Comparative Mask Protection against Inhaling Wildfire Smoke, Allergenic Bioaerosols, and Infectious Particles

Jeff Wagner (), Janet M. Macher, Wenhao Chen and Kazukiyo Kumagai
Additional contact information
Jeff Wagner: Environmental Health Laboratory Branch, California Department of Public Health, 850 Marina Bay Parkway, Richmond, CA 94804, USA
Janet M. Macher: Environmental Health Laboratory Branch, California Department of Public Health, 850 Marina Bay Parkway, Richmond, CA 94804, USA
Wenhao Chen: Environmental Health Laboratory Branch, California Department of Public Health, 850 Marina Bay Parkway, Richmond, CA 94804, USA
Kazukiyo Kumagai: Environmental Health Laboratory Branch, California Department of Public Health, 850 Marina Bay Parkway, Richmond, CA 94804, USA

IJERPH, 2022, vol. 19, issue 23, 1-15

Abstract: This work compares relative mask inhalation protection against a range of airborne particle sizes that the general public may encounter, including infectious particles, wildfire smoke and ash, and allergenic fungal and plant particles. Several mask types available to the public were modeled with respirable fraction deposition. Best-case collection efficiencies for cloth, surgical, and respirator masks were predicted to be lowest (0.3, 0.6, and 0.8, respectively) for particle types with dominant sub-micrometer modes (wildfire smoke and human-emitted bronchial particles). Conversely, all mask types were predicted to achieve good collection efficiency (up to ~1.0) for the largest-sized particle types, including pollen grains, some fungal spores, and wildfire ash. Polydisperse infectious particles were predicted to be captured by masks with efficiencies of 0.3–1.0 depending on the pathogen size distribution and the type of mask used. Viruses aerosolized orally are predicted to be captured efficiently by all mask types, while those aerosolized from bronchiolar or laryngeal-tracheal sites are captured with much lower efficiency by surgical and cloth masks. The predicted efficiencies changed very little when extrathoracic deposition was included (inhalable rather than respirable fraction) or when very large (100 µm) particles were neglected. Actual mask fit and usage will determine protection levels in practice, but the relative comparisons in this work can inform mask guidance for different inhalation hazards, including particles generated by yard work, wildfires, and infections.

Keywords: aerosol models; exposure assessment; risk; COVID-19; wildfires (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/23/15555/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/23/15555/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:23:p:15555-:d:981815

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().