Control de la fuente respiratoria mediante el uso de una mascarilla quirúrgica: un estudio in vitro.

RESUMENLa etiqueta para la tos y la higiene respiratoria son formas de control de la fuente de emisión cuyo uso se alienta para evitar la propagación de infecciones respiratorias. El uso de mascarillas quirúrgicas como medio de control de la fuente en términos de reducción de la exposición de terceros no se ha investigado. En este estudio diseñamos un modelo in vitro utilizando varias mascarillas faciales con el fin de evaluar su aporte a la reducción de la exposición cuando son utilizadas en la fuente infecciosa (Fuente) en comparación con la reducción proporcionada por las mascarillas usadas para la protección primaria (Receptor), así como los factores que contribuyen a cada una. En una cámara con diversos flujos de aire se exhalaron aerosoles radiomarcados desde una cabeza de maniquí de cara blanda ventilada, utilizando respiración periódica y tos (Fuente). En otro maniquí, al que se le colocó un filtro, se cuantificó la exposición del Receptor. Se probaron una mascarilla quirúrgica de ajuste natural, una mascarilla quirúrgica de ajuste seguro (SecureFit) y una mascarilla respiratoria autofiltrante de clase N95 (comúnmente conocida como "mascarilla autofiltrante N95") con y sin sello de vaselina. Con la tos, el control de la fuente (mascarilla quirúrgica/autofiltrante colocada en la Fuente) fue estadísticamente superior a la protección brindada por la mascarilla quirúrgica/mascarilla autofiltrante sin sellar en el Receptor (protección del Receptor) en todos los entornos. Para igualar el control de la fuente durante la tos, la mascarilla autofiltrante N95 debe estar sellada con vaselina. Durante la respiración periódica, el control de la fuente fue comparable o superior a la protección brindada por la mascarilla quirúrgica/autofiltrante en el Receptor. El control de la fuente mediante mascarillas quirúrgicas puede ser una importante defensa adicional contra la propagación de infecciones respiratorias. El ajuste de la mascarilla quirúrgica/autofiltrante combinado con los patrones de flujo de aire en un entorno determinado contribuye de manera significativa a la eficacia del control de la fuente. Los futuros ensayos clínicos deberían incluir un brazo de control de la fuente con mascarilla quirúrgica a fin de evaluar el aporte realizado por el control de la fuente a la protección general contra infecciones de transmisión aérea.

Respiratory source control using a surgical mask: An in vitro study.

Cough etiquette and respiratory hygiene are forms of source control encouraged to prevent the spread of respiratory infection. The use of surgical masks as a means of source control has not been quantified in terms of reducing exposure to others. We designed an in vitro model using various facepieces to assess their contribution to exposure reduction when worn at the infectious source (Source) relative to facepieces worn for primary (Receiver) protection, and the factors that contribute to each. In a chamber with various airflows, radiolabeled aerosols were exhaled via a ventilated soft-face manikin head using tidal breathing and cough (Source). Another manikin, containing a filter, quantified recipient exposure (Receiver). The natural fit surgical mask, fitted (SecureFit) surgical mask and an N95-class filtering facepiece respirator (commonly known as an "N95 respirator") with and without a Vaseline-seal were tested. With cough, source control (mask or respirator on Source) was statistically superior to mask or unsealed respirator protection on the Receiver (Receiver protection) in all environments. To equal source control during coughing, the N95 respirator must be Vaseline-sealed. During tidal breathing, source control was comparable or superior to mask or respirator protection on the Receiver. Source control via surgical masks may be an important adjunct defense against the spread of respiratory infections. The fit of the mask or respirator, in combination with the airflow patterns in a given setting, are significant contributors to source control efficacy. Future clinical trials should include a surgical mask source control arm to assess the contribution of source control in overall protection against airborne infection.

Respiratory source control using surgical masks with nanofiber media.

BACKGROUND: Potentially infected individuals ('source') are sometimes encouraged to use face masks to reduce exposure of their infectious aerosols to others ('receiver'). To improve compliance with Respiratory Source Control via face mask and therefore reduce receiver exposure, a mask should be comfortable and effective. We tested a novel face mask designed to improve breathability and filtration using nanofiber filtration. METHODS: Using radiolabeled test aerosols and a calibrated exposure chamber simulating source to receiver interaction, facepiece function was measured with a life-like ventilated manikin model. Measurements included mask airflow resistance (pressure difference during breathing), filtration, (mask capture of exhaled radiolabeled test aerosols), and exposure (the transfer of 'infectious' aerosols from the 'source' to a 'receiver'). Polydisperse aerosols were measured at the source with a mass median aerodynamic diameter of 0.95 µm. Approximately 90% of the particles were <2.0 µm. Tested facepieces included nanofiber prototype surgical masks, conventional surgical masks, and for comparison, an N95-class filtering facepiece respirator (commonly known as an 'N95 respirator'). Airflow through and around conventional surgical face mask and nanofiber prototype face mask was visualized using Schlieren optical imaging. RESULTS: Airflow resistance [ΔP, cmH2O] across sealed surgical masks (means: 0.1865 and 0.1791 cmH2O) approached that of the N95 (mean: 0.2664 cmH2O). The airflow resistance across the nanofiber face mask whether sealed or not sealed (0.0504 and 0.0311 cmH2O) was significantly reduced in comparison. In addition, 'infected' source airflow filtration and receiver exposure levels for nanofiber face masks placed on the source were comparable to that achieved with N95 placed on the source; 98.98% versus 82.68% and 0.0194 versus 0.0557, respectively. Compared to deflection within and around the conventional face masks, Schlieren optical imaging demonstrated enhanced airflow through the nanofiber mask. CONCLUSIONS: Substituting nanofiber for conventional filter media significantly reduced face mask airflow resistance directing more airflow through the face mask resulting in enhanced filtration. Respiratory source control efficacy similar to that achieved through the use of an N95 respirator worn by the source and decreased airflow resistance using nanofiber masks may improve compliance and reduce receiver exposure.