Short-term skin reactions following use of N95 respirators and medical masks.
Adult
Betacoronavirus
COVID-19
Coronavirus Infections
Erythema
/ etiology
Facial Dermatoses
/ etiology
Female
Healthy Volunteers
Humans
Hydrogen-Ion Concentration
Male
Masks
/ adverse effects
Middle Aged
Pain
/ etiology
Pandemics
Pneumonia, Viral
Pruritus
/ etiology
Respiratory Protective Devices
/ adverse effects
SARS-CoV-2
Sebum
Skin
Young Adult
adverse skin reaction, N95 respirator, medical mask, skin biophysical property
Journal
Contact dermatitis
ISSN: 1600-0536
Titre abrégé: Contact Dermatitis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7604950
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2020
Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
20
04
2020
revised:
09
05
2020
accepted:
11
05
2020
pubmed:
15
5
2020
medline:
31
7
2020
entrez:
15
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, cases of adverse skin reactions related to the wearing of masks have been observed. To analyze the short-term effects of N95 respirators and medical masks, respectively, on skin physiological properties and to report adverse skin reactions caused by the protective equipment. This study used a randomized crossover design with repeated measurements. Twenty healthy Chinese volunteers were recruited. Skin parameters were measured on areas covered by the respective masks and on uncovered skin 2 and 4 hours after donning, and 0.5 and 1 hour after removing the masks, including skin hydration, transepidermal water loss (TEWL), erythema, pH, and sebum secretion. Adverse reactions were clinically assessed, and perceived discomfort and non-compliance measured. Skin hydration, TEWL, and pH increased significantly with wearing the protective equipment. Erythema values increased from baseline. Sebum secretion increased both on the covered and uncovered skin with equipment-wearing. There was no significant difference in physiological values between the two types of equipment. More adverse reactions were reported following a N95 mask use than the use of a medical mask, with a higher score of discomfort and non-compliance. This study demonstrates that skin biophysical characters change as a result of wearing a mask or respirator. N95 respirators were associated with more skin reactions than medical masks.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, cases of adverse skin reactions related to the wearing of masks have been observed.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To analyze the short-term effects of N95 respirators and medical masks, respectively, on skin physiological properties and to report adverse skin reactions caused by the protective equipment.
METHODS
METHODS
This study used a randomized crossover design with repeated measurements. Twenty healthy Chinese volunteers were recruited. Skin parameters were measured on areas covered by the respective masks and on uncovered skin 2 and 4 hours after donning, and 0.5 and 1 hour after removing the masks, including skin hydration, transepidermal water loss (TEWL), erythema, pH, and sebum secretion. Adverse reactions were clinically assessed, and perceived discomfort and non-compliance measured.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Skin hydration, TEWL, and pH increased significantly with wearing the protective equipment. Erythema values increased from baseline. Sebum secretion increased both on the covered and uncovered skin with equipment-wearing. There was no significant difference in physiological values between the two types of equipment. More adverse reactions were reported following a N95 mask use than the use of a medical mask, with a higher score of discomfort and non-compliance.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrates that skin biophysical characters change as a result of wearing a mask or respirator. N95 respirators were associated with more skin reactions than medical masks.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32406064
doi: 10.1111/cod.13601
pmc: PMC7272965
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
115-121Subventions
Organisme : 1.3.5 project for disciplines of excellence, West China Hospital, Sichuan University
ID : ZY2016106
Informations de copyright
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
J Invest Dermatol. 2001 Sep;117(3):718-24
pubmed: 11564182
BMC Infect Dis. 2015 Oct 13;15:413
pubmed: 26462473
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 May;82(5):1215-1216
pubmed: 32171808
BMJ. 2020 Apr 9;369:m1435
pubmed: 32273267
JAMA. 2020 Mar 17;323(11):1061-1069
pubmed: 32031570
Br J Dermatol. 1970 Dec;83(6):650-4
pubmed: 4250118
Contact Dermatitis. 2020 Aug;83(2):145-147
pubmed: 32297349
Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol. 2001 Mar-Apr;14(2):117-28
pubmed: 11316970
Dermatitis. 2007 Mar;18(1):40-4
pubmed: 17303043
Contact Dermatitis. 1994 Mar;30(3):152-8
pubmed: 8187514
Skin Res Technol. 2019 Jul;25(4):456-460
pubmed: 30620080
CMAJ. 2016 May 17;188(8):567-574
pubmed: 26952529
BMJ. 2020 Apr 9;369:m1442
pubmed: 32273278
Respirology. 2010 Apr;15(3):516-21
pubmed: 20337987
Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2012;25(1):25-33
pubmed: 21912200
J Hosp Infect. 2020 May;105(1):104-105
pubmed: 32142885
JAMA. 2019 Sep 3;322(9):824-833
pubmed: 31479137
BMC Infect Dis. 2017 Jul 3;17(1):464
pubmed: 28673259
Pediatr Dermatol. 2011 Mar-Apr;28(2):99-107
pubmed: 21504443
Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol. 2003 May-Jun;16(3):188-202
pubmed: 12677099
Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol. 2000 Nov-Dec;13(6):372-89
pubmed: 11096379
Contact Dermatitis. 2006 Nov;55(5):291-4
pubmed: 17026695
Skin Res Technol. 1997 May;3(2):126-32
pubmed: 27333374
Contact Dermatitis. 2020 Aug;83(2):115-121
pubmed: 32406064