Introduction: The use of personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the majority of the global population. The use of face masks has been proven to reduce the incidence of COVID-19 by 53 % and to be an effective means
of prevention, both separately and in combination with other non-pharmaceutical measures. Wearing of face masks and gloves was mandated in different regions of the Russian Federation depending on the epidemiological situation, and it is still required
in certain areas and workplaces at high risk of this severe infectious disease. Our literature review has shown that the prolonged mask and gloves use has adverse health effects including headaches, difficulty breathing, and various skin reactions.
Objective: To analyze chemicals contained in commercially available face masks and protective gloves as one of the stages of hygienic assessment of personal protective equipment and to assess whether the established chemical composition can pose a
risk of adverse health outcomes.
Materials and methods: In 2021, four types of commercial face masks and protective gloves were analyzed in an accredited testing laboratory center to establish concentrations of chemicals after modeling their release into the aquatic and air environment.
Results: We established that, in all types of masks, the levels of detected chemicals did not exceed their appropriate permissible values. Formaldehyde was found in cotton and latex coated cotton gloves in concentrations exceeding the permissible ones by 1.48
and 1.16 times, respectively. A 1.17-fold excess of the acceptable limit was also registered for zinc in latex coated cotton gloves.
Conclusions: Increased levels of formaldehyde and zinc were found in cotton and latex coated cotton gloves. Formaldehyde can induce adverse skin reactions. Stricter control over production of respiratory and dermal protective equipment and a comprehensive hygienic assessment of PPE are required.

Assessment of the Chemical Composition of Respiratory and Dermal Protective Equipment Used by the Population during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Self-isolation is a preventive measure that started in January 2020 as a response to the spread of the coronavirus COVID-19 infection, and it has no precedents in human history. During this pandemic, governments forced billions of people to self-isolate for several months, and the sanitary-hygienic assessment of self-isolation became an essential issue. It is possible to assess self-isolation using several methods:
We proposed a sanitary-hygienic definition of self-isolation.
We developed a hygienic self-isolation index point score (HSIPS) which determines that the optimal mode is directly proportional to the coefficients of a person’s physical activity (D), indoor area (air cubic capacity) per isolated (S), time spent in fresh air (T) and inversely proportional to the calorie intake.
The self-isolation index point score (HSIPS) determines if self-isolation is (1) optimal, (2) favorable, or (3) unfavorable.
We determined methods to assess the level of functional reserves of the body.
We identified the leading risk factors for the health of the self-isolation population.
We proposed sanitary-hygienic criteria for assessing self-isolation based on the sanitary-hygienic standards of the Russian Federation.
The sanitary-hygienic assessment of self-isolation can ensure the prevention of cardiovascular, alimentary-dependent diseases, and pathologies of the musculoskeletal system. Besides, self-isolation accompanies a decrease in motor activity and unbalanced nutrition.

/pdf/covid-19-pandemic-sanitary-hygienic-aspects-of-household-22s17dqey5.pdf

COVID-19 Pandemic: Sanitary–Hygienic Aspects of Household Members’ Self-Isolation

Filter face masks are Respiratory Protective Equipment designed to protect the wearer from various hazards, suit various health situations, and match the specific requirements of the wearer. Current traditional face masks have several limitations. In this paper, we present (ME)2, the Monitoring Equipment Mask Environment: an innovative reusable 3D-printed eco-sustainable mask with an interchangeable filter. (ME)2 is equipped with multiple vital sensors on board, connected to a system-on-a-chip micro-controller with computational capabilities, Bluetooth communication, and a rechargeable battery that allows continuous monitoring of the wearer’s vital signs. It monitors body temperature, heart rate, and oxygen saturation in a non-invasive, strategically positioned way. (ME)2 is accompanied by a mobile application that provides users’ health information. Furthermore, through Edge Computing Artificial Intelligence (Edge AI) modules, it is possible to detect an abnormal and early symptoms linked to possible pathologies, possibly linked to the respiratory or cardiovascular tract, and therefore perform predictive analysis, launch alerts, and recommendations. To validate the feasibility of embedded in-app Edge AI modules, we tested a machine learning model able to distinguish COVID-19 versus seasonal influenza using only vital signs. By generating new synthetic data, we confirm the highly reliable performances of such a model, with an accuracy of 94.80%.

/pdf/introducing-the-monitoring-equipment-mask-environment-3qd2rr04.pdf

Introducing the Monitoring Equipment Mask Environment

A growing body of research suggests that pedestrians and bicyclists are exposed to substantial levels of harmful air pollutants, including particulate matter and carbon monoxide, during their daily commutes. Disposable and cloth face masks are well-known personal interventions for pedestrian and bicyclist pollutant exposure. However, there is a lack of consistent messaging from public health officials regarding how effective these masks are. Methods: This study used a scoping review to assess the existing literature on face masks as a personal intervention against the harmful effects of air pollution for pedestrians and bicyclists. The studies reviewed suggested that face mask use improves health measures in pedestrians after walks in polluted urban areas. Specifically, disposable N95 respirators were the most effective commercially available face masks models evaluated, with surgical masks and cloth masks with exhalations vents also effective. Additionally, perceptions of face masks against air pollution were generally positive among citizens. Although the scope of the evidence reviewed was relatively limited, it consistently suggested that mask use may be an effective and inexpensive personal intervention against air pollution for pedestrians and bicyclists. Public health organizations should consider encouraging the continued use of face masks as a personal abatement strategy of air pollution exposure during the post-pandemic stage. 

A scoping review of the benefits of face mask use on pedestrian and bicyclist exposure to air pollutants

/pdf/face-mask-use-and-social-distancing-attitude-of-healthcare-21bksra7.pdf

Face Mask Use and Social Distancing Attitude of Healthcare Students: A Multi-Disciplinary Study

The use of face masks has assumed a leading spot among nonspecific prevention measures during the coronavirus pandemic. The effectiveness of this protective measure depends on the specifics of individual use. The purpose of our study was to analyze the use of respiratory protective equipment (RPE) by medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic. The evaluation of face mask use was based on the results of a survey of medical students at Sechenov University. There were 988 participants in the study: 97.5% used RPE during the pandemic, 89.1% used disposable medical and hygienic face masks, 27.4% used reusable cloth face masks, and 13.2% used respirators. The majority of respondents (75.2%) were found to wear face masks correctly. However, 17.0% of the respondents were found to cover only their mouths with a face mask, while 7.8% reported often shifting their face mask under the chin due to perceived discomfort. Only 25.1% of respondents changed their disposable face mask after 2-3 h of wearing, while 13.0% decontaminated and used it several times. Most cloth face mask users (93.7%) decontaminated their marks, but only 55.7% of respondents did so daily. Face masks were most often worn in medical organizations (91.5%), and 1.4% of respondents did not use respiratory protection anywhere. In conclusion, we consider it necessary to introduce a special module on nonspecific prevention in the discipline of hygiene.

https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/5834/pdf

Tatiana S. Isiutina-Fedotkova

Papers

Use of Respiratory Protection Devices by Medical Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic.