Comparing the Fit of Respirators

Overview

In this peer‑reviewed study, my co-authors and I conducted a controlled investigation into how well different mask types—N95, KN95, surgical, and cloth—seal on the wearer’s face, and whether simple fit checks (self-performed assessments) are reliable predictors of actual fit.

Key Findings:

• N95 respirators offer the highest potential protection, but only when they fit well—and most of the N95s tested did not fit participants adequately. ‍
• KN95, surgical, and fabric masks produced similarly low fit factor scores, indicating minimal differences in protection across these types when fit is poor.
• Fit checks, used as standalone methods (e.g., NHS self-assessments), did not correlate reliably with results from rigorous quantitative fit testing, making them unreliable for determining protective fit.
• Even small facial variations—such as slight changes in nose width or cheek fullness—can significantly affect whether a mask seals properly.

Why This Matters

During the COVID‑19 pandemic, many institutions were forced to rely on fit checks due to supply-chain constraints or limited testing equipment. Our study underscores that mask fit—not just material—is crucial for effective protection. If a high-performance mask like an N95 doesn’t seal well, its filtration potential is greatly diminished—sometimes to the same level as a cloth or surgical mask.

Moreover, dependence on fit checks alone may convey a false sense of security, potentially endangering health care workers and others who rely on mask efficacy. This finding calls for renewed emphasis on rigorous fit testing, especially in settings with high exposure risk, and for innovation in practical yet reliable fit-assessment methods.

‍