Overview of tight fit and infection prevention benefits of respirators (filtering face pieces). (April 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Knobloch, J.K.; Franke, G.; Knobloch, M.J.; Knobling, B.; Kampf, G.
• Is Part Of: Journal of hospital infection. Volume 134(2023)
• Page Start: 89
• Page End: 96
• Publication Date: 2023-04
• Subjects: Respirator -- Fit test -- Prevention -- Viral respiratory tract infection; Cross infection -- Periodicals; Cross infection -- Prevention -- Periodicals; Nosocomial infections -- Periodicals; Nosocomial infections -- Prevention -- Periodicals; Cross Infection -- Periodicals; Cross Infection -- prevention & control -- Periodicals; Infection Control -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 614.44
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2023.01.009
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0195-6701

Abstract

Summary: Regulations for measures to protect against SARS-CoV-2 transmission vary widely around the world, with very strict regulations in Germany where respirators (filtering face piece FFP2 or comparable) are often mandatory. The efficiency of respirators, however, depends essentially on the tight facial fit avoiding the bypass of contaminated air via gaps between mask and wearer's face. The facial fit can be verified in a fit test. The aim of this review was to describe the quantitative fit test results depending on the respirator designs. A literature search revealed 29 suitable studies. Of all respirators with circumferential head straps, three-panel folded dome-shaped respirators showed the best fit (80.8% of 4625 fit tests passed), followed by rigid-dome-shaped respirators (72.4% of 8234 fit tests passed), duckbill-shaped respirators (31.6% of 2120 fit tests passed), and coffee-filter-shaped respirators (30.9% of 3392 fit tests passed). Respirators with ear loops showed very poor tight fit (3.6% of 222 fit tests passed). In four randomized control trials, single-use respirators were not shown to be superior to surgical masks for the prevention of laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections, even when adjusted with a fit test. Therefore, we consider the mandatory use of respirators to be disproportionate and not supported by evidence. Further evidence should be generated, in which scenarios respirators might provide an effective benefit as part of occupational health and safety. For situations with confirmed benefits, only high-quality disposable respirators with head straps or respiratory protective equipment of higher protective levels should be used.