Facial Hair Decreases Fit Factor of Masks and Respirators in Healthcare Providers.

In response to the current state of the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare providers are using common surgical masks and filtering respirators in conjunction with the presence of facial hair, which could lead to a large number of particles passing into their respiratory system. The purpose of this study was to determine the fit factor effectiveness of filtering respirators and surgical masks in bearded versus non-bearded healthcare providers. A controlled randomized clinical trial (NCT04391010) was carried out, analyzing a sample of 63 healthcare providers. The fit factors of surgical masks and FFP3 filtering respirators for healthcare providers with (n = 32) and without (n = 31) facial hair were compared. Fit factors were measured during an exercises protocol in which healthcare providers wore surgical masks and FFP3 filtering respirators. Surgical mask fit factor comparisons did not show significant differences (p > 0.05) between healthcare providers with and without facial hair. In contrast, filtering respirator fit factor comparisons showed statistically significant differences (p < 0.01) between both groups, indicating that healthcare providers with facial hair showed lower fit factor scores, which implies a worse fit factor with respect to healthcare providers without facial hair. The fit factor effectiveness of filtering respirators was reduced in healthcare providers with facial hair. The authors of this paper encourage healthcare providers to trim their beards during filtering respirator use or wear full-mask filtering facepiece respirators, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fit factor compliance of masks and FFP3 respirators in nurses: A case-control gender study.

AIMS: To determine the fit factor and compliance with American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements of surgical masks and filtering respirators in male versus female nurses. DESIGN: A case-control gender study performed from 2016 to 2019. METHODS: A gender and age matched-paired sample of 74 nurses was recruited and divided into men (n = 37) and women (n = 37). FFP3 filtering respirators and surgical masks fit factors were compared between male and female nurses by Mann-Whitney U tests. These measurements were tested to pass or fail according to the OSHA (≥100) and AIHA (≥50) criteria by Fisher exact tests for a 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Global fit factor mean (standard deviation) was 2.86 (2.73) and 3.55 (6.34) for male and female nurses wearing surgical masks (p = .180), respectively, and nobody passed neither OSHA nor AIHA criteria (p = 1.00). Nevertheless, global fit factor were 30.82 (28.42) and 49.65 (43.04) for male and female nurses wearing FFP3 respirators, respectively, being significantly lower and worse in male nurses (p = .037). According to OSHA criteria, only 2.70% and 13.51% of male and females nurses, respectively, passed with non-significant difference (p = .199), meanwhile 21.62% and 48.64% of male and female nurses, respectively, passed AIHA criteria showing significant differences (p = .027) wearing FFP3 respirators. CONCLUSIONS: All male and female nurses wearing surgical masks failed to pass OSHA and AIHA criteria. Global fit factor of the proposed FFP3 filtering respirators was decreased and worse in male than female nurses. IMPACT: Our recommendation is to avoid surgical masks use for protective purposes and use the proposed FFP3 filtering respirators among nurses. Each nurse should be fit tested for its own respirator with special caution in male nurses due to their lower fit factor achieved and most of them failed to pass OSHA and AIHA criteria, especially during COVID-19 pandemic.

Fit factor of masks used by Physicians in Clinical Settings.

Background: Usually, physicians use filtering respirators in clinical settings to a lesser extent than other simpler surgical masks. The study aim was to determine the fit factor of surgical and other types masks commonly used in clinical settings compared with FFP3 filtering respirators. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out recruiting a total sample of 78 physicians. Fit factor was measured to determine particles count into masks compared to particles count outside of the masks meanwhile physicians carried out a protocol composed by 8 exercises as well as the global fit factor total scores. First, fit factor was analyzed with the usual surgical masks used by physicians in clinical settings. Second, fit factor was determined with the proposed FFP3 filtering respirators. Results: Most participants (97%) used surgical masks. Statistically significant differences (P<0.001) with an effect size from moderate to large (d=0.61-1.00) were shown for fit factors in the different exercises and total scores between surgical and other masks (3.2±5.0) and FFP3 filtering respirators (40.7±37.8). Generally, FFP3 filtering respirators showed a higher fit factor in the different exercises and total scores compared to the commonly used surgical and other types masks in clinical settings. Conclusions: Despite most physicians used surgical masks in clinical settings, filtering FFP3 masks showed a higher fit factor in the different exercises and total scores compared with the used surgical masks and filtering respirators such as FFP1, FFP2 and other types in clinical settings.