MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409629861 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0301310

Measuring the fitted filtration efficiency of cloth masks, medical masks and respirators

2025· article· en· W4409629861 on OpenAlexaff
Amanda A Tomkins, Gurleen Dulai, Ranmeet Dulai, Sarah Rassenberg, Darren Lawless, Scott Laengert, Rebecca S. Rudman, Shiblul Hasan, Charles‐François de Lannoy, Ken G. Drouillard, Catherine M. Clase

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control and Ventilation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorMcMaster University Medical CentreQueen's UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespiratorFiltration (mathematics)Materials scienceComposite materialMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Masks reduce transmission of SARS-CoV2 and other respiratory pathogens. Comparative studies of the fitted filtration efficiency of different types of masks are scarce. OBJECTIVE: To describe the fitted filtration efficiency against small aerosols (0.02-1 µm) of medical and non-medical masks and respirators when worn, and how this is affected by user modifications (hacks) and by overmasking with a cloth mask. DESIGN: We tested a 2-layer woven-cotton cloth mask of a consensus design, ASTM-certified level 1 and level 3 masks, a non-certified mask, KF94s, KN95s, an N95 and a CaN99. SETTING: Closed rooms with ambient particles supplemented by salt particles. PARTICIPANTS: 12 total participants; 21-55 years, 68% female, 77% white, NIOSH 1-10. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: Using standard methods and a PortaCount 8038, we counted 0.02-1 µm particles inside and outside masks and respirators, expressing results as the percentage filtered by each mask. We also studied level 1 and level 3 masks with earguards, scrub caps, the knot-and-tuck method, and the effects of braces or overmasking with a cloth mask. RESULTS: Filtration efficiency for the cloth mask was 47-55%, for level 1 masks 52-60%, for level 3 masks 60-77%. A non-certified KN95 look-alike, two KF94s, and three KN95s filtered 57-77%, and the N95 and CaN99 97-98% without fit testing. External braces and overmasking with a well-fitting cloth mask increased filtration, but earguards, scrub caps, and the knot-and-tuck method did not. LIMITATIONS: Limited number of masks of each type sampled; no adjustment for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Well-fitting 2-layer cotton masks filter in the same range as level 1 masks when worn: around 50%. Level 3 masks and KN95s/KF94s filter around 70%. Over a level 1 mask, external braces or overmasking with a cloth-mask-on-ties produced filtration around 90%. Only N95s and CaN99s, both of which have overhead elastic, performed close to the occupational health and safety standards for fit tested PPE (>99%), filtering at 97-99% when worn, without formal fit testing. These findings inform public health messaging about relative protection from aerosols afforded by different mask types and explain the effectiveness of cloth masks observed in numerous epidemiologic studies conducted in the first year of the pandemic. A plain language summary of these findings is available at https://maskevidence.org/masks-compared.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicInfection Control and VentilationFrench-language works237,207