Facemask protection results and a huge market ahead

The 2020 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has increased demands for surgical and respirator masks not only for healthcare workers but for the public in general. This means that corporations work toward a new very demanding market with tremendous profit margins. But, what mask should we wear?

   According to a new study, published on the Elsevier journal The Healthcare Infection Society, on June 1, 2020, limited supply of masks creates a risk for the exposure of people to SARS-CoV-2, mainly of healthcare workers.

   Non-traditional materials are widely recommended for public use and have been considered in place of regulated masks in health care. The study emphasizes that while various materials are effective for filtering large droplets, aerosols generated from sneezing, coughing, and aerosol-generating procedures may pass more readily through materials or leakage points.

   Thus, the researchers analyzed data when no mask was worn; when an FFP2 (N95) respirator, FFP3 (N99) respirator or surgical mask was worn; or when a non-traditional material mask (silk, tea towel, vacuum cleaner bag, pillowcase, antimicrobial pillowcase, cotton mix, 100% cotton T-shirt, linen or scarf) was worn.

   Comparing no protection (as the baseline) for 20-minutes and 30-seconds exposures (scenarios when being with the patient in a room), it was predicted that the mean risk of infection was reduced by 24-94% and 44-99% depending on the mask. Risk reductions decreased as exposure durations increased.

   The greatest reduction in estimated mean risk of infection was for FFP3 masks, the vacuum cleaner bag resulted in unexpected great results, while scarves, silk, linen, and cotton masks offered the lowest reduction. Also, the study limits include not accounting for viral transfer from the hands to the mask during mask adjustments, and assuming that all masks were worn in the same way.