfire smoke and ash, and allergenic fungal and plant particles. Several mask types available to the public were modeled with respirable fraction deposition. Best-case collection efficiencies for cloth, surgical, and respirator masks were predicted to be lowest (0.3, 0.6, and 0.8, respectively) for particle types with dominant sub-micrometer modes (wildfire smoke and human-emitted bronchial particles). Conversely, all mask types were predicted to achieve good collection efficiency (up to ~1.0) for the largest-sized particle types, including pollen grains, some fungal spores, and wildfire ash. Polydisperse infectious particles were predicted to be captured by masks with efficiencies of 0.3–1.0 depending on the pathogen size distribution and the type of mask used. Viruses aerosolized orally are predicted to be captured efficiently by all mask types, while those aerosolized from bronchiolar or laryngeal-tracheal sites are captured with much lower efficiency by surgical and cloth masks. The predicted efficiencies changed very little when extrathoracic deposition was included (inhalable rather than respirable fraction) or when very large (100 µm) particles were neglected. Actual mask fit and usage will determine protection levels in practice, but the relative comparisons in this work can inform mask guidance for different inhalation hazards, including particles generated by yard work, wildfires, and infections.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeff Wagner & Janet M. Macher & Wenhao Chen & Kazukiyo Kumagai, 2022. "Comparative Mask Protection against Inhaling Wildfire Smoke, Allergenic Bioaerosols, and Infectious Particles," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-15, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:23:p:15555-:d:981815
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/23/15555/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/23/15555/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anthony P. Pierlot & David L. J. Alexander & Jürg A. Schütz, 2022. "Impact of Wearing on Filtration Performance of Electrostatic Filter Face Masks," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-13, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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.

      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:19:y:2022:i:23:p:15555-:d:981815. 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.