17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      N95 respirator and surgical mask in the pandemic of COVID-19

      letter
      , 1 , 2
      Annals of Thoracic Medicine
      Wolters Kluwer - Medknow

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Sir, In the pandemic and panic of COVID-19, we have come across lot of articles on N95 respirators, but do the health-care personnel really know the difference between a “mask” and a “respirator” and the protection level provided by the two. Surgical masks are loose fitting personal protective equipment, which cover the nose and mouth. They are designed for one-way protection and contrary to the belief, masks are not designed to protect the wearer. Respirators are tight fitting masks, designed to create a facial seal and are available in three forms – disposable (N95 respirators), half-face, and full-face respirators. The respirators are designed to protect the wearer (when worn properly), up to the safety rating of the mask. The most commonly discussed respirator type is N95. This is an American standard managed by the NIOSH – part of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Europe uses two different standards. The “filtering face piece” score (FFP) comes from the EN standard 149:2001. EN 143 standards cover P1/P2/P3 ratings. Both standards are maintained by the CEN (European Committee for Standardization). The closest European equivalent to N95 is FFP2/P2-rated respirators, which are rated at 94%, compared to the 95% of N95. KN95 masks are the Chinese counterparts of American N95 masks. Theoretically, Chinese KN95, AS/NZ P2, Korean 1stClass, and Japanese DS FFRs are equivalent to US NIOSH N95 and European FFP2 respirators.[1] N95 respirators are of two types – valved and nonvalved N95 respirators. A valved N95 respirator makes it easier to exhale air, thus making it more comfortable to wear, and leads to less moisture buildup inside the respirator. The problem with valved N95 respirators is that they do not filter the wearer's exhalation, only the inhale. This one-way protection puts others around the wearer at risk, in a situation like COVID-19. It is for this reason that hospitals and other medical practices do not use valved respirators. Surgical masks, also known as triple-layered masks, are usually three-layered masks. They consist of two sheets of “nonwoven” fabric sandwiching a “melt-blown” layer in the middle. It is the melt-blown layer that provides the filtering capability. The melt-blown fabric is made by melting a plastic, then blowing it from either side at a high velocity onto a rotating barrel. A melt-blown material is also used in respirators, and thus you can imagine that it is more expensive and hard to come by recently, due to demand.[1 2] What Does N95 Mean? N: Stands for respirator rating letter class. It stands for “nonoil,” meaning that if no oil-based particulates are present, then you can use the mask in the work environment. Other masks' ratings are R (resistant to oil for 8 h) and P (oil proof).2 95: Masks ending in a 95 have 95% efficiency in removing 0.3 μ particles. Masks ending in 99 have 99% efficiency. Masks ending in 100 are 99.97% efficient and that is the same as a high-efficiency particulate air quality filter. 0.3 μ: Masks filter out contaminants such as dusts, mists, and fumes. The minimum size of 0.3 μ of particulates and large droplets will not pass through the barrier, according to the CDC. Materials: The filtration material on the mask is an electrostatic nonwoven polypropylene fiber. Protection Level Provided by N95 Respirators and Surgical Masks Various trials and studies on surgical mask versus N95 respirators for preventing influenza among health-care workers show that N95 respirators appeared to have a protective advantage over surgical masks only in laboratory settings. There were insufficient data to determine definitively whether N95 respirators are superior to surgical masks in protecting health-care workers against transmissible acute respiratory infections in clinical settings.[3 4] Studies have shown that for a droplet-transmissible infection, a properly worn surgical mask is more protective than an ill-fitted, inappropriately used N95 mask. The recommendation for the use of N95 masks may be counterproductive. Its use is often perceived by health-care workers to be difficult to tolerate and is also been associated with impaired mental performance and increased headache in health-care workers.[5 6] An important property of a mask or respirator is the pore size of the protective apparatus as it is the main component that allows or prohibits the passage of pathogen. Because the coronavirus is an extremely small virus, it can pass through the pores of both the surgical mask and N95 respirator. Hence, considering the nanostructure of the protective apparatuses, practically, there should not be any difference in their protective activity.[7] Droplet and contact precautions are more important than just wearing the surgical mask or a N95 respirator. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.

          Related collections

          Most cited references5

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Surgical mask vs N95 respirator for preventing influenza among health care workers: a randomized trial.

          Data about the effectiveness of the surgical mask compared with the N95 respirator for protecting health care workers against influenza are sparse. Given the likelihood that N95 respirators will be in short supply during a pandemic and not available in many countries, knowing the effectiveness of the surgical mask is of public health importance. To compare the surgical mask with the N95 respirator in protecting health care workers against influenza. Noninferiority randomized controlled trial of 446 nurses in emergency departments, medical units, and pediatric units in 8 tertiary care Ontario hospitals. Assignment to either a fit-tested N95 respirator or a surgical mask when providing care to patients with febrile respiratory illness during the 2008-2009 influenza season. The primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed influenza measured by polymerase chain reaction or a 4-fold rise in hemagglutinin titers. Effectiveness of the surgical mask was assessed as noninferiority of the surgical mask compared with the N95 respirator. The criterion for noninferiority was met if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the reduction in incidence (N95 respirator minus surgical group) was greater than -9%. Between September 23, 2008, and December 8, 2008, 478 nurses were assessed for eligibility and 446 nurses were enrolled and randomly assigned the intervention; 225 were allocated to receive surgical masks and 221 to N95 respirators. Influenza infection occurred in 50 nurses (23.6%) in the surgical mask group and in 48 (22.9%) in the N95 respirator group (absolute risk difference, -0.73%; 95% CI, -8.8% to 7.3%; P = .86), the lower confidence limit being inside the noninferiority limit of -9%. Among nurses in Ontario tertiary care hospitals, use of a surgical mask compared with an N95 respirator resulted in noninferior rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00756574
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

            Conflicting recommendations exist related to which facial protection should be used by health care workers to prevent transmission of acute respiratory infections, including pandemic influenza. We performed a systematic review of both clinical and surrogate exposure data comparing N95 respirators and surgical masks for the prevention of transmissible acute respiratory infections.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Headaches and the N95 face‐mask amongst healthcare providers

              Background:  During the 2003 severe acute respiratory distress syndrome epidemic, healthcare workers mandatorily wore the protective N95 face‐mask. Methods:  We administered a survey to healthcare workers to determine risk factors associated with development of headaches (frequency, headache subtypes and duration of face‐mask wear) and the impact of headaches (sick days, headache frequency and use of abortive/preventive headache medications). Results:  In the survey, 212 (47 male, 165 female) healthcare workers of mean age 31 years (range, 21–58) participated. Of the 79 (37.3%) respondents who reported face‐mask‐associated headaches, 26 (32.9%) reported headache frequency exceeding six times per month. Six (7.6%) had taken sick leave from March 2003 to June 2004 (mean 2 days; range 1–4 days) and 47 (59.5%) required use of abortive analgesics because of headache. Four (2.1%) took preventive medications for headaches during this period. Multivariate logistic regression showed that pre‐existing headaches [P = 0.041, OR = 1.97 (95% CI 1.03–3.77)] and continuous use of the N95 face‐mask exceeding 4 h [P = 0.053, OR = 1.85 (95% CI 0.99–3.43)] were associated with development of headaches. Conclusions:  Healthcare providers may develop headaches following the use of the N95 face‐mask. Shorter duration of face‐mask wear may reduce the frequency and severity of these headaches.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ann Thorac Med
                Ann Thorac Med
                ATM
                Annals of Thoracic Medicine
                Wolters Kluwer - Medknow (India )
                1817-1737
                1998-3557
                Oct-Dec 2020
                10 October 2020
                : 15
                : 4
                : 247-248
                Affiliations
                [1] Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India. E-mail: binitsurekapgi@ 123456gmail.com
                [1 ] Department of General Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
                [2 ] Department of Surgical Oncology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
                Article
                ATM-15-247
                10.4103/atm.ATM_264_20
                7720739
                ffbcf8e7-8bba-46a9-abb8-c4f69a76240f
                Copyright: © 2020 Annals of Thoracic Medicine

                This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

                History
                : 17 May 2020
                : 19 May 2020
                Categories
                Letter to the Editor

                Respiratory medicine
                Respiratory medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article