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

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Nov 23;19(23):15555. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192315555.

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: COVID-19; aerosol models; exposure assessment; risk; wildfires.

Publication types

  • Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

MeSH terms

  • Aerosols
  • Allergens
  • Humans
  • Masks
  • Particle Size
  • Respiratory Protective Devices*
  • Smoke

Substances

  • Smoke
  • Allergens
  • Aerosols

Grants and funding

This research was supported by US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funds (#CDC-RFA-TP18-1802 Cooperative Agreement for Emergency Response: Public Health Crisis Response) via the CDPH Emergency Preparedness Office.