Journal of Environmental Health Sciences (한국환경보건학회지)

Korean Society of Environmental Health (한국환경보건학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Filtration Efficiencies of Commercial Face Masks in Korea for Biological Aerosols

국내 출시 마스크의 바이오에어로졸 여과효율 평가

  • Choi, Sueun (Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University) ;
  • Choi, Doseon (Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University) ;
  • Jang, Sung Jae (Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University) ;
  • Park, SungJun (Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University) ;
  • Yoon, Chungsik (Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee, Kiyoung (Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University) ;
  • Ko, GwangPyo (Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee, Cheonghoon (Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University)
  • 최수은 (서울대학교 보건대학원 환경보건학과) ;
  • 최도선 (서울대학교 보건대학원 환경보건학과) ;
  • 장성재 (서울대학교 보건대학원 환경보건학과) ;
  • 박성준 (서울대학교 보건대학원 환경보건학과) ;
  • 윤충식 (서울대학교 보건대학원 환경보건학과) ;
  • 이기영 (서울대학교 보건대학원 환경보건학과) ;
  • 고광표 (서울대학교 보건대학원 환경보건학과) ;
  • 이정훈 (서울대학교 보건대학원 환경보건학과)
  • Received : 2022.03.08
  • Accepted : 2022.04.19
  • Published : 2022.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: The recent COVID-19 pandemic is one of the worst disease outbreaks of the 21th century. Due to a lack of reliable antiviral therapeutics, wearing face masks is recommended to prevent airborne infection originating from virus-contaminated bioaerosols. Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the filtration efficiencies of face masks that are commercially available in South Korea for a biological aerosol of Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) and murine coronavirus, a well-known surrogate for human coronaviruses. Methods: We collected six different kinds of commercial masks: two Korea Filter (KF)94 (KF94-1, KF94-2) masks, one surgical (Surgical-1) mask, one anti-droplet (KF-AD-1) mask, and two dust (Dust-1, Dust-2) face masks. S. aureus (ATCC 6538), a well-performing test bacteria and murine coronavirus (ATCC VR-764) were prepared under a suitable culture condition. Then, a mask biological filtration tester was used to examine the microbial filtration efficiencies of masks. Test microorganisms were quantitatively measured via cultivation methods and microbial filtration efficiencies were calculated appropriately. Results: All face masks showed over 99.6% filtration efficiency for S. aureus or murine coronavirus. There were no significant differences among the bacterial filtration efficiencies of the face masks. KF94-1 (99.97±0.08%) and Dust-1 mask (99.97±0.07%) showed the highest (over 99.9%) filtration efficiency for murine coronavirus. KF94-1 or Dust-1 masks showed a significant virus filtration efficiency compared to Surgical-1 mask (p<0.05; Mann-Whitney U test). Conclusions: All the commercially available face masks used in this study can filter S. aureus or murine coronavirus in bioaerosols efficiently, regardless of the mask type. Therefore, our results suggest that wearing a certified face mask is a reliable means to prevent the transmission of infectious airborne diseases via biological aerosols.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

본 연구는 서울대학교 발전기금(도부 학술장학금)의 재원으로 수행하는 연구사업의 지원을 받아 수행하였습니다.

References

  1. Worldometer. Reported cases and deaths by COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. Available: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ [accessed 4 March 2022].
  2. Statistics Korea. COVID-19 dashboard. Available: https://kosis.kr/covid_eng/covid_index.do [accessed 4 March 2022].
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Principles of epidemiology in public health practice: an introduction to applied epidemiology and biostatistics, 3rd ed. Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2006.
  4. Otter JA, Donskey C, Yezli S, Douthwaite S, Goldenberg SD, Weber DJ. Transmission of SARS and MERS coronaviruses and influenza virus in healthcare settings: the possible role of dry surface contamination. J Hosp Infect. 2016; 92(3): 235-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2015.08.027
  5. Mathieu E, Ritchie H, Ortiz-Ospina E, Roser M, Hasell J, Appel C, et al. A global database of COVID-19 vaccinations. Nat Hum Behav. 2021; 5(7): 947-953. Erratum in: Nat Hum Behav. 2021; 5(7): 956-959. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01122-8
  6. Cheng Y, Ma N, Witt C, Rapp S, Wild PS, Andreae MO, et al. Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Science. 2021; 372(6549): 1439-1443. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abg6296
  7. ASTM International. Standard test method for evaluating the bacterial filtration efficiency (BFE) of medical face mask materials, using a biological aerosol of Staphylococcus aureus. West Conshohocken (PA): ASTM International; 2019.
  8. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). SIST EN14683:2019+AC:2019: Medical face masks - requirements and test methods. Brussels: CEN; 2019.
  9. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. Korean standard and test method for quasi-drugs. Cheongju: Ministry of Food and Drug Safety; 2021.
  10. Jeong SB, Ko HS, Seo SC, Jung JH. Evaluation of filtration characteristics and microbial recovery rates of commercial filtering facepiece respirators against airborne bacterial particles. Sci Total Environ. 2019; 682: 729-736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.153
  11. Tcharkhtchi A, Abbasnezhad N, Zarbini Seydani M, Zirak N, Farzaneh S, Shirinbayan M. An overview of filtration efficiency through the masks: mechanisms of the aerosols penetration. Bioact Mater. 2020; 6: 106-122.
  12. Ministry of Employment and Labor. Public notice on safety certificate for protective equipment (notice no. 2020-35). Sejong: Ministry of Employment and Labor; 2020.
  13. Jang JY, Kim SW. Evaluation of filtration performance efficiency of commercial cloth masks. J Environ Health Sci. 2015; 41(3): 203-215. https://doi.org/10.5668/JEHS.2015.41.3.203
  14. Kang S, Kim S, Yoon CS, Lee K. Evaluation of the filtration efficiency and facial inhalation resistance of various commercial masks. J Environ Health Sci. 2021; 47(3): 292-301. https://doi.org/10.5668/JEHS.2021.47.3.292
  15. Central Disaster and Safety Countermeasure Headquarters. Basic guidelines for distancing in daily life. Available: http://ncov.mohw.go.kr/en/guidelineView.do?brdId=18&brdGubun=181&dataGubun=&ncvContSeq=2763&contSeq=2763&board_id=&gubun=# [accessed 4 March 2022].
  16. Zeng N, Li Z, Ng S, Chen D, Zhou H. Epidemiology reveals mask wearing by the public is crucial for COVID-19 control. Med Microecol. 2020; 4: 100015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medmic.2020.100015
  17. Filonets T, Solovchuk M, Gao W, Sheu TW. Investigation of the efficiency of mask wearing, contact tracing, and case isolation during the COVID-19 outbreak. J Clin Med. 2021; 10(13): 2761. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10132761
  18. Whiley H, Keerthirathne TP, Nisar MA, White MAF, Ross KE. Viral filtration efficiency of fabric masks compared with surgical and N95 masks. Pathogens. 2020; 9(9): 762. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens9090762
  19. Siller P, Reissner J, Hansen S, Kuhl M, Bartel A, Schmelzeisen D, et al. Innovative textiles used in face masks: filtration efficiency and self-disinfecting properties against coronaviruses. Nanomaterials (Basel). 2021; 11(8): 2088. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano11082088
  20. Raynor PC, Adesina A, Aboubakr HA, Yang M, Torremorell M, Goyal SM. Comparison of samplers collecting airborne influenza viruses: 1. Primarily impingers and cyclones. PLoS One. 2021; 16(1): e0244977. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244977
  21. Korner RW, Majjouti M, Alcazar MAA, Mahabir E. Of mice and men: the coronavirus MHV and mouse models as a translational approach to understand SARS-CoV-2. Viruses. 2020; 12(8): 880. https://doi.org/10.3390/v12080880
  22. Ma B, Gundy PM, Gerba CP, Sobsey MD, Linden KG. UV inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 across the UVC spectrum: KrCl* excimer, mercury-vapor, and light-emitting-diode (LED) sources. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2021; 87(22): e0153221. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01532-21
  23. String GM, White MR, Gute DM, Muhlberger E, Lantagne DS. Selection of a SARS-CoV-2 surrogate for use in surface disinfection efficacy studies with chlorine and antimicrobial surfaces. Environ Sci Technol Lett. 2021; 8(11): 995-1001. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00593
  24. Konda A, Prakash A, Moss GA, Schmoldt M, Grant GD, Guha S. Aerosol filtration efficiency of common fabrics used in respiratory cloth masks. ACS Nano. 2020; 14(5): 6339-6347. Erratum in: ACS Nano. 2020; 14(8): 10742-10743. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252
  25. Ardon-Dryer K, Warzywoda J, Tekin R, Biros J, Almodovar S, Weeks BL, et al. Mask material filtration efficiency and mask fitting at the crossroads: implications during pandemic times. Aerosol Air Qual Res. 2021; 21(7): 200571. https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.200571