TABLE 4.

Source Control Studies of SMs and CFCs

	SMs
Reference	Study Type	Results
Patel et al.38	Mannequin aerosol study	SM capture of radiolabeled particles ~5%-20% during tidal breathing and ~35%-40% during coughing
Davies et al.2	Human study (21 subjects)	SM 89.5% capture of virus (23 nm) during coughing (P < 0.001)
Milton et al.39	Human study (37 subjects)	SM 3.4-fold reduction in influenza RNA copies during tidal breathing and coughing (P < .001)
Hui et al.40	Patient simulator (seated)	Sagittal and lateral expelled air dispersions during coughing with an SMwere 30 cm and 28 cm compared with 68 cm and 0 cm without a SM
Leung et al.41	Randomized human study	Significantly reduced detection of (246 adults and children) influenza RNA in respiratory droplets and coronavirus in respiratory aerosols with SM
Bae et al.42	Human study (4 patients	During coughing, median viral loads with COVID-19 disease) were 2.56 and 2.42 log copies/mL, respectively, without and with a SM
	CFCs
Davies et al.2	Human study (21 subjects)	CFC 48%-72.4% capture of virus (23 nm) during coughing
Bae et al.42	Human study (4 patients	During coughing, median viral loads with COVID-19 disease) were 2.56 and 1.85 log copies/mL, with and without a CFC