A novel method for the quantitative assessment of the fitted containment efficiency of face coverings

BACKGROUND: Face masks reduce disease transmission by protecting the wearer from inhaled pathogens and reducing the emission of infectious aerosols. Although methods quantifying efficiency for wearer protection are established, current methods for assessing face mask containment efficiency rely on measurement of a low concentration of aerosols emitted from an infected or noninfected individual. METHODS: A small port enabled the introduction of 0.05 µm sodium chloride particles at a constant rate behind the mask worn by a study participant. A condensation particle counter monitored ambient particle numbers 60 cm in front of the participant over 3-minute periods of rest, speaking, and coughing. The containment efficiency (%) for each mask and procedure was calculated as follows: 100 × (1 - average ambient concentration with face covering worn/average ambient concentration with a sham face covering in place). The protection efficiency (%) was also measured using previously published methods. The probability of transmission (%) from infected to uninfected (a function of both the containment efficiency and the protection efficiency) was calculated as follows: {1 - (containment efficiency/100)}×{1 - (protection efficiency/100)}×100. RESULTS: The average containment efficiencies for each mask over all procedures and repeated measures were 94.6%, 60.9%, 38.8%, and 43.2%, respectively, for the N95 mask, the KN95 mask, the procedure face mask, and the gaiter. The corresponding protection efficiencies for each mask were 99.0%, 63.7%, 45.3%, and 24.2%, respectively. For example, the transmission probability for 1 infected and 1 uninfected individual in close proximity was ∼14.2% for KN95 masks, compared to 36%-39% when only 1 individual wore a KN95 mask. CONCLUSION: Overall, we detected a good correlation between the protection and containment that a face covering afforded to a wearer.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
UNC Libraries
Published
2025-03-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.17615/z094-2e82
Primary Topic
Infection Control and Ventilation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A novel method for the quantitative assessment of the fitted containment efficiency of face coverings

Hao Chen, Kirby L. Zeman, William D. Bennett, Steven E. Prince et al.
UNC Libraries
Infection Control and Ventilation
article

A novel method for the quantitative assessment of the fitted containment efficiency of face coverings

Hao Chen, Kirby L. Zeman, William D. Bennett, Steven E. Prince, James M. Samet
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Face masks reduce disease transmission by protecting the wearer from inhaled pathogens and reducing the emission of infectious aerosols. Although methods quantifying efficiency for wearer protection are established, current methods for assessing face mask containment efficiency rely on measurement of a low concentration of aerosols emitted from an infected or noninfected individual. METHODS: A small port enabled the introduction of 0.05 µm sodium chloride particles at a constant rate behind the mask worn by a study participant. A condensation particle counter monitored ambient particle numbers 60 cm in front of the participant over 3-minute periods of rest, speaking, and coughing. The containment efficiency (%) for each mask and procedure was calculated as follows: 100 × (1 - average ambient concentration with face covering worn/average ambient concentration with a sham face covering in place). The protection efficiency (%) was also measured using previously published methods. The probability of transmission (%) from infected to uninfected (a function of both the containment efficiency and the protection efficiency) was calculated as follows: {1 - (containment efficiency/100)}×{1 - (protection efficiency/100)}×100. RESULTS: The average containment efficiencies for each mask over all procedures and repeated measures were 94.6%, 60.9%, 38.8%, and 43.2%, respectively, for the N95 mask, the KN95 mask, the procedure face mask, and the gaiter. The corresponding protection efficiencies for each mask were 99.0%, 63.7%, 45.3%, and 24.2%, respectively. For example, the transmission probability for 1 infected and 1 uninfected individual in close proximity was ∼14.2% for KN95 masks, compared to 36%-39% when only 1 individual wore a KN95 mask. CONCLUSION: Overall, we detected a good correlation between the protection and containment that a face covering afforded to a wearer.

UNC Libraries
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Openalex Percentile: Top 51%
Infection Control and Ventilation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.