Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1371/journal.pone.0248099 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1371/journal.pone.0248099 33657178!7928437!33657178     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 247.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 247.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 247.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 247.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 247.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\33657178.jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117       PLoS+One 2021 ; 16 (3): e0248099 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=33657178|t=2021. Medical face masks offer self-protection against aerosols: An evaluation using a practical in vitro approach on a dummy head |pdf=|usr=}}{{33657178}} gab.com Text Medical face masks offer self-protection against aerosols: An evaluation using a practical in vitro approach on a dummy head JO: PLoS One http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33657178 #FOAvip Since the appearance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the question regarding the efficacy of various hygiene measures and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) has become the focus of scientific and above all public discussion. To compare respirators, medical face masks, and cloth masks and determine if it is recommendable to wear face masks to protect the individual wearer of the mask from inhaling airborne particles, we challenged 29 different masks with aerosols and tested the pressure drop as a surrogate for breathing resistance owing to the mask material. We found that Type II medical face masks showed the lowest pressure drop (12.9+/-6.8 Pa/cm2) and therefore additional breathing resistance, whereas respirators such as the KN95 (32.3+/-7.0 Pa/cm2) and FFP2 (26.8+/-7.4 Pa/cm2) showed the highest pressure drops among the tested masks. The filtration efficacy of the mask material was the lowest for cloth masks (28+/-25%) followed by non-certified face masks (63+/-19%) and certified medical face masks (70+/-10%). The materials of the different respirators showed very high aerosol retentions (KN95 [94+/-4%] and FFP2 [98+/-1%]). For evaluating the as-worn filtration performance simulating real live conditions each mask type was also tested on a standardized dummy head. Cloth masks and non-EN-certified face masks had the worst as-worn filtration efficacies among the tested masks, filtering less than 20% of the test aerosol. Remarkably, certified type II medical face masks showed similar (p>0.5) as-worn filtration results (47+/-20%) than KN95 masks (41+/-4%) and FFP2 masks (65+/-27%), despite having a lower pressure drop. Face shields did not show any significant retention function against aerosols in our experiment. Our results indicate that it seems recommendable to wear face masks for providing base protection and risk reduction against inhaling airborne particles, in low-risk situations. In our study, especially EN 14683 type II certified medical face masks showed protective effectiveness against aerosols accompanied by minimal additional breathing resistance. FFP2 Respirators, on the other hand, could be useful in high-risk situations but require greater breathing effort and therefore physical stress for users. Twit Text FOAVip Medical face masks offer self-protection against aerosols: An evaluation using a practical in vitro approach on a dummy head ????PLoS One http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33657178 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33657178 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|33657178}}</ref> Medical face masks offer self-protection against aerosols: An evaluation using a practical in vitro approach on a dummy head #MMPMID33657178 Sterr CM; Nickel IL; Stranzinger C; Nonnenmacher-Winter CI; Gunther F PLoS One 2021[]; 16 (3): e0248099 PMID33657178show ga Since the appearance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the question regarding the efficacy of various hygiene measures and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) has become the focus of scientific and above all public discussion. To compare respirators, medical face masks, and cloth masks and determine if it is recommendable to wear face masks to protect the individual wearer of the mask from inhaling airborne particles, we challenged 29 different masks with aerosols and tested the pressure drop as a surrogate for breathing resistance owing to the mask material. We found that Type II medical face masks showed the lowest pressure drop (12.9+/-6.8 Pa/cm2) and therefore additional breathing resistance, whereas respirators such as the KN95 (32.3+/-7.0 Pa/cm2) and FFP2 (26.8+/-7.4 Pa/cm2) showed the highest pressure drops among the tested masks. The filtration efficacy of the mask material was the lowest for cloth masks (28+/-25%) followed by non-certified face masks (63+/-19%) and certified medical face masks (70+/-10%). The materials of the different respirators showed very high aerosol retentions (KN95 [94+/-4%] and FFP2 [98+/-1%]). For evaluating the as-worn filtration performance simulating real live conditions each mask type was also tested on a standardized dummy head. Cloth masks and non-EN-certified face masks had the worst as-worn filtration efficacies among the tested masks, filtering less than 20% of the test aerosol. Remarkably, certified type II medical face masks showed similar (p>0.5) as-worn filtration results (47+/-20%) than KN95 masks (41+/-4%) and FFP2 masks (65+/-27%), despite having a lower pressure drop. Face shields did not show any significant retention function against aerosols in our experiment. Our results indicate that it seems recommendable to wear face masks for providing base protection and risk reduction against inhaling airborne particles, in low-risk situations. In our study, especially EN 14683 type II certified medical face masks showed protective effectiveness against aerosols accompanied by minimal additional breathing resistance. FFP2 Respirators, on the other hand, could be useful in high-risk situations but require greater breathing effort and therefore physical stress for users. |Aerosols[MESH] |COVID-19/epidemiology/*transmission[MESH] |Disease Transmission, Infectious/*prevention & control[MESH] |Filtration[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Masks/*trends[MESH] |Models, Statistical[MESH] |Occupational Exposure/prevention & control[MESH] |Personal Protective Equipment/trends[MESH] |Respiratory Protective Devices/virology[MESH]Medical face masks offer self-protection against aerosols: An evaluati(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing