Dust Collection Efficiency, Inhalation Pressure, and CO2 Concentration in Health Masks

보건용 마스크의 분진포집효율, 흡기저항 및 CO2 농도

  • Han, Don-Hee (Department of Occupational Health and Safety Engineering, Inje University) ;
  • Kim, Il Soon (Chief Executive Officer, Dobu Life Tech Co., Ltd.)
  • Received : 2019.12.17
  • Accepted : 2020.02.07
  • Published : 2020.02.29


Objectives: To identify the degree of physical burden, a determination was undertaken of dust collection efficiency, inhalation pressure, and CO2 concentration related to health masks certified by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS). Methods: Twenty health masks were purchased on the market. Dust collection efficiency and inhalation pressure were determined in the same manner as in MFDS certification testing, respectively using TSI Model 8130 (TSI, U.S.) and ART Plus (Korea). CO2 concentrations for 20 subjects using a CO2 analyzer (G100, G150, Geotechnical Instrument Ltd., UK) were measured with a similar method as a total inward leakage test. In addition to CO2 levels, dead space volumes in the masks was determined for predicting concentrations of CO2 in inhalation air. Results: Most of the dust collection efficiencies found for the 20 masks were far higher than the standard. Four KF94s met KF99 and four KF80s even met KF94. Most inhalation pressures were also much lower than the standard, with many almost one-half of the standard. The mean and standard deviation of CO2 concentration in the mask were 2.9±0.44%. Considering dead volume, the prediction for CO2 concentration in the inhalation air was 4,395±1,266 ppm. Conclusions: For healthy men and women, the dust collection efficiency and inhalation pressure of health masks were not at a level that would affect their health. Although CO2 levels in the inhalation air were predicted not to affect health, research on the physiological effects of health masks on Koreans is needed for more precise research.


  1. Yonhapnews. Fine dust: Efficacy of mask (2019. 01. 17). Available: [accessed 4 July 2019].
  2. MFDS. Notice of Scope for Nonmedical Products (MFDS Notice 2019-86). Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. 2019.
  3. Ham S, Choi W-J, Lee W, Kang S-K. Characteristics of health masks certified by the ministry of food and drug safety. J Environ Health Sci. 2019; 45(2): 134-141.
  4. Jung HJ, Kim JB, Lee S, Lee J, Kim J, Tsai P, et al. Comparison of filtration efficiency and pressure drop in anti-yellow sand masks, quarantine masks, medical masks, general masks, and handkerchiefs. Aero Air Qual Res. 2014; 14: 991-1002.
  5. Seo H, Kim JI, Yoon J-S, Shin D, Kim H. Analysis of 3D facial dimensions and pulmonary capacity of Korean children for designing of children's dust masks. J Kor Soc Occup Environ Hyg. 2017; 27(4): 269-282.
  6. NIFDS. Guidelines for the Standards of Health Masks (Civilian Guide). National Institute of Food and Drug Safety Evaluation. 2018.
  7. MOEL. Notice of Safety Certification for Personal Protective Equipment (MOEL Notice 2017-64). Ministry of Employment and Labor. 2017.
  8. Institute for National Labor Science. Standard of Personal Protective Equipment, Particulate Respirator (Notice of Ministry of Labor 84-22). Ministry of Labor. 1984.
  9. Schmidt RF, Thews G. Human Physiology. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer-Verlag; 1983. p.456-475.
  10. Mundt C, Sventitskiy A, Cehelsky JE, Patters AB, Tservistas M, Hahn MC, et al. Assessing modeled $CO_2$ retention and rebreathing of a facemask designed for efficient delivery of aerosols to infants. International Scholarly Research Network ISRN Pediatrics. 2012; Article ID 721295: 1-10.
  11. Warkander DE, Lundgren CEG. Dead space in the breathing apparatus; interaction with ventilation. Ergonomics. 2007; 38(9): 1745-1758.
  12. MFDS. Certificate for Testing Nonmedical Products (MFDS 2017-16). Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. 2017.
  13. KATS. Size Korea. Available: Korean Agency for Technology and Standards [accessed 4 December 2019].
  14. Roberge RJ, Coca A, Williams WJ, Powell JB, Palmiero AJ. Physiological impact of the N95 filtering facepiece respirator on healthcare workers. Respiratory Care. 2010; 55(5): 569-577.
  15. Rengasamy S, Eimer BC, Shffer RE. Comparison of nanoparticle filtration performance of NIOSHapproved and CE-marked particulate filtering facepiece respirators. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2009; 53(2): 117-128.
  16. Lee HP, Wang DY. Objective assessment of increase in breathing resistance of N95 respirators on human subjects. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2011; 55(8): 917-921.
  17. Roberge RJ, Kim JH, Powell JB, Shaffer RE, Ylitalo CM, Sebastian JM. Impact of low filter resistances on subjective and physiological responses to filtering facepiece respirators. PLOS ONE. Available: 2013; 8(12), e84901: 1-7. [accessed 10 December 2019].
  18. MOEL. Notice of Occupational Exposure Limit for Chemical and Physical Factors (MOEL Notice 2018-24). Ministry of Employment and Labor. 2018.
  19. MOEL. Rules on Industrial Safety and Health Standards (MOEL Notice 263). Ministry of Employment and Labor. 2019.
  20. Roberge RJ, Coca A, Williams WJ, Powell JB, Palmiero AJ. Physiological impact of the N95 filtering facepiece respirator on healthcare workers. Respiratory Care. 2010; 55(5): 569-577.