Introduction During viral pandemics, filtering facepiece (FFP) masks together with eye protection form the essential components of personal protective equipment (PPE) for healthcare workers. There remain concerns regarding insufficient global supply and imperfect protection offered by currently available PPE strategies. A range of full-face snorkel masks were adapted to accept high grade medical respiratory filters using bespoke-designed 3D-printed connectors. We compared the protection offered by the snorkel to that of standard PPE using a placebo-controlled respirator filtering test as well as a fluorescent droplet deposition experiment. Out of the 56 subjects tested, 42 (75%) passed filtering testing with the snorkel mask compared to 31 (55%) with a FFP3 respirator mask (p = 0.003). Amongst the 43 subjects who were not excluded following a placebo control, 85% passed filtering testing with the snorkel versus to 68% with a FFP3 mask (p = 0.008). Following front and lateral spray of fluorescence liquid particles, the snorkel mask also provided superior protection against droplet deposition within the subject’s face, when compared to a standard PPE combination of FFP3 masks and eye protection (3.19x108 versus 6.81x108 fluorescence units, p<0.001). The 3D printable adaptors are available for free download online at https://www.ImperialHackspace.com/COVID-19-Snorkel-Respirator-Project/. Conclusion Full-face snorkel masks adapted as particulate respirators performed better than a standard PPE combination of FFP3 mask and eye protection against aerosol inhalation and droplet deposition. This adaptation is therefore a promising PPE solution for healthcare workers during highly contagious viral outbreaks.

Background Filtering facepiece (FFP) respirators must provide an adequate faceseal to protect healthcare workers from harmful particles. A qualitative fit-test using bitter-tasting aerosols the commonest way to determine if an FFP mask is safe enough for clinical use. This taste-test is subjective and can be biased by placebo. We propose a cheap and quantitative modification of the taste-test, by measuring the amount of fluorescein staining filter paper behind the FFP mask after a fit-test protocol, using digital image analysis. Methods Medical grade fluorescein was added to bitter-tasting denatonium benzoate solution and Aerosolised during a mask fit-testing protocol. Scientific filter paper was placed on the inner surface of the mask. Participants were asked if they could taste the solution to determine their qualitative ‘pass’ or ‘fail’ result. Filter paper photographs were analysed after the test to quantify total fluorescence (TF). TF levels in the taste-test ‘pass’ and ‘fail’ groups were compared.Results Fifty-six healthcare professionals completed the fluorescein mask fit-test protocol. 32 (57%) ‘passed’ the qualitative (taste) test and the remainder ‘failed’. There was a significant difference in TF between the groups based on their qualitative results (p <0.001). A cut-off of TF = 5.0 x 106 fluorescence units was determined by analysing the precision (78%) and recall (84%) of the fluorescein test. Applying this cut-off resulted in 5 out of 56 participants (9%) being reclassified from ‘pass’ to ‘fail’ by the fluorescein test. 7 out of 56 (12%) participants were reclassified from ‘fail’ to ‘pass’.Conclusions Fluorescein is detectable and sensitive to identify faceseal leaks in FFP masks. The fluorescein fit-test is discriminating in its ability to divide people into ‘pass’ and ‘fail’ groups similarly to the taste-test. The adaptations are low-cost and could be incorporated in the point-of-care setting. After further validation the fluorescein test could increase safety for staff by reducing the number of false ‘pass’ by the taste-test. It could also reassure people who have ‘failed’ the taste-test that they have low levels of fluorescein leak, enabling them to return to clinical practice safely.

BackgroundA qualitative fit test using bitter-tasting aerosols is the commonest way to determine filtering face-piece (FFP) mask leakage. This taste test is subjective and biased by placebo. We propose a cheap, quantitative modification of the taste test by measuring the amount of fluorescein stained filter paper behind the mask using image analysis. MethodsA bitter-tasting fluorescein solution was aerosolised during mask fit tests, with filter paper placed on masks' inner surfaces. Participants reported whether they could taste bitterness to determine taste test 'pass' or 'fail' results. Filter paper photographs were digitally analysed to quantify total fluorescence (TF). ResultsFifty-six healthcare professionals were fit tested; 32 (57%) 'passed' the taste test. TF between the taste test 'pass' and 'fail' groups was significantly different (p<0.001). A cut-off (TF = 5.0 × 10 6 units) was determined at precision (78%) and recall (84%), resulting in 5/56 participants (9%) reclassified from 'pass' to 'fail' by the fluorescein test. Seven out of 56 (12%) reclassified from 'fail' to 'pass'.

No abstract