Correction to: Scientific Reports https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01265-8, published online 09 November 2021
The original version of this Article contained an error.
The number and surface areas of respirators measured by Roberge et al.43 were incorrectly quoted. Roberge et al. measured nine (not 12) respirators.
As a result, in the Results and discussion section, under the subheading ‘Face Velocity’,
“For example, Roberge et al.43 reported the total inner-layer surface area of 12 N95 respirators as ranging from 108 to 205 cm2 (mean ± 2 standard deviations, 146 ± 26 cm2). The mean area would result in a mean face velocity of 7.3 ± 1.9 cm s−1 for the flow rate of the NIOSH method. However, this mean area is an overestimate; a more accurate calculation would subtract the area of the mask in contact with the wearer’s face, which does not contribute to filtration. If this region comprised 10% of the inner-layer area, it would increase the mean face velocity to 8.1 ± 2.0 cm s−1. In this section and in Fig. 5, we conservatively use a range of 5.4 to 10.1 cm s−1, encompassing both of the above estimates, when comparing the face velocities relevant to the NIOSH standard with the ASTM F2299/F2100 standard.”
now reads:
“For example, Roberge et al.43 reported the total inner-layer surface area of nine N95 respirators as ranging from 158 to 255 cm2 (mean ± 2 standard deviations, 197 ± 57 cm2). These values result in a mean calculated face velocity of 7.3 ± 2.0 cm/s for the flow rate of the NIOSH method. However, this mean area is an overestimate, a more accurate calculation would subtract the area of the mask in contact with the wearer's face, which does not contribute to filtration. If this region comprised 10% of the inner-layer area, it would increase the mean face velocity to 8.1 ± 2.2 cm/s. In Fig. 5, we approximate this range of mean and standard deviations as 5.5 to 10 cm/s, when comparing the face velocities relevant to the NIOSH standard with the ASTM F2299/F2100 standard.”
The original Article has been corrected.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Corbin, J.C., Smallwood, G.J., Leroux, I.D. et al. Author Correction: Systematic experimental comparison of particle filtration efficiency test methods for commercial respirators and face masks. Sci Rep 12, 8307 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12766-5
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12766-5
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.
