• Marianne van der Sande, Peter Teunis, and Rob Sabel.
• National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands. marianne.van.der.sande@rivm.nl
• Plos One. 2008 Jul 9; 3 (7): e2618.

BackgroundGovernments are preparing for a potential influenza pandemic. Therefore they need data to assess the possible impact of interventions. Face-masks worn by the general population could be an accessible and affordable intervention, if effective when worn under routine circumstances.MethodologyWe assessed transmission reduction potential provided by personal respirators, surgical masks and home-made masks when worn during a variety of activities by healthy volunteers and a simulated patient.Principal FindingsAll types of masks reduced aerosol exposure, relatively stable over time, unaffected by duration of wear or type of activity, but with a high degree of individual variation. Personal respirators were more efficient than surgical masks, which were more efficient than home-made masks. Regardless of mask type, children were less well protected. Outward protection (mask wearing by a mechanical head) was less effective than inward protection (mask wearing by healthy volunteers).Conclusions/SignificanceAny type of general mask use is likely to decrease viral exposure and infection risk on a population level, in spite of imperfect fit and imperfect adherence, personal respirators providing most protection. Masks worn by patients may not offer as great a degree of protection against aerosol transmission.

20 keywords...

hide…