This research aimed to evaluate the usability of three alternative protective face mask designs from the clinical perspective. In a remote study, dental students (n=38) with experience wearing N95 FFRs participated in a randomized wear trial with simulated activities to measure mask performance. A Likertscale survey instrument was developed to examine conditions of discomfort, fit stability, wear efficiency, and speech intelligibility. Survey results indicated the KN95 mask demonstrated the highest overall mask usability, followed by MNmask v2, and MNmask v1. While participants found MNmask v1 uncomfortable, the stability was rated highest during a head up and down activity (M=3.54). Here, the KN95 mask had a lower rating (M=3.36), revealing potential issues with a loose fit. MNmask v2 showed overall improvement from MNmask v1, but revealed complications with the paracord bands. The findings from this study may be applied broadly in improving mask performance and usability in protective face mask designs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaigA. S.KnappC.EaganA. E.RadonovichL. J. (2010). Health care workers’ views about respirator use and features that should be included in the next generation of respirators. American Journal of Infection Control, 38(1), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2009.09.005
2.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. (2020). Strategies for optimizing the supply of N95 respirators: Crisis/alternate strategies. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/86042
DulJ.BruderR.BuckleP.CarayonP.FalzonP.MarrasW. S.WilsonJ. R.van der DoelenB. (2012). A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: Developing the discipline and profession. Ergonomics, 55(4), 377–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2012.661087
5.
GriffinL. A.YuM.CloetA.ArnoldS.CarlsonN.HillmyerM.OuQ.PeiC.CaoQ.PuiD. Y. H.FranklinR.DurfeeW. (2022). Protective masks utilizing non-endangered components. Journal of Medical Devices. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4053720
LiY.TokuraH.GuoY. P.WongA. S. W.WongT.ChungJ.NewtonE. (2005). Effects of wearing N95 and surgical facemasks on heart rate, thermal stress and subjective sensations. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 78, 501–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-004-0584-4
8.
LiS.WaheedU.BahshwanM.WangL. Z.KalossakaL. M.ChoiJ.KundrakF.LattasA.PloumpisS.ZafeiriouS.MyantC. W. (2021). A scalable mass customisation design process for 3D-printed respirator mask to combat COVID-19. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 27(7), 1302–1317. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-10-2020-0231
9.
LocatelliS. M.LaVelaS. L.GoschM. (2014). Health care workers’ reported discomfort while wearing filtering face-piece respirators. Workplace Health & Safety, 62(9), 362–368. https://doi.org/10.3928/21650799-20140804-03
10.
LoibnerM.HagauerS.SchwantzerG.BergholdA.ZatloukalK. (2019). Limiting factors for wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) in a health care environment evaluated in a randomised study. PLoS ONE, 14(1), e0210775. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210775
11.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health [NIOSH]. (1996). NIOSH guide to the selection and use of particulate respirators certified under 42 CFR 84 (NIOSH Publication No. 96-101). Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/96101/
OrP. P. L.ChungJ. W. Y.WongT. K. S. (2018). A study of environmental factors affecting nurses’ comfort and protection in wearing N95 respirators during bedside procedures. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 27(7–8), e1477–e1484. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14268
14.
OuQ.PeiC.KimS. C.AbellE.PuiD. Y. H. (2020). Evaluation of decontamination methods for commercial and alternative respirator and mask materials – View from filtration aspect. Journal of Aerosol. Science, 150, 105609. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2020.105609
15.
PeiC.OuQ.KimS. C.ChenS.-C.PuiD. Y. H. (2020). Alternative face masks made of common materials for general public: Fractional filtration efficiency and breathability perspective. Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 20(12), 2581–2591. https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2020.07.0423
16.
PompeiiL. A.KraftC. S.BrownswordE. A.LaneM. A.BenavidesE.RiosJ.RadonovichL. J. (2020). Training and fit testing of health care personnel for reusable elastomeric half-mask respirators compared with disposable N95 respirators. JAMA323(18), 1849–1852. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.4806
17.
SuenL. K. P.GuoY. P.HoS. S. K.Au-YeungC. H.LamS. C. (2020). Comparing mask fit and usability of traditional and nanofibre N95 filtering facepiece respirators before and after nursing procedures. Journal of Hospital Infection, 104(3), 336–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2019.09.014
18.
ToigoS.JacquesM.RazekT.RajdaE.OmelonS.DankoffF.TohmeR.LefebvreP.DeckelbaumD. L. (2021). Fit testing retrofitted full-face snorkel masks as a form of novel personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2021.133
ViscusiD. J.BergmanM. S.NovakD. A.FaulknerK. A.PalmieroA.PowellJ.ShafferR. E. (2011). Impact of three biological decontamination methods on filtering facepiece respirator fit, odor, comfort, and donning ease. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 8(7), 426–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2011.585927
