Journal of Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene (한국산업보건학회지)

Korean Industrial Hygiene Association (한국산업보건학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparisons of Certification Standards for Mask and Review on Filtration Efficiency for Viruses

마스크의 인증기준 비교와 바이러스 여과효율에 대한 고찰

  • Yoon, Chungsik (Institute of Health and Environment, Seoul National University) ;
  • Go, Sulbee (Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University) ;
  • Park, Jihoon (Institute of Health and Environment, Seoul National University)
  • 윤충식 (서울대학교 보건환경연구소) ;
  • 고슬비 (서울대학교 보건대학원 환경보건학과) ;
  • 박지훈 (서울대학교 보건환경연구소)
  • Received : 2020.04.22
  • Accepted : 2020.06.19
  • Published : 2020.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: The aims of this study were to review the standards and key components of the standards for disposable masks in Korea, the US, EU, Japan, and China and to evaluate the appropriateness of disposable masks during a virus pandemic. Methods: We reviewed the standards in the above countries and compared their key elements for each standard. For the second purpose, systemic paper gathering using key words like 'mask', 'respirator' 'virus', and 'coronavirus' in the PubMed search engine was performed. Fifty-three papers were selected and reviewed in regard to the appropriateness of test protocols with sodium chloride(NaCl) particles for virus filtration and the effectiveness against viruses. Results: The standards for masks are largely divided into two categories: US standards and EU standards. In Korea, the Ministry of Employment and Labor adapted the EU standards for workers and the Health Masks adopted the Ministry of Employment and Labor standards by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. Regarding airborne viral infections, WHO emphasizes only droplet infection, while many studies have shown that small particles enter the air through coughing or sneezing, which increases the possibility of airborne infection. Compared to other particles, various factors such as airborne viability and the ability to replicate the virus in the body are further involved in the virus's airborne infection rate. Airborne infection is classified into absolute air infection, preferential air infection, and opportunistic air infection. The NaCl-certified N95 mask showed good filtration efficiency against viruses and NaCl particles were proved to be a surrogate material for viruses. From this, KF94 is also expected to be effective in blocking viruses. Conclusion: The N95 test method could be used as a surrogate test method for virus filtration. N95-class masks have been found to effectively block viral infections in the air. However, surgical or medical masks are only partially effective against airborne virus infection though they could effectively block large droplet infection. However, most studies considered in this study targeted N95 in foreign countries and studies on masks actually used in Korea are very limited, so studies on microorganisms and reuse on domestic masks should be conducted in the future.

Keywords

References

  1. Bin-Reza F, Lopez Chavarrias V, Nicoll A, Chamberland ME. The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence. Influenza Other Respir Viruses 2012;6(4):257-267. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x
  2. Bischof WE, Turner J, Russell G, Blevins M, Missaiel E et al. How well do N95 respirators protect healthcare providers against aerosolized influenza virus?. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;1-3. doi: 10.1017/ice.2018.326
  3. Blachere FM, Lindsley WG, McMillen CM, Beezhold DH, Fisher EM et al. Assessment of influenza virus exposure and recovery from contaminated surgical masks and N95 respirators. J Virol Methods 2018; 260:98-106. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2018.05.009
  4. Cho HW, Yoon CS, Lee JH, Lee SJ, Viner A et al. Comparison of pressure drop and filtration efficiency of particulate respirators using welding fumes and sodium chloride. Ann OccupHyg 2011;55(6):666-680. doi:10.1093/annhyg/mer032
  5. Coulliette AD, Perry KA, Edwards JR, Noble-Wang JA. Persistence of the 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus on N95 respirators. Appl Environ Microbiol 2013;79(7):2148-2155. doi: 10.1128/aem.03850-12
  6. Eninger RM, Honda T, Adhikari A, Heinonen-Tanski H, Reponen T et al. Filter performance of n99 and n95 facepiece respirators against viruses and ultrafine particles. Ann Occup Hyg 2008;52(5):385-396. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/men019
  7. FDA: "Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff. Surgical Masks - Premarket Notification [510(K)] Submissions; Guidance for Industry and FDA." Available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm072549.htm.
  8. Fisher EM, Richardson AW, Harpest SD, Hofacre KC, Shaffer RE. Reaerosolization of MS2 bacteriophage from an N95 filtering facepiece respirator by simulated coughing.Ann Occup Hyg 2012;56(3):315-325. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mer101
  9. Gardner PD, Eshbaugh JP, Harpest SD, Richardson AW, Hofacre KC. Viable viral efficiency of N95 and P100 respirator filters at constant and cyclic flow. J Occup Environ Hyg 2013;10(10):564-572. doi: 10.1080/15459624.2013.818228
  10. GB 2026-2019.Respiratory protection. Non-powered air-purifying respirator, State Administration of Work Safety China. 2019
  11. Harnish DA, Heimbuch BK, Balzli C, Choe M, Lumley AE et al. Capture of 0.1-mum aerosol particles containing viable H1N1 influenza virus by N95 filtering facepiece respirators. J Occup Environ Hyg 2016;13(3): D46-49 doi: 10.1080/15459624.2015.1116698
  12. HSA(Health and Safety Authority). A guide to respiratory protective equipment. 2020 March[Accessed 2020 March 23]. Available from: https://www.hsa.ie/eng/Topics/Personal_Protective_Equipment__PPE/Respiratory_Protective_Equipment/)
  13. Johnson DF, Druce JD, Birch C, Grayson ML. A quantitative assessment of the efficacy of surgical and N95 masks to filter influenza virus in patients with acute influenza infection. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 49(2):275-277. doi: 10.1086/600041. doi: 10.1086/600041
  14. Jung HJ, Kim JB, Lee SJ, Lee JH, Kim JY, Tsai P, Yoon CS. Comparison of Filtration Efficiency and Pressure Drop in Anti-Yellow Sand Masks, Quarantine Masks, Medical Masks, General Masks, and Handkerchiefs. Aero Air Qual Res 2014;14:991-1002. doi: 10.4209/aaqr.2013.06.0201
  15. KOSHA(Korea Occupational Safety & Health Agency). Instructions for the use of respirators. 2015 June [Accessed 2020 May 30]. Available from:http://www.kosha.or.kr/kosha/data/guidanceH.do?mode=download&articleNo=263163&attachNo=143312
  16. Lee SA, Grinshpun SA, Reponen T. Respiratory performance offered by N95 respirators and surgical masks: human subject evaluation with NaCl aerosol representing bacterial and viral particle size range. Ann Occup Hyg 2008;52(3):177-185. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/men005
  17. Lindsley WG, Noti JD, Blachere FM, Szalajda JV, Beezhold DH. Efficacy of face shields against cough aerosol droplets from a cough simulator. J Occup Environ Hyg 2014;11(8):509-518. doi: 10.1080/15459624.2013.877591
  18. Loeb M, Dafoe N, Mahony J, John M, Sarabia A et al. Surgical mask vs N95 respirator for preventing influenza among health care workers: a randomized trial. Jama 2009;302(17):1865-1871. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1466
  19. MacIntyre CR, Chughtai AA, Rahman B, Peng Y, Zhang Y et al. The efficacy of medical masks and respirators against respiratory infection in healthcare workers. Influenza Other Respir Viruses 2017;11(6):511-517. doi: 10.1111/irv.12474
  20. MacIntyre CR, Wang Q, Cauchemez S, Seale H, Dwyer DE et al. A cluster randomized clinical trial comparing fit-tested and non-fit-tested N95 respirators to medical masks to prevent respiratory virus infection in health care workers. Influenza Other Respir Viruses 2011;5(3):170-179. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00198.x
  21. MFDS(The ministry of Food and Drug Safety). Regulations on the non-pharmaceutical products licensing, reporting and examination. MFDS Notice No. 2020-06, MFDS. 2020
  22. NIFDS(National Institute of Food and Drug Safety Evaluation), Guidelines for standard specifications of health masks (civil complaint guide). NIFDS 2019
  23. MoEL(The Ministry of Employment and Labor). Notice of safety certification for protective equipment. MoEL Notice No 2020-35(Enactment 2008, Recent revision 2020). MoEL 2020
  24. Nicas M, Jones RM. Relative contributions of four exposure pathways to influenza infection risk. Risk Analysis 2009;29(9):1292-1303. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01253.x
  25. Nicas M, Nazaroff W, Hubbard A. Toward understanding the risk of secondary airborne infection: Emission of respirable pathogens. J Occup Environ Hyg 2005; 2:134-145. doi:10.1080/15459620590918466
  26. Offeddu V, Yung CF, Low MSF, Tam CC. Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2017;65(11):1934-1942. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix681
  27. Paik NW. Introduction to industrial hygiene. Seoul; Shinkwangpub 2007. p.18-19
  28. Rengasamy S, Eimer B, Shaffer RE. Simple respiratory protection--evaluation of the filtration performance of cloth masks and common fabric materials against 20-1000 nm size particles. Ann Occup Hyg 2010;54(7):789-798 doi: 10.1093/annhyg/meq044
  29. Rengasamy S, Fisher E, Shaffer RE. Evaluation of the survivability of MS2 viral aerosols deposited on filtering face piece respirator samples incorporating antimicrobial technologies. Am J Infect Control 2010;38(1):9-17 doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2009.08.006
  30. Rengasamy S, Eimer BC, Shaffer RE. Comparison of nanoparticle filtration performance of NIOSHapproved and CE-marked particulate filtering facepiece respirators. Ann Occup Hyg 2009;53:117-28. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/men086
  31. Seto WH. Airborne transmission and precautions: facts and myths. J Hosp Infect 2015;89(4):225-228. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2014.11.005
  32. Tara Oberg MS, Lisa M, Brosseau ScD. Surgical mask filter and fit performance.Am J Infect Control 2008; 36(4):276-282. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2007.07.008
  33. Tellier R. Li Y, Cowling BJ, Tang JW. Recogniton of aerosol transmission of infectious agents: a commentary. BMC Infectious Diseases 2019;19:101. doi: 10.1186/s12879-019-3707-y
  34. Van Doremalen N, Bushmaker T, Morris DH, Holbrook MG, Gamble A et al. Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1. N Engl J Med 2020: 1-3. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2004973
  35. Wells WF, Wells WM, Wilder TS. The environmental control of epidemic contagion. I. An epidemiologic study of radiant disinfection of air in day schools Am J Hyg. 1942;35:97-121
  36. WHO, Infection prevention and control of epidemic- and pandemic-prone acute respiratory infections in health care -WHO guidelines. World Health Organization. WHO press. Geneva. Switzerland. 2014. pp1-23. ISBN 978 92 4 150713 4
  37. Zuo Z, Kuehn TH, Pui DY. Respirator Testing Using Virus Aerosol: Comparison between Viability Penetration and Physical Penetration. Ann Occup Hyg 2015; 59(6):812-816. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mev019
  38. Zuo Z, Kuehn TH, Pui DY. Performance evaluation of filtering facepiece respirators using virus aerosols. Am J Infect Control 2013;41(1):80-82. doi:10.1016/ j.ajic.2012.01.010