Revisiting the rationale of mandatory masking.

In this perspective, we review the evidence for the efficacy of face masks to reduce the transmission of respiratory viruses, specifically severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and consider the value of mandating universal mask wearing against the widespread negative impacts that have been associated with such measures. Before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, it was considered that there was little to no benefit in healthy people wearing masks as prophylaxis against becoming infected or as unwitting vectors of viral transmission. This accepted policy was hastily reversed early on in the pandemic, when districts and countries throughout the world imposed stringent masking mandates. Now, more than three years since the start of the pandemic, the amassed studies that have investigated the use of masks to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (or other pathogens) have led to conclusions that are largely inconsistent and contradictory. There is no statistically significant or unambiguous scientific evidence to justify mandatory masking for general, healthy populations with the intention of lessening the viral spread. Even if mask wearing could potentially reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in individual cases, this needs to be balanced against the physical, psychological and social harms associated with forced mask wearing, not to mention the negative impact of innumerable disposed masks entering our fragile environment. Given the lack of unequivocal scientific proof that masks have any effect on reducing transmission, together with the evident harms to people and the environment through the use of masks, it is our opinion that the mandatory use of face masks in the general population is unjustifiable and must be abandoned in future pandemic countermeasures policies.

The peppermint breath test benchmark for PTR-MS and SIFT-MS.

A major challenge for breath research is the lack of standardization in sampling and analysis. To address this, a test that utilizes a standardized intervention and a defined study protocol has been proposed to explore disparities in breath research across different analytical platforms and to provide benchmark values for comparison. Specifically, thePeppermint Experimentinvolves the targeted analysis in exhaled breath of volatile constituents of peppermint oil after ingestion of the encapsulated oil. Data from thePeppermint Experimentperformed by proton transfer reaction mass spectrometry (PTR-MS) and selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry (SIFT-MS) are presented and discussed herein, including the product ions associated with the key peppermint volatiles, namely limonene,α- andß-pinene, 1,8-cineole, menthol, menthone and menthofuran. The breath washout profiles of these compounds from 65 individuals were collected, comprising datasets from five PTR-MS and two SIFT-MS instruments. The washout profiles of these volatiles were evaluated by comparing the log-fold change over time of the product ion intensities associated with each volatile. Benchmark values were calculated from the lower 95% confidence interval of the linear time-to-washout regression analysis for all datasets combined. Benchmark washout values from PTR-MS analysis were 353 min for the sum of monoterpenes and 1,8-cineole (identical product ions), 173 min for menthol, 330 min for menthofuran, and 218 min for menthone; from SIFT-MS analysis values were 228 min for the sum of monoterpenes, 281 min for the sum of monoterpenes and 1,8-cineole, and 370 min for menthone plus 1,8-cineole. Large inter- and intra-dataset variations were observed, whereby the latter suggests that biological variability plays a key role in how the compounds are absorbed, metabolized and excreted from the body via breath. This variability seems large compared to the influence of sampling and analytical procedures, but further investigations are recommended to clarify the effects of these factors.

Factors affecting flavor perception in space: Does the spacecraft environment influence food intake by astronauts?

The intention to send a crewed mission to Mars involves a huge amount of planning to ensure a safe and successful mission. Providing adequate amounts of food for the crew is a major task, but 20 years of feeding astronauts on the International Space Station (ISS) have resulted in a good knowledge base. A crucial observation from the ISS is that astronauts typically consume only 80% of their daily calorie requirements when in space. This is despite daily exercise regimes that keep energy usage at very similar levels to those found on Earth. This calorie deficit seems to have little effect on astronauts who spend up to 12 months on the ISS, but given that a mission to Mars would take 30 to 36 months to complete, there is concern that a calorie deficit over this period may lead to adverse effects in crew members. The key question is why astronauts undereat when they have a supply of food designed to fully deliver their nutritional needs. This review focuses on evidence from astronauts that foods taste different in space, compared to on Earth. The underlying hypothesis is that conditions in space may change the perceived flavor of the food, and this flavor change may, in turn, lead to underconsumption by astronauts. The key areas investigated in this review for their potential impact on food intake are the effects of food shelf life, physiological changes, noise, air and water quality on the perception of food flavor, as well as the link between food flavor and food intake.

Breath research in times of a global pandemic and beyond: the game changer.

In contrast to blood and urine samples, breath is invisible and ubiquitous in the environment. Different precautions are now necessary beyond the usual 'Universal Precautions'. In the era of COVID-19, breath (especially the aerosol fraction) can no longer be considered as harmless in the clinic or laboratory. As Journal of Breath Research is a primary resource for breath-related research, we (the editors) are presently developing safety guidance applicable to all breath research , not just for those projects that involve known COVID-19 infected subjects. We are starting this process by implementing requirements on reporting safety precautions in research papers and notes. This editorial announces that authors of all new submissions to JBR henceforth must state clearly the procedures undertaken for assuring laboratory and clinical safety, much like the existing requirements for disclosing Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board protocols for studies on human subjects. In the following, we additionally make some recommendations based on best practices drawn from our experience and input from the JBR Editorial Board.

A benchmarking protocol for breath analysis: the peppermint experiment.

Sampling of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) has shown promise for detection of a range of diseases but results have proved hard to replicate due to a lack of standardization. In this work we introduce the 'Peppermint Initiative'. The initiative seeks to disseminate a standardized experiment that allows comparison of breath sampling and data analysis methods. Further, it seeks to share a set of benchmark values for the measurement of VOCs in breath. Pilot data are presented to illustrate the standardized approach to the interpretation of results obtained from the Peppermint experiment. This pilot study was conducted to determine the washout profile of peppermint compounds in breath, identify appropriate sampling time points, and formalise the data analysis. Five and ten participants were recruited to undertake a standardized intervention by ingesting a peppermint oil capsule that engenders a predictable and controlled change in the VOC profile in exhaled breath. After collecting a pre-ingestion breath sample, five further samples are taken at 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 h after ingestion. Samples were analysed using ion mobility spectrometry coupled to multi-capillary column and thermal desorption gas chromatography mass spectrometry. A regression analysis of the washout data was used to determine sampling times for the final peppermint protocol, and the time for the compound measurement to return to baseline levels was selected as a benchmark value. A measure of the quality of the data generated from a given technique is proposed by comparing data fidelity. This study protocol has been used for all subsequent measurements by the Peppermint Consortium (16 partners from seven countries). So far 1200 breath samples from 200 participants using a range of sampling and analytical techniques have been collected. The data from the consortium will be disseminated in subsequent technical notes focussing on results from individual platforms.