The outbreak of COVID-19 has created renewed attention on research and large scale manufacturing of face masks. In the last two decades, usage of face masks for respiratory protection has gained increased importance as a measure to control the maladies and fatalities due to exposure to particulate pollutants and toxic pathogens. Numerous variants of surgical and high-performance respirator masks are available in the market, and yet the fibrous materials science researchers, manufacturers and public health agencies are making concerted efforts towards improvising them with respect to self-sterilisability, facial fit, thermo-physiological comfort, reusability and biodegradability, while maintaining or rather enhancing the filtration efficiency. This review article presents a compendium of materials, design and performance standards of existing face masks, as well as elaborates on developments made for their performance enhancement. The criticality of inculcation of good hygiene habits and earnest compliance to correct mask donning and doffing practices has also been highlighted. This review is expected to make valuable contributions in the present COVID-19 scenario when donning a face mask has become mandatory.

BACKGROUND: From 2020 to 2023 many people around the world were forced to wear masks for large proportions of the day based on mandates and laws. We aimed to study the potential of face masks for the content and release of inanimate toxins.
METHODS: A scoping review of 1003 studies was performed (database search in PubMed/MEDLINE, qualitative and quantitative evaluation).
RESULTS: 24 studies were included (experimental time 17 min to 15 days) evaluating content and/or release in 631 masks (273 surgical, 228 textile and 130 N95 masks). Most studies (63%) showed alarming results with high micro- and nanoplastics (MPs and NPs) release and exceedances could also be evidenced for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), xylene, acrolein, per-/polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), phthalates (including di(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate, DEHP) and for Pb, Cd, Co, Cu, Sb and TiO2.
CONCLUSIONS: Of course, masks filter larger dirt and plastic particles and fibers from the air we breathe and have specific indications, but according to our data they also carry risks. Depending on the application, a risk-benefit analysis is necessary.
CONCLUSIONS: Undoubtedly, mask mandates during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic have been generating an additional source of potentially harmful exposition to toxins with health threatening and carcinogenic properties at population level with almost zero distance to the airways.

BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, face masks have been among the cornerstones of COVID-19 prevention. Therefore, evaluating their preventive effects against COVID-19 is crucial. This review aimed to systematically search for the systematic review articles that explored the role of various types of face masks in preventing COVID-19.
METHODS: We browsed the keywords of this study in the online databases of Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane on 10th January 2023 and retrieved all the relevant systematic review articles. The records were downloaded into an Endnote file, and the duplicates were removed. A two-step screening process consisting of title/abstract and full-text screenings was conducted to select the most relevant articles. To ensure the validity and reliability of the results, this study adhered to the PRISMA protocol.
RESULTS: A total of 28 systematic reviews were included in this review. Most studies found that face masks are beneficial against viral respiratory infections, such as COVID-19. Different types of masks were evaluated in included studies. It appeared that mask efficacy depends on the material, layers, fitting on the face and user compliance. N 95 respirator had maximum efficacy, especially when used continuously.
CONCLUSIONS: Face masks have a beneficial effect against COVID-19. Home masks are less protective than surgical masks or N95 personal breathing masks. Besides, the use of masks may elicit a false sense of security in people, which may lead to poor hand hygiene and violation of social distancing. Therefore, the necessary training should be provided to the public to increase awareness and encourage the right practice of using the mask, emphasizing the preventive effects of washing hands, social distancing, and using a face mask against COVID-19.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. (SARS-CoV-2). It spreads mainly through saliva droplets or nasal discharge. Dentists are among the professionals with the greatest risk of contracting and transmitting COVID-19. We compared the efficacy of surgical masks versus N95 respirators in preventing COVID-19 infection in dental settings. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Search terms corresponded to a predefined PICOS (patient/population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes) question. The risk of bias was evaluated using AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2), ROBIS (Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews), and Health Evidence tools. A total of 191 articles were screened, and nine of them were further evaluated for eligibility, of which five articles (fulfilled the selection criteria) and were included in this study. Two studies concluded that surgical masks could provide equivalent protection to N95 respirators. Another study found that N95 respirators were superior to surgical masks. The fourth study found that better protection can be achieved when using surgical masks by the aerosol source than when the recipient uses an N95 respirator, while the last study concluded that surgical masks or N95 respirators alone do not provide full protection. Thus, according to this systematic review, N95 respirators provide better protection against COVID-19 infection compared to surgical masks.

As face masks became mandatory in most countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, adverse effects require substantiated investigation.
A systematic review of 2,168 studies on adverse medical mask effects yielded 54 publications for synthesis and 37 studies for meta-analysis (on n = 8,641, m = 2,482, f = 6,159, age = 34.8 ± 12.5). The median trial duration was only 18 min (IQR = 50) for our comprehensive evaluation of mask induced physio-metabolic and clinical outcomes.
We found significant effects in both medical surgical and N95 masks, with a greater impact of the second. These effects included decreased SpO2 (overall Standard Mean Difference, SMD = -0.24, 95% CI = -0.38 to -0.11, p < 0.001) and minute ventilation (SMD = -0.72, 95% CI = -0.99 to -0.46, p < 0.001), simultaneous increased in blood-CO2 (SMD = +0.64, 95% CI = 0.31-0.96, p < 0.001), heart rate (N95: SMD = +0.22, 95% CI = 0.03-0.41, p = 0.02), systolic blood pressure (surgical: SMD = +0.21, 95% CI = 0.03-0.39, p = 0.02), skin temperature (overall SMD = +0.80 95% CI = 0.23-1.38, p = 0.006) and humidity (SMD +2.24, 95% CI = 1.32-3.17, p < 0.001). Effects on exertion (overall SMD = +0.9, surgical = +0.63, N95 = +1.19), discomfort (SMD = +1.16), dyspnoea (SMD = +1.46), heat (SMD = +0.70), and humidity (SMD = +0.9) were significant in n = 373 with a robust relationship to mask wearing (p < 0.006 to p < 0.001). Pooled symptom prevalence (n = 8,128) was significant for: headache (62%, p < 0.001), acne (38%, p < 0.001), skin irritation (36%, p < 0.001), dyspnoea (33%, p < 0.001), heat (26%, p < 0.001), itching (26%, p < 0.001), voice disorder (23%, p < 0.03), and dizziness (5%, p = 0.01).
Masks interfered with O2-uptake and CO2-release and compromised respiratory compensation. Though evaluated wearing durations are shorter than daily/prolonged use, outcomes independently validate mask-induced exhaustion-syndrome (MIES) and down-stream physio-metabolic disfunctions. MIES can have long-term clinical consequences, especially for vulnerable groups. So far, several mask related symptoms may have been misinterpreted as long COVID-19 symptoms. In any case, the possible MIES contrasts with the WHO definition of health.
Face mask side-effects must be assessed (risk-benefit) against the available evidence of their effectiveness against viral transmissions. In the absence of strong empirical evidence of effectiveness, mask wearing should not be mandated let alone enforced by law.
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021256694, identifier: PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021256694.

UNASSIGNED: During the SARS-CoV-2-pandemic, face masks have become one of the most important ubiquitous factors affecting human breathing. It increases the resistance and dead space volume leading to a re-breathing of CO2. So far, this phenomenon and possible implications on early life has not been evaluated in depth.
UNASSIGNED: As part of a scoping review, literature was systematically reviewed regarding CO2 exposure and facemask use.
UNASSIGNED: Fresh air has around 0.04% CO2, while wearing masks more than 5 min bears a possible chronic exposure to carbon dioxide of 1.41% to 3.2% of the inhaled air. Although the buildup is usually within the short-term exposure limits, long-term exceedances and consequences must be considered due to experimental data. US Navy toxicity experts set the exposure limits for submarines carrying a female crew to 0.8% CO2 based on animal studies which indicated an increased risk for stillbirths. Additionally, mammals who were chronically exposed to 0.3% CO2 the experimental data demonstrate a teratogenicity with irreversible neuron damage in the offspring, reduced spatial learning caused by brainstem neuron apoptosis and reduced circulating levels of the insulin-like growth factor-1. With significant impact on three readout parameters (morphological, functional, marker) this chronic 0.3% CO2 exposure has to be defined as being toxic. Additional data exists on the exposure of chronic 0.3% CO2 in adolescent mammals causing neuron destruction, which includes less activity, increased anxiety and impaired learning and memory. There is also data indicating testicular toxicity in adolescents at CO2 inhalation concentrations above 0.5%.
UNASSIGNED: There is a possible negative impact risk by imposing extended mask mandates especially for vulnerable subgroups. Circumstantial evidence exists that extended mask use may be related to current observations of stillbirths and to reduced verbal motor and overall cognitive performance in children born during the pandemic. A need exists to reconsider mask mandates.

Background: We aimed to summarize and synthesize the current evidence regarding the indirect impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and its associated measures on the surgical site infection (SSI) rate compared with the pre-pandemic period. Methods: A computerized search was conducted on MEDLINE via PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus using the relevant keywords. Two-stage screening and data extraction were done. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) tools were used for the quality assessment. The Review Manager 5.4.1 program was used for the analysis. Results: Sixteen articles (n = 157,426 patients) were included. The COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown were associated with reduced risk of SSIs after surgery (odds ratio [OR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.75; p < 0.00001) and (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29-0.84; p = 0.009), respectively. There was no significant reduction in the SSIs rate after applying the extended use of masks (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.30-1.73; p = 0.47). A reduction in the superficial SSI rate during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the pre-COVID-19 pandemic period was observed (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45-0.75; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The current evidence suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic may have some unexpected benefits, including improved infection control protocols, which resulted in reduced SSI rates, especially superficial SSIs. In contrast to extended mask use, the lockdown was associated with reduced rates of SSIs.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the results, level of evidence, and methodologic quality of original studies regarding surgical mask effectiveness in minimizing viral respiratory illness transmission, and, in particular, the performance of the N95 respirator versus surgical mask.
METHODS: Meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines with use of PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library databases.
RESULTS: Eight studies (9164 participants) were included after screening 153 articles. Analyses showed statistically significant differences between N95 respirator versus surgical mask use to prevent influenza-like-illness (risk ratio [RR] = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.68-0.94, P < 0.05), non-influenza respiratory viral infection (RR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.52-0.74, P < 0.05), respiratory viral infection (RR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.65-0.82, P < 0.05), severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) 1 and 2 virus infection (RR = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.06-0.49, P < 0.05), and laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infection (RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.66-0.84, P < 0.05). Analyses did not indicate statistically significant results against laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR = 0.87, CI = 0.74-1.03, P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: N95 respirator use was associated with fewer viral infectious episodes for healthcare workers compared with surgical masks. The N95 respirator was most effective in reducing the risk of a viral infection in the hospital setting from the SARS-CoV 1 and 2 viruses compared to the other viruses included in this investigation. Methodologic quality, risk of biases, and small number of original studies indicate the necessity for further research to be performed, especially in front-line healthcare delivery settings.

Face masks are promoted for preventing spread of viruses; however, wearing a mask during exercise might increase CO2 rebreathing, decrease arterial oxygenation, and decrease exercise performance. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted on the impact of wearing a mask during exercise. Data sources included SPORTDiscus, PubMed, and Medline. Eligibility criteria included all study designs comparing surgical, N95, or cloth masks to a no mask condition during any type of exercise where exercise performance and/or physiological parameters were evaluated. Healthy and clinical participants were included. Mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and pooled effects assessed. Twenty-two studies involving 1573 participants (620 females, 953 males) were included. Surgical, or N95 masks did not impact exercise performance (SMD -0.05 [-0.16, 0.07] and -0.16 [-0.54, 0.22], respectively) but increased ratings of perceived exertion (SMD 0.33 [0.09, 0.58] and 0.61 [0.23, 0.99]) and dyspnea (SMD 0.6 [0.3, 0.9] for all masks). End-tidal CO2 (MD 3.3 [1.0, 5.6] and 3.7 [3.0, 4.4] mm Hg), and heart rate (MD 2 [0,4] beats/min with N95 masks) slightly increased. Face masks can be worn during exercise with no influences on performance and minimal impacts on physiological variables. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020224988. Novelty: Face masks can be worn during exercise with no impacts on performance and minimal impacts on physiological variables.

Background: Acute respiratory illnesses (ARIs) are the most common respiratory infectious diseases among humans globally. Surgical mask (SM) wearing has been shown to be effective in reducing ARI among healthcare workers. However, the effectiveness of SM in reducing ARI in the non-healthcare settings remains unclear. This review aims to summarize and assess the association between SM wearing and ARI incidence, from existing interventional and observational studies conducted in non-healthcare settings. Methods: Systematic literature searches conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases identified 503 unique studies. After screening, 15 studies (5 randomized controlled trials and 10 observational studies) were assessed for reporting and methodological qualities. Proportions of ARI episodes in each group and adjusted summary statistics with their relevant 95% CIs were extracted. Data from 10 observational studies were pooled using the generic inverse variance method. Results: A total of 23,892 participants between 7 and 89 years old involved across 15 studies from 11 countries were involved. Key settings identified were Hajj, schools, and in-flight settings. A modest but non-significant protective effect of SM on ARI incidence was observed (pooled OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.8-1.15). Subgroup analysis according to age group, outcome ascertainment and different non-healthcare settings also revealed no significant associations between SM use and ARI incidence. Conclusion: Surgical mask wearing among individuals in non-healthcare settings is not significantly associated with reduction in ARI incidence in this meta-review.