Dataset Information

Blood gas levels, cardiovascular strain and cognitive performance during surgical mask and filtering face piece application.

ABSTRACT: Mask induced airway resistance and carbon dioxide rebreathing is discussed to impact gas exchange and to induce discomfort and impairments in cognitive performance. N = 23 healthy humans (13 females, 10 males; 23.5 ± 2.1 years) participated in this randomized crossover trial (3 arms, 48-h washout periods). During interventions participants wore either a surgical face mask (SM), a filtering face piece (FFP2) or no mask (NM). Interventions included a 20-min siting period and 20 min steady state cycling on an ergometer at 77% of the maximal heart rate (HR). Hemodynamic data (HR, blood pressure), metabolic outcomes (pulse derived oxygen saturation, capillary carbon dioxide (pCO₂), and oxygen partial pressure (pO₂), lactate, pH, base excess), subjective response (ability to concentrate, arousal, perceived exertion) and cognitive performance (Stroop Test) were assessed. Compared to NM, both masks increased pCO₂ (NM 31.9 ± 3.3 mmHg, SM = 35.2 ± 4.0 mmHg, FFP2 = 34.5 ± 3.8 mmHg, F = 12.670, p < 0.001) and decreased pH (NM = 7.42 ± 0.03, SM = 7.39 ± 0.03, FFP2 = 7.39 ± 0.04, F = 11.4, p < 0.001) during exercise. The FFP2 increased blood pressure during exercise (NM = 158 ± 15 mmHg, SM = 159 ± 16 mmHg, FFP2 = 162 ± 17 mmHg, F = 3.21, p = 0.050), the SM increased HR during sitting (NM = 70 ± 8 bpm, SM = 74 ± 8 bpm, FFP2 = 73 ± 8 bpm, F = 4.70, p = 0.014). No mask showed any comparative effect on other hemodynamic, metabolic, subjective, or cognitive outcomes. Mask wearing leads to slightly increased cardiovascular stress and elevated carbon dioxide levels during exercise but did not affect cognitive performance or wellbeing.

SUBMITTER: Grimm K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9188275 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:During the current COVID-19 pandemic, the use of face masks has become increasingly recommended and even mandatory in community settings. To evaluate the risk of bacterial cross-contamination, this study analyzed the bacterial bioburden of disposable surgical masks and homemade cotton masks, and surveyed the habits and face mask preferences of the Flemish population. Using culture approaches and 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing, we analyzed the microbial community on surgical and/or cotton face masks of 13 healthy volunteers after 4 h of wearing. Cotton and surgical masks contained on average 1.46 × 105 CFU/mask and 1.32 × 104 CFU/mask, respectively. Bacillus, Staphylococcus, and Acinetobacter spp. were mostly cultured from the masks and 43% of these isolates were resistant to ampicillin or erythromycin. Microbial profiling demonstrated a consistent difference between mask types. Cotton masks mainly contained Roseomonas, Paracoccus, and Enhydrobacter taxa and surgical masks Streptococcus and Staphylococcus. After 4 h of mask wearing, the microbiome of the anterior nares and the cheek showed a trend toward an altered beta-diversity. According to dedicated questions in the large-scale Corona survey of the University of Antwerp with almost 25,000 participants, only 21% of responders reported to clean their cotton face mask daily. Laboratory results indicated that the best mask cleaning methods were boiling at 100°C, washing at 60°C with detergent or ironing with a steam iron. Taken together, this study suggests that a considerable number of bacteria, including pathobionts and antibiotic resistant bacteria, accumulate on surgical and even more on cotton face masks after use. Based on our results, face masks should be properly disposed of or sterilized after intensive use. Clear guidelines for the general population are crucial to reduce the bacteria-related biosafety risk of face masks, and measures such as physical distancing and increased ventilation should not be neglected when promoting face mask use.

Project description:BackgroundDuring the current COVID-19 pandemic, supply chains for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) have been severely disrupted and many products, particularly surgical N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs; "masks") are in short supply. As a consequence, an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA has allowed importation of N95-type masks manufactured to international standards; these include KN95 masks from China and FFP2 masks from the European Union.MethodsWe conducted a survey of mask in the inventory of major academic medical centers in Boston, MA to determine provenance and manufacturer. We then assembled a simple apparatus for performing a necessary (but not sufficient) test of filtration performance and tested masks from the inventory; an accompanying website shows how to build and use the testing apparatus.ResultsOur survey showed that, seven months after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, over 100 different makes and models of N95-type masks are in the inventory of local hospitals as opposed to 2-5 models under normal circumstances. A substantial number of unfamiliar masks are from unknown manufacturers. Many did not perform to accepted standards and are likely to be counterfeit. Due to the absence of publicly available information on mask suppliers in the FDA EUA and confusing or inconsistent labeling of KN95 masks, it is difficult to distinguish legitimate and counterfeit products.ConclusionsMany of the FFR masks available for procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic do not provide levels of fit and filtration similar to those of N95 masks and are not acceptable for use in healthcare settings. Based on these results, and in consultation with occupational health officers, we make six recommendations for end users to assist in acquiring legitimate products. In particular, institutions should always assess masks from non-traditional supply chains by checking their markings and manufacturer information against data provided by NIOSH and the latest FDA EUA Appendix A. In the absence of verifiable information on the legitimacy of mask source, institutions should consider measuring mask fit and filtration directly. We also make suggestions for U.S and Chinese regulatory agencies with regard to labeling and public disclosure aimed at increase pandemic resilience.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has severely disrupted supply chains for many types of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), particularly surgical N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs; "masks"). As a consequence, an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA has allowed use of industrial N95 respirators and importation of N95-type masks manufactured to international standards; these include KN95 masks from China and FFP2 masks from the European Union.MethodsWe conducted a survey of masks in the inventory of major academic medical centers in Boston, MA to determine provenance and manufacturer or supplier. We then assembled a testing apparatus at a university laboratory and performed a modified test of filtration performance using KCl and ambient particulate matter on masks from hospital inventories; an accompanying website shows how to build and use the testing apparatus.ResultsOver 100 different makes and models of traditional and nontraditional filtering facepiece respirators (N95-type masks) were in the inventory of surveyed U.S. teaching hospitals as opposed to 2-5 models under normal circumstances. A substantial number of unfamiliar masks are from unknown manufacturers. Many are not correctly labelled and do not perform to accepted standards and a subset are obviously dangerous; many of these masks are likely to be counterfeit. Due to the absence of publicly available information on mask suppliers and inconsistent labeling of KN95 masks, it is difficult to distinguish between legitimate and counterfeit products.ConclusionsMany FFRs available for procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic do not provide levels of fit and filtration similar to those of N95 masks and are not acceptable for use in healthcare settings. Based on these results, and in consultation with occupational health officers, we make six recommendations to assist end users in acquiring legitimate products. Institutions should always assess masks from non-traditional supply chains by checking their markings and manufacturer information against data provided by NIOSH and the latest FDA EUA Appendix A. In the absence of verifiable information on the legitimacy of mask source, institutions should consider measuring mask fit and filtration directly. We also make suggestions for regulatory agencies regarding labeling and public disclosure aimed at increasing pandemic resilience.

Dataset Information

Blood gas levels, cardiovascular strain and cognitive performance during surgical mask and filtering face piece application.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets