Author
Listed:
- Karen S. Galea
(Centre for Human Exposure Science, IOM, Research Avenue North, Riccarton, Edinburgh EH14 4AP, UK)
- Judith Covey
(Science Labs., Department of Psychology, Durham University, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK)
- Sari Mutia Timur
(Yakkum Emergency Unit (YEU), Jl. Kaliurang KM 12, Dusun Candi 3, no. 34, Desa Sardonoharjo, Ngaglik, Sleman, Yogyakarta 55581, Indonesia)
- Claire J. Horwell
(Department of Earth Sciences, Institute of Hazard, Risk & Resilience, Durham University, Lower Mountjoy, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK)
- Fentiny Nugroho
(Department of Social Welfare Faculty of Social and Political Science, University of Indonesia, Kampus Baru UI Depok, Jawa Barat 16424, Indonesia)
- William Mueller
(Centre for Human Exposure Science, IOM, Research Avenue North, Riccarton, Edinburgh EH14 4AP, UK)
Abstract
Inhalation of ash can be of great concern for affected communities, during and after volcanic eruptions. Governmental and humanitarian agencies recommend and distribute a variety of respiratory protection (RP), commonly surgical masks but, also, industry-certified N95-style masks. However, there is currently no evidence on how wearable they are within affected populations or how protective wearers perceive them being against volcanic ash (which will influence the likelihood of uptake of recommended interventions). Volunteers living near Mt. Sinabung, Sumatra, Indonesia, participated in a field wearability study, which included a high-efficiency mask certified to industry standards (N95-equiv.); a standard, pleated surgical mask (Surgical); a Basic flat-fold mask (Flat-fold), and the surgical mask plus a scarf tied over the top (Surgical Plus) to improve fit. These types of RP had all performed well during earlier laboratory filtration efficiency tests. The N95-equiv. mask had performed significantly better than the other RP in the subsequent total inward leakage volunteer trials, whilst the Flat-fold and Surgical masks performed poorly, letting in a third of PM 2.5 particles (data published elsewhere). Thirty volunteers wore each mask for a 15-min walk before being asked to rate the comfort, breathability and perceived protection and fit of each. After wearing all of the masks, volunteers compared and identified their preferred type of protection. The feedback received from the volunteers suggested that the Surgical Plus and N95-equiv. masks were rated as being significantly hotter and more humid than other masks. The Flat-fold was rated to have better breathability than the other masks. The N95-equiv. mask was ranked as providing the best level of effectiveness of the four masks tested. Ultimately, when asked which type of mask they would choose to wear during ashfall, 33% selected the Flat-fold mask due to its comfort and simplicity, with the Surgical Plus being the least likely to be chosen of the four tested. The study findings are of benefit to agencies who need to make informed decisions on the procurement and distribution of RP for use by those affected in future eruptions and the provision of advice to communities on their usage.
Suggested Citation
Karen S. Galea & Judith Covey & Sari Mutia Timur & Claire J. Horwell & Fentiny Nugroho & William Mueller, 2018.
"Short Communication: Health Interventions in Volcanic Eruptions—Community Wearability Assessment of Respiratory Protection against Volcanic Ash from Mt Sinabung, Indonesia,"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-8, October.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:11:p:2359-:d:178237
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:11:p:2359-:d:178237. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.