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.

Standardization of techniques for using planar (2D) imaging for aerosol deposition assessment of orally inhaled products.

Two-dimensional (2D or planar) imaging with (99m)Tc radiolabels enables quantification of whole-lung and regional lung depositions for orally inhaled drug products. This article recommends standardized methodology for 2D imaging studies. Simultaneous anterior and posterior imaging with a dual-headed gamma camera is preferred, but imaging with a single-headed gamma camera is also acceptable. Correction of raw data for the effects of gamma ray attenuation is considered essential for accurate quantification, for instance, using transmission scanning with a flood-field source of (99m)Tc or (57)Co. Evidence should be provided of the accuracy of the quantification method, for instance, by determining "mass balance." Lung deposition may be expressed as a percentage of ex-valve or ex-device dose, but should also be given as mass of drug when possible. Assessment of regional lung deposition requires delineation of the lung borders, using X-ray computed tomography, radioactive gas scans ((133)Xe or (81m)Kr), or transmission scans. When quantifying regional lung deposition, the lung should be divided into outer (O) and inner (I) zones. A penetration index should be calculated, as the O/I ratio for aerosol, normalized to that for a radioactive gas or transmission scan. A variety of methods can be used to assess lung deposition and distribution. Methodology and results should be documented in detail, so that data from different centers may be compared. The use of appropriate methodology will provide greater confidence in the results of 2D imaging studies, and should allay concerns that such studies are qualitative or semiquantitative in nature.