Journal of Education and Health Promotion

Adverse effects associated with the use of N95 mask among health‑care workers at the COVID‑19 care units: A cross‑sectional study in Sulaimani city, Iraq

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

. Saad Abdulrahman Hussain
. Naza Mohammed Ali Mahmood 1
. Trefa Mohammed Ali Mahmood 2
. Neega Aras Mohammed Salih 3
. Zainab Saad Abdulrahman 4

1 Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of Pharmacy, University of Sulaimani, Kurdistan Region, Iraq

2 Department of Periodontics, Orthodontics and Prevention Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Sulaimani, Kurdistan Region, Iraq

3 Department of Emergency Medicine, Shar Teaching Hospital, Sulaimani, Kurdistan Region, Iraq

4 Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Al‑Kindy Teaching Hospital, Baghdad, Iraq

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health‑care workers have to use the N95 mask as a part of the protection kit during
the COVID‑19 pandemic. The adverse effects of such practice are not fully elucidated. The study aims
to evaluate negative impacts of N95 face masks on health‑care personnel at COVID‑19 care units.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and twenty‑two health‑care workers (aged 20–58 years)
from various health‑care settings in Sulaimani, Iraq, from January to August 2020, were enrolled in
this prospective, cross‑sectional study. The physiological variables (blood pressure, heart rate, and
oxygen saturation) were recorded before putting on the N95 mask and postremoval of the mask. The
incidence of adverse effects such as headache, difficulty breathing, redness, irritation, and dizziness
were also reported as a number and percent at the end of the work shift.
RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in the physiological parameters after
removal of the mask compared with baseline. Only diastolic pressure was significantly lower in those
working >6 h when compared to those working 1–6 h. The changes in physiological markers were
poorly and nonsignificantly associated with the duration of wearing the mask. Moreover, 67.2%–70.5%
of the participants complain of headaches and breathing difficulties, while 45.9%–51.6% reported
signs of itching, redness, and irritation. However, health‑care workers who put on the face mask >6 h
showed signs of headache, breathing difficulties, and itching at the exposed areas higher than those
working for 1–6 h.
CONCLUSION: N95 mask negatively impacts the physiological variables of health‑care providers.
The adverse effects may lead to excessive exhaustion after long shifts in the intensive care unit
during treatment of COVID‑19 patients.
 

Keywords

Adverse effects
COVID‑19 pandemic
health‑care workers
hemodynamic changes
intensive care units
N95 mask
work shifts
1. Zhou P, Yang XL, Wang XG, Hu B, Zhang L, Zhang W, et al.
A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of
probable bat origin. Nature 2020;588:E6.
2. Su S, Wong G, Shi W, Liu J, Lai AC, Zhou J, et al. Epidemiology,
genetic recombination, and pathogenesis of coronaviruses. Trends
Microbiol 2016;24:490‑502.
3. GamageB, MooreD, CopesR, YassiA, Bryce E; BC Interdisciplinary
Respiratory Protection Study Group. Protecting health care
workers from SARS and other respiratory pathogens: A review of
the infection control literature. Am J Infect Control 2005;33:114‑21.
4. Khoo KL, Leng PH, Ibrahim IB, Lim TK. The changing face
of healthcare worker perceptions on powered air‑purifying
respirators during the SARS outbreak. Respirology 2005;10:107‑10.
5. Seto WH, Tsang D, Yung RW, Ching TY, Ng TK, Ho M, et al.
Effectiveness of precautions against droplets and contact in
prevention of nosocomial transmission of severe acute respiratory
syndrome (SARS). Lancet 2003;361:1519‑20.
6. Radonovich LJ Jr., Perl TM, Davey V, Cohen H. Preventing the
soldiers of health care from becoming victims on the pandemic
battlefield: Respirators or surgical masks as the armor of choice.
Disaster Med Public Health Prep 2009;3 Suppl 2:S203‑10.
7. Jefferson T, Del Mar C, Dooley L, Ferroni E, Al‑Ansary LA,
Bawazeer GA, et al. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce
the spread of respiratory viruses: Systematic review. BMJ
2009;339:b3675.
8. Jamieson DJ, Honein MA, Rasmussen SA, Williams JL,
Swerdlow DL, Biggerstaff MS, et al. H1N1 2009 influenza virus
infection during pregnancy in the USA. Lancet 2009;374:451‑8.
9. Li Y, Tokura H, Guo YP, Wong AS, Wong T, Chung J, et al. Effects
of wearing N95 and surgical facemasks on heart rate, thermal
stress and subjective sensations. Int Arch Occup Environ Health
2005;78:501‑9.
10. Radonovich LJ Jr., Cheng J, Shenal BV, Hodgson M, Bender BS.
Respirator tolerance in health care workers. JAMA 2009;301:36‑8.
11. Roberge RJ, Coca A, Williams WJ, Powell JB, Palmiero AJ.
Physiological impact of the N95 filtering face‑piece respirator on
healthcare workers. Respir Care 2010;55:569‑77.
12. Al Badri FM. Surgical mask contact dermatitis and epidemiology
of contact dermatitis in healthcare workers. Curr Allergy Clin
Immunol 2020;30:183‑8.
13. Foo CC, Goon AT, Leow YH, Goh CL. Adverse skin reactions to
personal protective equipment against severe acute respiratory
syndrome – A descriptive study in Singapore. Contact Dermatitis
2006;55:291‑4.
14. Das A, Kumar S, Sil A, Jafferany M. Skin changes attributed to
protective measures against COVID‑19: A compilation. Dermatol
Ther 2020;33:e13796.
15. Pourhoseingholi MA, Vahedi M, Rahimzadeh M. Sample size calculation in medical studies. Gastroenterol Hepatol
Bed Bench 2013;6:14‑7.
16. Rebmann T, Carrico R, Wang J. Physiologic and other effects
and compliance with long‑term respirator use among medical
intensive care unit nurses. Am J Infect Control 2013;41:1218‑23.
17. Jones JG. The physiological cost of wearing a disposable respirator.
Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1991;52:219‑25.
18. Kaye J, Buchanan F, Kendrick A, Johnson P, Lowry C, Bailey J,
et al. Acute carbon dioxide exposure in healthy adults:
Evaluation of a novel means of investigating the stress response.
J Neuroendocrinol 2004;16:256‑64.
19. Beder A, Büyükkoçak U, Sabuncuoğlu H, Keskil ZA, Keskil S.
Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation
during major surgery. Neurocirugia (Astur) 2008;19:121‑6.
20. Laferty EA, McKay RT. Physiologic effects and measurement of
carbon dioxide and oxygen levels during a qualitative respirator
fit testing. J Chem Health Safe 2006;13:22‑28.
21. Spurling KJ, Moonsie IK, Perks JL. Hypercapnic respiratory
acidosis during an in‑flight oxygen assessment. Aerosp Med Hum
Perform 2016;87:144‑7.
22. Meyer JP, Héry M, Herrault J, Hubert G, François D, Hecht G,
et al. Field study of subjective assessment of negative pressure
half‑masks. Influence of the work conditions on comfort and
efficiency. Appl Ergon 1997;28:331‑8.
23. Jacobson TA, KlerJS, Hernke MT, BraunRK, Meyer KC, FunkWE.
Direct human health risks of increased atmospheric carbon
dioxide. Nat Sustain 2019;2:691‑701.
24. Smith CL, Whitelaw JL, Davies B. Carbon dioxide rebreathing in
respiratory protective devices: Influence of speech and work rate
in full‑face masks. Ergonomics 2013;56:781‑90.
25. Ong JJ, Bharatendu C, Goh Y, Tang JZ, Sooi KW, Tan YL, et al.
Headaches associated with personal protective equipment – A
cross‑sectional study among frontline healthcare workers during
COVID‑19. Headache 2020;60:864‑77.
26. Zhu W. Should, and how can, exercise be done during a
coronavirus outbreak? An interview with Dr. Jeffrey A. Woods.
J Sport Health Sci 2020;9:105‑7.
Journal of Education and Health Promotion
Volume 12, Issue 5
June 2022
Pages 1-6

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us