A framework for comparing N95 and elastomeric facepiece respirators on cost and function for healthcare use during a pandemic- A literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Elastomeric facepiece respirators (EFRs) are substitutes for N95 respirators when comparing functionality and cost. • Users favour N95 respirators for comfort but prefer EFRs for protection. • EFRs are more cost effective when N95s are used as designed (single use). • Mixed strategies minimize costs when N95s are reused (as practiced during shortages). SARS-CoV-2 has posed implications for personal protective equipment supply. In this literature review we examine if elastomeric facepiece respirators (EFRs) are effective substitutes for N95 respirators through comparing their functionality and cost. We reviewed 30 articles which researched the advantages and disadvantages of each respirator. We compiled the reported results and found, among other things, that users favour N95 respirators for comfort but prefer EFRs for protection. EFRs are more cost effective when N95s are used as designed (single use) but mixed strategies minimize costs when N95s are reused (as practiced during shortages). Future research is needed on multicriteria analyses and to incorporate SARS-CoV-2 specific data to support future pandemic planning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".