Table 1

Study characteristics

Study,
country
No. of participants
(% male)
Age range (years), (mean*)PopulationPopulation ethnicity†
(%)
RPE type
Number of brands/models/sizes (RPE tested per user)****
No. of facial dimensionsRPE fit measure
(guidelines/standards) and outcome
Liau et al, USA48190
(100%)
N/ALaboratory employeesCaucasianReusable half mask
4 brands, 10 sizes total
7QNFT
Protection factor
Gross and Horstman,
USA49
121
(50%)
(37.5)Community membersN/AReusable half masks
3 brands (2), 3 sizes each
10‡QNFT§ (ANSI)
Fit factor, pass rates
Oestenstad et al, USA5073
(53%)
21–50 (30.6)University student, staff and facultyWhite (68%)
Black (12%)
Asian (12%)
Other¶ (7%)**
Reusable half mask
1 brand, 3 sizes
12QNFT (ANSI)
Leak shape, size and distribution††
Fit factor
Oestenstad and Perkins,
USA27
68
(56%)
21–50 (30.4)University students and staffWhite (69%)
Black (13%)
Asian (10%)
Hispanic (4%)
Asian Indian (3%)**
Reusable half mask
1 brand, 3 sizes
12‡QNFT†††† (ANSI)
Fit factor
Brazile et al,
USA51
186
(49%)
N/ACommunity members, university studentsWhite (35%)
African (31%)
Mexican (33%)
Reusable half mask
1 brand, 3 sizes
14‡QNFT§ (ANSI)
Fit factor, pass rates
Han, South Korea52778
(52%)
20–55Industrial workers, university studentsKoreanReusable quarter mask
3 brands (3)
2QNFT‡‡(ANSI)
Fit factor, pass rates
Han and Choi,
South Korea29
150
(75%)
20–55Community members, university studentsKoreanReusable half mask
3 brands (3), 1 size (M)
10‡QNFT‡‡(ANSI/OSHA)
Fit factor, pass rates
Kim et al,
South Korea53
110
(64%)
N/AUniversity studentsKoreanReusable quarter mask
3 brands (3), 1 size (M)
12‡QNFT§‡‡ (ANSI/OSHA)
Fit factor, pass rates
Zhuang et al,
USA54
32
(45%)
N/AN/AN/ADisposable N95 half mask
18 models (18), 1–3 sizes
12‡QNFT
SWPF
Oestenstad et al, USA5541
(51%)
20–55 (30)Institute student and staffCaucasianReusable half mask
3 brands (3), >1 size
12‡QNFT
Fit factor
McMahon et al,
Canada56
1295
(24%)
19–71Healthcare workersN/ADisposable N95 half masks
3 brands§§, 6 models
N/AQLFT
Pass rates
Zhuang et al,
USA57
30
(43%)
N/ACommunity membersWhile (90%)
Black (33%)
Asian (66%)
Disposable and reusable half masks
4 models (4), 3 sizes
3QNFT‡‡
Fit factor, pass rates
Winter et al,
Australia58
50
(N/A)
N/AHealthcare workersN/ADisposable N95 half masks
2 brands, 3 models (3)
1QLFT
Wilkinson et al,
Australia59
5024¶¶
(21%)
Mode age group: 41–50Healthcare workersAboriginals (0.9%)
White (88.9%)
East-Asian (5.7%) South/Central- Asian (3.5%)
Other*** (1.0%)
Disposable P2/N95 half masks
3 brands§§, 1–2 sizes
N/A
(overall face shape/size data collected)
QNFT‡‡
Pass rates
Oestenstad and Bartolucci, USA6041
(51%)
20–55 (3)University students and staffCaucasianReusable half masks
3 brands (3)
12‡Leak size, shape and distribution ††
Spies et al,
South Africa61
29
(48%)
N/AResearch institute employeesAfrican (45%)
European (41%)
Coloured††† (7%)
Asian (7%)
Disposable P2 half mask
1 model, 1 size (M)
4‡‡‡ ‡QNFT‡‡ (OSHA)
Fit factor, pass rates
Ciotti et al, France3050
(N/A)
N/AHealthcare workersN/ADisposable PPF2 half masks
9 models (2-3)
N/AQNFT‡‡
Fit factor, pass rates
Earle-Richardson et al, USA6256
(88%)
15–81 (33.2)FarmworkersLatinoDisposable N95 and reusable half masks
4 brands, 7 models§§
N/AQLFT (OSHA)
Pass rates
Yu et al, China6350
(52%)
Mean age (SD)
21.5 (2.2)
N/AChineseDisposable N95 half masks
4 brands, 10 models (10), 2 sizes
21‡QNFT‡‡ (OSHA)
Fit factor, pass rates
Bergman et al, USA64229
(N/A)
N/AGeneral populationN/ADisposable N95 half masks
7 models§§, 1–2 sizes
13QNFT‡‡ (OSHA)
Fit factor, inward leak
Kim et al,
South Korea65
49
(67%)
Mean age (SD)
23.0 (3.8)
Healthcare workersKoreanDisposable N95 half masks
1 brand, 2 models, 3 sizes
7‡QNFT‡‡ (OSHA)
SWPF, fit factor, pass rates
Lin and Chen, Taiwan66206
(49%)
21–30Community members, university studentsTaiwanDisposable N95 half masks
3 models (3), 1 size
19‡QLFT (OSHA)
Manganyi et al,
South Africa28
562
(33%)
Mode age group: 19–30 yearsLaboratory employeesAfrican (65%)
Asian (11%)
Coloured§§§ (9%)
White (14%)
Disposable N95/FFP2 half masks
>2 brands (1) ¶¶¶, 2 sizes (S, M)
4QNFT‡‡ (OSHA)
Fit factor, pass rates
Honarbakhsh et al, Iran6795
(33.5%)
N/AHealthcare workersTaiwaneseDisposable N95 half masks
3 models, 1 size
2‡QLFT (OSHA)
Pass rates
Huh et al,
South Korea68
211
(51%)
Median 26
IQR 23–31
Military hospital volunteersKoreanDisposable N95 half masks
3 brands, 4 models (4), 1–3 sizes
2QNFT‡‡ (OSHA)
Fit factor, pass rates
Foereland et al, Norway69127
(88%)
18–65 (37)Smelting industry workersNorwegianDisposable P3 half masks
4 brands, 14 models (≥5), 1 or 3 sizes
N/AQNFT‡‡ (OSHA)
Fit factor, pass rates
Winski et al,
UK70
262
(90.5%)
N/AGeneral populationN/ADisposable PPF3 half mask
1 model
3QNFT‡‡ (BSIF)
Fit factor, pass rates
Fakherpour et al, Iran7162
(40%)
Mean age (SD)
23.45 (4.66)
University studentsIranianDisposable N95/PPF2/FFP3 half masks
4 brands (4)
2‡QLFT
Pass rates
Zhang et al,
China72
85
(36%)
Mean age (SD)
27 (4.4)
University studentsChineseDisposable N95/FFP3 half masks
4 models (4), 1 size
8QNFT‡‡
Fit factor, pass rates
De‐Yñigo‐Mojado et al,
Spain73
74
(50%)
Mean age (SD)
34.31 (7.13)
Healthcare workersN/ADisposable FFP3 half masks
2 brands, 3 models
4‡QNFT‡‡
Fit factor, pass rates
Fakherpour et al, Iran7437
(32%)
Mean age (SD)
24.6 (4.2)
University volunteersIranianDisposable N95/FFP2 half masks
15 brands, 20 models (20)
2QNFT‡‡
Fit factor, pass rates
Williams et al, Australia7596
(57%)
Mean age (SD)
42.3 (9.5)
Healthcare workersSouth East Asian (26%)
Other (74%)
Disposable N95 half mask
2–3 models§§, 2 sizes
N/AQNFT‡‡ (OSHA)
Fit factor, pass rates
  • *Unless otherwise stated.

  • †Ethnicity as reported by authors of respective studies. Efforts were made to determine ethnicity if not clearly reported.

  • ‡Studies with anthropometric data reported for inclusion in meta-analysis.

  • §QNFT FF score of 10 used as equivalent to effective protection using particulate detector or condensation nuclei count (portacount) method.

  • ¶Hispanics and Asian Indians.

  • **Data on ethnicity collected but no comparison made due to small numbers.

  • ††RPE performance measured used fluorescent tracer.

  • ‡‡QNFT FF score of 100 used as equivalent to effective protection using condensation nuclei count (portacount) method.

  • §§An initial respirator was selected. Once a successful fit test was obtained other models were not tested. In the event of failed testing, subsequent models were tested until fit-testing was passed.

  • ¶¶Survey study design, with ‘no. of participants’ representing number of healthcare workers who responded to the questionnaire and were tested with the respirators. Percentage of males calculated number of questionnaires where participants supplied information on gender.

  • ***Not reported.

  • †††Mixed European, African or Asian ancestry as per consensus referenced in the study.

  • ‡‡‡Two measurements taken for all participants, two additional measurements taken on small proportion of participants.

  • §§§Mixed-race, combination of ethnic backgrounds including African, White, Khoisan, Indian and Malay.

  • ¶¶¶Participants were tested using the type and size of mask used in the workplace at the time of study.

  • ****Number of brands/models/sizes included in the study. (N) describes the number of masks tested per participant, where reported. Intra-study variability in number of masks tested per participant observed.

  • ††††QNFT FF score of 1000 used as equivalent to effective protection using photometric method.

  • ANSI, American National Standards Institute; BSIF, British Safety Industry Federation; FF, fit factor; N/A, not available/reported; OSHA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration; PF, protection factor; PR, pass rates; QLFT, qualitative fit test; QNFT, quantitative fit test; RPE, respiratory protective equipment; SWPF, simulated work place protection factor.