Mona Bär

Marek and colleagues have written a commentary on our paper (Seibt et al 2023) in which they point out some methodological inconsistencies and flaws. In our response, we first address the objective of our study so that the specific responses to Marek’s criticism are placed in the proper context. In Seibt et al (2023) we investigated whether additional respiratory measurement masks used to evaluate protective face masks influence the outcomes. The physiological effect of protective masks was not the target in our study, neither at rest nor during exercise. Subsequently, we address the criticisms of Marek et al point by point. With our study and this detailed response to Marek et al (2023)), we hope to support researchers in choosing the adequate methodological approach for evaluating the effects of protective face masks on human physiology.

Background: Undesirable side effects from wearing face masks during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic continue to be discussed and pose a challenge to occupational health and safety when recommending safe application. Only few studies examined the effects of continuously wearing a face mask for more than one hour. Therefore, the influence of wearing a medical mask (MedMask) and a filtering facepiece class II respirator (FFP2) on the physiological and subjective outcomes in the course of 130 min of manual work was exploratively investigated. Physical work load and cardiorespiratory fitness levels were additionally considered as moderating factors. Methods: Twenty-four healthy subjects (12 females) from three different cardiorespiratory fitness levels each performed 130 min of simulated manual work with light and medium physical workload using either no mask, a MedMask or FFP2. Heart rate, transcutaneous oxygen and carbon dioxide partial pressure (P_tcO₂, P_tcCO₂) as well as perceived physical exertion and respiratory effort were assessed continuously at discrete time intervals. Wearing comfort of the masks were additionally rated after the working period. Results: There was no difference in time-dependent changes of physiological outcomes when using either a MedMask or a FFP2 compared to not wearing a mask. A stronger increase over time in perceived respiratory effort occurred when the face masks were worn, being more prominent for FFP2. Physical workload level and cardiorespiratory fitness level were no moderating factors and higher wearing comfort was rated for the MedMask. Conclusion: Our results suggest that using face masks during light and medium physical manual work does not induce detrimental side effects. Prolonged wearing episodes appeared to increase respiratory effort, but without affecting human physiology in a clinically relevant way.

Objective. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting widespread use of protective face masks, studies have been and are being conducted to investigate potential side effects of wearing masks on the performance and physiological parameters of wearers. The purpose of the present study is to determine whether and to what extent the use of a respiratory measurement (RM) mask—which is normally used during open-circuit spirometry—influences the results of these types of studies. Approach. 34 subjects were involved in this intra-subject study with a cross-over design. Four different protective face masks, Community Mask, medical Mouth-Nose-Protection Mask, Filtering Face Piece Mask Class 2 (FFP2), and FFP2 with exhalation valve (FFP2ex), were tested at rest and during deep breathing by using or not using a RM mask (RM versus noRM). Breathing pressure inside the protective face masks was measured during inhalation and exhalation, and subjects rated breathing effort using an 11-stage Borg scale. Main results. The use of an additional RM mask—worn over the protective face masks—significantly increased inspiratory pressures under all mask conditions. The respiratory pressure rises to a level that substantially distorts the results. Expiratory pressure was also significantly increased except for the FFP2ex mask condition. The perceived respiratory effort was significantly increased by 1.0 to 2.8 steps on the Borgs scale for all mask conditions compared with noRM. Significance. We strongly recommend avoiding the use of RM masks for evaluating the effects of protective face masks on human physiology and subjective perception.

Due to the load shifting mechanism of many back-support exoskeletons (BSEs), this study evaluated possible side effects of using a BSE on knee joint loading. Twenty-nine subjects (25.9 (±4.4) years, 179.0 (±6.5) cm; 73.6 (±9.4) kg) performed simulated static sorting and dynamic lifting tasks, including stoop and squat styles and different trunk rotation postures. Ground reaction force, body posture and the force between the chest and the BSE’s contact interface were recorded using a force plate, two-dimensional gravimetric position sensors, and a built-in force sensor of the BSE, respectively. Using these parameters and the subject’s anthropometry, median and 90th percentile horizontal (HOR₅₀, HOR₉₀) and vertical (VERT₅₀, VERT₉₀) tibiofemoral forces were calculated via a self-developed inverse quasi-static biomechanical model. BSE use had a variable effect on HOR₅₀ dependent on the working task and body posture. Generally, VERT₅₀ increased without significant interaction effects with posture or task. HOR₉₀ and VERT₉₀ were not affected by using the BSE. In conclusion, utilizing the investigated exoskeleton is likely to induce side effects in terms of changed knee joint loading. This may depend on the applied working task and the user’s body posture. The role of these changes in the context of a negative contribution to work-related cumulative knee exposures should be addressed by future research.

Objective: To evaluate using a back exoskeleton in a simulated sorting task in a static forward bent trunk posture on muscle activity, posture, and heart rate (HR). Background: Potentials of exoskeletons for reducing musculoskeletal demands in work tasks need to be clarified. Methods: Thirty-six healthy males performed the sorting task in 40°-forward bent static trunk posture for 90 seconds, in three trunk orientations, with and without exoskeleton. Muscle activity of the erector spinae (ES), biceps femoris (BF), trapezius descendens (TD), rectus abdominis (RA), vastus laterals (VL), and gastrocnemius medialis was recorded using surface electromyography normalized to a submaximal or maximal reference electrical activity (%RVE (reference voluntary electrical activity)/%MVE). Spine and lower limb postures were assessed by gravimetric position sensors, and HR by electrocardiography. Results: Using the exoskeleton resulted in decreased BF muscle activity [−8.12%RVE], and minor changes in ES [−1.29%MVE], RA [−0.28%RVE], VL [−0.49%RVE], and TD [+1.13%RVE] muscle activity. Hip and knee flexion increased [+8.1°; +6.7°]. Heart rate decreased by 2.1 bpm. Trunk orientation had an influence on BF muscle activity. Conclusion: Using the back exoskeleton in a short sorting task with static trunk posture mainly reduced hip extensor muscle activity and changed lower limb but not spine posture. Implications of using a back exoskeleton for workers’ musculoskeletal health need further clarification. Application: The detected changes by using the Laevo® illustrate the need for further investigation prior to practical recommendations of using exoskeletons in the field. Investigating various work scenarios in different kind of workers and long-term applications would be important elements.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic requires wearing face masks in many areas of our daily life; hence, the potential side effects of mask use are discussed. Therefore, the present study explores whether wearing a medical face mask (MedMask) affects physical working capacity (PWC). Secondary, the influence of a filtering facepiece mask with exhalation valve class 2 (FFP2exhal) and a cotton fabric mask (community mask) on PWC was also investigated. Furthermore, corresponding physiological and subjective responses when wearing face masks as well as a potential moderating role of subjects’ individual cardiorespiratory fitness and sex on face mask effects were analyzed. Thirty-nine subjects (20 males, 19 females) with different cardiorespiratory fitness levels participated in a standardized submaximal bicycle ergometer protocol using either a MedMask, FFP2exhal, community mask, or no mask (control) on four days, in randomized order. PWC130 and PWC150 as the mechanical load at the heart rates of 130 and 150 beats per minute were measured as well as transcutaneous carbon dioxide partial pressure, saturation of peripheral capillary oxygen, breathing frequency, blood pressure, perceived respiratory effort, and physical exhaustion. Using the MedMask did not lead to changes in PWC or physiological response compared to control. Neither appeared changes exceeding normal ranges when the FFP2exhal or community mask was worn. Perceived respiratory effort was up to one point higher (zero-to-ten Likert scale) when using face masks (p < 0.05) compared to control. Sex and cardiorespiratory fitness were not factors influencing the effects of the masks. The results of the present study provide reason to believe that wearing face masks for infection prevention during the COVID-19 pandemic does not pose relevant additional physical demands on the user although some more respiratory effort is required.