key: cord-0701720-99ei2rqc authors: Park, Sung Jin; Cho, Jun Hyuk; Ham, Min Seok; Seo, Soo Hong; Ahn, Hyo Hyun; Kim, Dai Hyun title: What type of face mask should we choose in coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic considering photoprotective effectiveness? date: 2022-04-10 journal: Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed DOI: 10.1111/phpp.12788 sha: 7cac359e36c390549c0bdebd93232af59d165ef7 doc_id: 701720 cord_uid: 99ei2rqc BACKGROUND: Wearing a face mask is one of the most effective personal protective strategies to diminish the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Several dermatological outcomes were reported because of the prolonged use of face masks, especially due to the constant mask‐on policy, but the photoprotective effect of face masks has received less attention. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to provide guidance in the use of face masks by comparing the photoprotective effects of routinely used masks. METHODS: A total of 12 frequently used face masks were tested, including certified respirators, Korea filter (KF)94, KF‐anti‐droplet (KF‐AD), and KF80. The amount of light that penetrates each face mask was measured using a light sensor that can quantify Ultraviolet A (UVA), visible light (VL), and infrared A (IR‐A) rays. RESULTS: Black‐colored KF94 masks and surgical masks reduced penetration of UVA, VL, and IR‐A by approximately 100%. The UVA penetration decreased on average by 95.51%, 90.97%, 85.06%, and 86.41% with white‐colored KF94, KF‐AD, KF80, and surgical masks, respectively. The VL and IR‐A were blocked by approximately 75.58%, 66.16%, 59.18%, and 64.48% with white‐colored KF94, KF‐AD, KF80, and surgical masks, respectively. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the different photoprotective effectiveness of face masks was mainly determined by colors, and therefore, black‐colored, multi‐layered respirators can be recommended in terms of photoprotection in the COVID‐19 pandemic. The quantified comparative results will be helpful to the person with pre‐existing photo‐aggravated dermatosis, especially in the season of the high intensity of sunlight. Face masks are one of the most effective personal protection products to slow down the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 . 1, 2 Mask wearing has been recommended by public health authorities to minimize the spread of exhaled respiratory droplets and possibly resultant airborne transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). 1, 2 Public health authorities recommend wearing face masks in indoor public places and crowded outdoor settings, especially in the circumstances of substantial or high transmission. [3] [4] [5] In particular, South Korea (hereinafter Korea) has received considerable attention from the media worldwide for its exceptional adherence to face masks, which cannot be solely explained by mandatory policies on mask wearing. [6] [7] [8] Consequently, a large number of people have been exposed to the effects of prolonged mask wearing on facial skin, and studies on the long-term use of face masks have mostly focused on the negative impact, including increased skin sensitivity, irritation, itching, and exacerbation of pre-existing dermatoses such as acne and rosacea, among others. [9] [10] [11] However, prolonged coverage by face masks is expected to have positive photoprotective effects because masks can be grossly regarded as an ultraviolet (UV) protective fabric-an important physical protective agent. 12, 13 Ultraviolet A (UVA) and visible light (VL) have been regarded as causative factors in skin aging, pigmentation, and erythema. [14] [15] [16] [17] In addition, it has been suggested that infrared A (IR-A) plays an important role in photoaging as well as dermal inflammation. 18 In this context, the purpose of the study was to quantify the degrees of photoprotective effectiveness against UVA, VL, and IR-A by frequently used face masks and provide guidance in the use of face masks, especially in the season of high UV index during which sun protection is essential. 19 2 | MATERIAL S AND ME THODS The amount of light that reached the surface of the cheek, naked as well as covered by a face mask, was evaluated in triplicate at noon from July to August 2021 in an open field in Seoul (37°N and 126°E) with a light sensor (TM-208; Tenmars Electronics Co., Ltd., Taipei, Taiwan). The light sensor could measure the degree of UVA rays (320-400 nm, peak sensitivity 365 nm) and rays with comparably longer wavelengths, VL and IR-A (peak sensitivity 400-1100 nm). The light sensor could measure up to 4000 μW/cm 2 and 2000 W/ m 2 of UVA rays and VL and IR-A, with the minimum resolution of 0.1 μW/cm 2 and 0.01 W/m 2 , respectively. The accuracy of the light sensor was ±4% for UVA rays and ± 5% for VL and IR-A. The light sensor was placed on the facial surface while the investigator gazed forward with the head positioned on a horizontal plane parallel to the ground during the measurement. The placement of light sensor along with or without masks is illustrated in Figure S1 . The light sensor was intended to be placed not to alter the original curvature of face masks as much as possible. In addition, the investigator pressed every direction to avoid measuring exaggerated value due to unintentionally penetrated light from a slight gap between mask and skin surface. The intensity of light was recorded as the average intensity of 5 s. The investigator consistently placed a light sensor on the same region and wore the face masks with the coherent head position in the same place and time to minimize the interference by unintended variables. Statistical differences in the reduction in UVA, VL, and IR-A by different face masks were analyzed using analysis of variance or the Kruskal-Wallis test. All analyses were performed with IBM SPSS version 20.0, for Windows (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), and pvalues <0.05 were considered statistically significant. A total of 12 different face masks were used in the study, as illustrated in Figure 1 , and detailed properties are provided in Table 1 according to types, colors, number of layers, materials, companies, and weight per unit area. All respirators were approved by the MFDS and categorized into KF94, KF-AD, and KF80. Frequently used surgical and reusable masks were also used in this study. The study was conducted on three different clear and sunny days in July and August at noon. The average temperature and humidity were 31.23 ± 2.11°C and 50.67 ± 2.08%, respectively. The average particulate matter (PM) parameters, PM2.5 and PM10, were 10 .00 ± 6.24 and 15.67 ± 8.62, respectively. The average UV index was 7.33 ± 1.53 and could be categorized as high to very high degrees of UV exposure. 19 The measured values of UVA on bare and masked skin surface are documented in Table 2 . The degree of UVA reduction by different face masks is shown in Figure 2 . The black masks numbered from 1 to 3 consisted of one surgical mask and two KF94 types. The black masks showed nearly 100.00% blockage of UVA penetration, with masks 1, 2, and 3 blocking 99.55 ± 0.78, 100.00 ± 0.00, and 100.00 ± 0.00% of UVA rays, respectively. Black-colored KF94 masks provided numerically higher UVA reduction when compared to white-colored KF94 and KF-AD masks, although no statistical significance was found. The white-colored KF94 masks resulted in a statistically superior UVA reduction in comparison with white-colored KF80 masks (p < 0.01). The measured values of VL and IR-A on bare and masked skin surface are documented in Table 2 . The degree of VL and IR-A reduction by the 12 face masks is presented in Figure 3 . The black-colored masks numbered 1 to 3 also showed nearly 100.00% blockage of VL and IR-A penetration, and corresponding to 99.75 ± 0. 15 F I G U R E 1 Illustrations of commercially available face masks in Korea that were tested. Detailed properties including types, colors, and symbolized company names are described in Table 1 of VL and IR-A reduction, respectively. The white-colored surgical mask numbered 10 showed 64.48 ± 15.93% of VL and IR-A reduction. The white-colored and translucent reusable masks numbered 11 and 12 displayed 60.70 ± 3.21 and 33.49 ± 8.56% of VL and IR-A reduction, respectively. Both the black-colored surgical and KF94 masks showed statistically significant VL and IR-A reduction compared with the results of the other masks, including white-colored KF94, KF-AD, KF80, surgical and both reusable masks (p < 0.01). The white-colored KF94 masks resulted in statistically superior VL and IR-A reduction compared with the white-colored KF80 masks (p < 0.05). As of October 2021, SARS-CoV-2 has infected more than 243.87 million people and led to 4.95 million deaths. 21 The common mode of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is exposure to large respiratory droplets during close contact. 1, 2, 4 The optimum use of face masks including N95 respirators and surgical masks give effective protection compared with that with no mask. 1,2 An N95/N99 respirator is the USA equivalent of FFP2/FFP3, which means the mask filters at least 94% and 99% of airborne particles. 3 benefited. 25 Our previous study also reported that centrofacial area was vulnerable to the exposure of VL and infrared rays even in automobile. 14 Although face masks cannot cover the entire facial skin, it is still important to investigate which products provide better photoprotective effectiveness and analyze causative reasons. The photoprotective efficacy of face masks is affected by the color, types of materials, thickness, hydration, etc. 12, 13 One study reported the level of photoprotection offered by surgical, fabric, and homemade masks against UV radiation. 12 However, no previous study has evaluated the photoprotective effectiveness of respirators. Therefore, this study was designed to quantify the photoprotective effectiveness of face masks, including MFDS-approved respirators, and to analyze the difference in efficacy according to their color, number of layers, types of materials, and weight per unit area. UVA, VL, and IR are well-known factors causing skin aging. 14, 26 In addition, UVA and VL induce erythema and increased pigmentation, particularly in darker skin. [13] [14] [15] 26 IR-A penetrates into the deep dermis and contributes to the loss of collagen fiber. 26 Moreover, the photocarcinogenic property of UVA has been well documented. 26 Our results showed that black-colored KF94 masks and surgical mask blocked the exposure to UVA, VL, and IR-A by approximately 100% (Figures 2 and 3) . Black-colored face masks showed a statistically significant reduction in VL and IR-A compared with all the other products and a numerically higher degree Figures 2 and 3 ) seemed to be determined by color, possibly due to fabric construction and weight per unit area (Table 1 ). In conclusion, our data show that frequently used face masks showed meaningfully different photoprotective effectiveness, mainly determined by colors and partly influenced by types of masks and number of layers. Based on the result of our study, blackcolored, multi-layered respirators can be recommended in terms of photoprotection. Considering the pandemic situation where the wearing mask has been universal, the result can be helpful to the general population who need an additional way of photoprotection in the season of the high UV index and the patients with pre-existing photo-aggravated dermatosis. None to declare. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Dai Hyun Kim https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3546-2366 Pathophysiology, transmission, diagnosis, and treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a review COVID-19 systematic urgent review group effort (SURGE) study authors. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis Using face masks in the community: first update -Effectiveness in reducing transmission of COVID-19 How to protect yourself & others Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency Coronavirus FAQ: Why am I suddenly hearing so much about KF94 masks South Korea mandates mask-wearing to fight Covid-19 as face coverings remain controversial in the US Face mask culture common in East, new to West Dermatoses caused by face mask wearing during the COVID-19 pandemic Effect of face mask on skin characteristics changes during the COVID-19 pandemic Influence of quarantine mask use on skin characteristics: one of the changes in our life caused by the COVID-19 pandemic What level of photoprotection can be obtained using facial mask? Determining effectiveness using an in vitro method Photoprotection: part I. Photoprotection by naturally occurring, physical, and systemic agents Topographic approach to the long-term effect of solar exposure on facial skin of Korean automobile commuters Impact of long-wavelength UVA and visible light on melanocompetent skin Synergistic effects of long-wavelength ultraviolet A1 and visible light on pigmentation and erythema Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation: etiologic and therapeutic considerations The other end of the rainbow: infrared and skin Ultraviolet index and sun safety: are we all on the same page? Guideline for the standard specification of health mask COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic Changes in skin wrinkles and pores due to long-term mask wear Clinical manifestations and patch test results for facial dermatitis associated with disposable face mask use during the COVID-19 outbreak: a casecontrol study Comparison of facial predilection sites for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma and actinic keratosis in Japanese patients Nonmelanoma skin cancer Face masks in the new COVID-19 Normal: materials, testing, and perspectives Polyethylene/polypropylene bicomponent Spunbond air filtration materials containing magnesium stearate for efficient fine particle capture