ORIGINAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2020.07.0403

Aerosol and Air Quality
Research

Effect of Wearing Face Masks on the Carbon
Dioxide Concentration in the Breathing Zone
Otmar Geiss*

Special Issue:
Special Issue on COVID-19 Aerosol
Drivers, Impacts and Mitigation (X)

European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy

ABSTRACT
The use of face masks is among the measures taken to prevent person-to-person transmission
of the virus (SARS-CoV-2) responsible for the coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Lately, concern was
expressed about the possibility that carbon dioxide could build up in the mask over time, causing
medical issues related to the respiratory system. In this study, the carbon dioxide concentration
in the breathing zone was measured while wearing a surgical mask, a KN95 and a cloth mask. For
the surgical mask, the concentration was determined under different conditions (office work,
slow walking, and fast walking). Measurements were made using a modified indoor air quality
meter equipped with a nondispersive infrared (NDIR) CO2 sensor. Detected carbon dioxide
concentrations ranged from 2150 ± 192 to 2875 ± 323 ppm. The concentrations of carbon dioxide
while not wearing a face mask varied from 500–900 ppm. Doing office work and standing still on
the treadmill each resulted in carbon dioxide concentrations of around 2200 ppm. A small
increase could be observed when walking at a speed of 3 km h–1 (leisurely walking pace). Walking
at a speed of 5 km h–1, which corresponds to medium activity with breathing through the mouth,
resulted in an average carbon dioxide concentration of 2875 ppm. No differences were observed
among the three types of face masks tested. According to the literature, these concentrations
have no toxicological effect. However, concentrations in the detected range can cause
undesirable symptoms, such as fatigue, headache, and loss of concentration.
Keywords: Face masks, Carbon dioxide, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 pandemic, COVID-19

1 INTRODUCTION

OPEN ACCESS

Received: July 15, 2020
Revised: October 1, 2020
Accepted: October 6, 2020
* Corresponding

Author:

[email protected]

Publisher:
Taiwan Association for Aerosol
Research
ISSN: 1680-8584 print
ISSN: 2071-1409 online
Copyright: The Author's
institution. This is an open access
article distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (CC BY 4.0),
which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original
author and source are cited.

Physical distancing, good hand hygiene and the wearing of gloves and face masks are among
the most frequent measures taken to prevent person-to-person transmission of the virus (SARSCoV-2) responsible for the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) since the outbreak of the COVID-19
pandemic in early 2020 (Chu et al., 2020; Howard et al., 2020). Especially, the use of face masks
in public reduces the spread of the virus by minimizing the excretion of respiratory droplets from
asymptomatic infected individuals or individuals who have not yet developed symptoms
(Bourouiba, 2020). The human body utilizes oxygen and generates carbon dioxide, which is then
exhaled in the expiration air. An adult with healthy lungs produces approximately 5.6% by volume
of CO2. When wearing a face mask, a fraction of carbon dioxide previously exhaled is inhaled
again with each respiratory cycle. Some media have been claiming that carbon dioxide may slowly
build up in the mask over time, causing medical issues related to the respiratory system such as
hypercapnia (a condition arising from too much carbon dioxide in the blood).
Only a few studies have been conducted so far in this field. In a study conducted by Sinkule et
al. (2013), the breathing air quality when using N95 filtering facepiece respirators was assessed.
The concentration of carbon dioxide increased to approximately 1.2–3% in a short period of light
work. The participants did not show any obvious changes in physical functions. The average
carbon dioxide concentration inhaled was, however, far higher than the limit of 0.1% of indoor
carbon dioxide concentration in many countries. The study of Li et al. (2005) investigated the
effects of wearing N95 and surgical face masks with and without nano-functional treatments on
thermo-physiological responses and the subjective perception of discomfort in five healthy

Aerosol and Air Quality Research | https://aaqr.org

1 of 7

Volume 21 | Issue 2 | 200403

Special Issue on COVID-19 Aerosol Drivers, Impacts and Mitigation (X)

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2020.07.0403

participants (men and women). They found that surgical face masks were rated significantly
lower for perceptions of humidity, heat, breath resistance and overall discomfort than N95 face
masks. Carbon dioxide was not among the investigated parameters. The aim of the study
conducted by Lim et al. (2006) was to determine the prevalence of headaches from the use of
N95 face masks amongst healthcare workers. Approximately 40% of the participants reported
face-mask-associated headaches. The study conducted by Roberge et al. (2010) assessed the
physiological impact of N95 filtering face-piece respirators on healthcare workers. The
parameters assessed included the concentration of carbon dioxide and oxygen in the mask’s dead
space. The detected carbon dioxide concentrations were around 3% (30000 ppm). Such high
concentrations are typically associated with detrimental physiological effects such as headache,
anxiety and confusion. In the study, the sampling was done via a sampling line attached to a port
in the mask that was equidistant between the nose and the mouth and therefore probably
measured the slightly diluted carbon dioxide concentration in the exhaled air rather than in the
breathing zone. Another study explored the effects of face masks (cloth mask and paper face
masks) on CO2, heart rate, respiration rate and oxygen saturation on instructor pilots (Dattel et
al., 2020). Also in this study relatively high carbon dioxide concentrations (around 45000 ppm)
were detected. The methodological description however does not allow the unequivocal
identification of the exact sampling point, making it impossible to assess whether the measured
concentrations refer to the exhaled air or to the breathing zone.
This study aimed to determine the concentration of carbon dioxide in the breathing zone while
wearing a face mask. Three types of face masks were tested under different conditions (office
work, slow walking and fast walking). The measured concentrations were compared against
existing threshold values for critical levels of carbon dioxide.

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 Tested Face Masks
Three different types of face masks were tested:
a) A medical face mask (also known as a surgical mask) conform with the European Union’s
health and safety standards (CE mark): This type of face mask is typically used by health care
workers, ensuring a barrier that limits the transition of an infective agent between the
hospital staff and the patient. During the COVID-19 pandemic, surgical face masks have been
recommended as a means of source control for persons who are either symptomatic or
asymptomatic to prevent the spread of respiratory droplets produced by coughing or
sneezing. The application of medical masks as source control has been shown to decrease the
release of respiratory droplets carrying respiratory viruses (Leung et al., 2020) and they are
recommended for the reduction of transmission of influenza (Cheng et al., 2010; MacIntyre
and Chughtai, 2015; MacIntyre et al., 2015). Medical masks comply with requirements defined
in European Standard EN 14683:2019 (European Committee for Standardization, 2019).
b) KN95 with a one-way valve: N95 is an American standard managed by NIOSH, which is part
of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). KN95 masks are the equivalent Chinese standard
for masks. Both N95 and KN95 correspond to the FFP2 code used in the European Union
(European Committee for Standardization, 2001) and protect against solid and liquid irritating
aerosols with a minimum filter efficiency of 92%. The mask tested in this work included a oneway exhalation valve that makes it easier to breathe through. This type of mask is not
recommended as an effective barrier against the SARS-CoV-2 virus because the valve releases
unfiltered air when the wearer breathes out and therefore does not prevent the wearer from
spreading the virus. It was included in the study to assess the potential impact of the
exhalation valve on the concentration of accumulated carbon dioxide.
c) Cloth masks: Since surgical and FFP2 masks were sometimes difficult to find at the beginning
of the pandemic and, especially the FFP2 masks should be reserved for health care providers,
cloth masks have become popular during the pandemic as they are cheap, easy to find or to
make and can be washed and reused. Cloth masks can be made from common materials, such
as sheets made of tightly woven cotton, and should include multiple layers of fabric. There are
no standards or regulations for self-made cloth face masks. The mask used in this study was
Aerosol and Air Quality Research | https://aaqr.org

2 of 7

Volume 21 | Issue 2 | 200403

Special Issue on COVID-19 Aerosol Drivers, Impacts and Mitigation (X)

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2020.07.0403

manufactured by a northern Italian company that converted its production from sportswear to
face masks during the pandemic. It was made of three layers: the internal and external layers
were primarily made of polyamide, and the interior filter was made out of polyester.

2.2 Instrumentation
Carbon dioxide concentrations were measured with a TSI 7545 IAQ Meter (TSI Incorporated,
Shoreview MN, USA) equipped with a low-drift dual-wavelength NDIR CO2 sensor. This instrument
has a declared measurement concentration range of 0–5000 ppm and an accuracy of ± 3.0% of
reading or ± 50 ppm (whichever is greater). Its resolution is 1 ppm. The instrument was calibrated
against a secondary carbon dioxide standard (470 ppm). All measurements were performed on
the same day the instrument was calibrated.

2.3 Experimental Setup
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the breathing zone was determined by aspirating air
through a silicon tube from the breathing zone behind the face mask. The sampling point was
just above the nose tip on the bridge of the nose. In this way, the point of sampling was not
located directly in the exhaled air stream while at the same time being completely covered by
the face masks. Shifting of the silicon tube was prevented by fixing the tube to the bridge of the
nose with some tape. It was then inserted through a perforated face shield holder. From there,
the tube was directed over the head, where it was further fixed with a cap (Fig. 1).
The aspirated air was then conducted to the CO2 sensor. The sensor-containing probe is usually
directly exposed to the surrounding air in which the carbon dioxide concentration is measured.
In this study, a collar that provides a closed area around the gas probe and that is normally used
for calibration purposes was hermetically sealed with some tape to the lower part. A sampling
point made of Teflon was integrated into the sealing tape. In this way, the air flow passed
undiluted over the CO2-sensor. A pump was connected to the end of the sampling train (Fig. 1(c)).

Fig. 1. Experimental setup. (A) Sampling point close to the nose tip; (B) Position of the sampling
point while the face mask was worn; (C) Activity pattern ‘Office work’; (D) Activity pattern slow
and medium speed walking on a treadmill.
Aerosol and Air Quality Research | https://aaqr.org

3 of 7

Volume 21 | Issue 2 | 200403

Special Issue on COVID-19 Aerosol Drivers, Impacts and Mitigation (X)

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2020.07.0403

The concentration of carbon dioxide was measured for two activity patterns: in the first
scenario the male, 50 year old volunteer was working on a computer, breathing through the nose
and remaining seated for the duration of the measurements. Under these conditions, all three
types of face masks were tested. In the second scenario, the volunteer was walking on a treadmill
at 0, 3 and 5 km h–1. While at 0 and 3 km h–1, the volunteer was breathing through his nose, at
5 km h–1 he was breathing through his mouth. Each new condition was preceded by the
registration of a baseline (the same condition but without the masks being worn). The sampling
duration for each activity pattern was 5 minutes. The data collection frequency (sampling rate)
was set at 1 s–1.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Fig. 2 shows the concentrations of carbon dioxide measured for all three types of face masks
while working on the computer, remaining seated all the time and breathing through the nose.
The concentrations were 2107 ± 168 ppm, 2293 ± 169 ppm and 2051 ± 238 ppm for the surgical,
the KN95 and the cloth mask, respectively. No relevant difference in the detected carbon dioxide
concentration could be observed among the three mask models. Even with the one-way
exhalation valve on the KN95 face mask, under these conditions, the type of mask had no
significant impact on the carbon dioxide concentration in the breathing zone. The baseline
concentration, corresponding to those periods of time when no mask was worn, was 501 ± 42
ppm. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the breathing zone while wearing the face mask did
therefore increase in average by approximately 1650 ppm.
Since no difference was observed among the types of face masks worn, in the second scenario
(walking on a treadmill at different speeds), the measurements were made while wearing only
the surgical mask. Fig. 3 depicts how the baseline concentration of CO2 in this setting, compared
to the office-activity setting, is slightly higher and how it slowly increases over time (737 ± 27 ppm

Fig. 2. Concentrations of carbon dioxide measured for all three types of face masks while working on the computer, remaining
seated all of the time and breathing through the nose
Aerosol and Air Quality Research | https://aaqr.org

4 of 7

Volume 21 | Issue 2 | 200403

Special Issue on COVID-19 Aerosol Drivers, Impacts and Mitigation (X)

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2020.07.0403

Fig. 3. Concentrations of carbon dioxide measured while walking on a treadmill at 3 and 5 km h–1.
before ‘standing still’ measurements, 744 ± 24 ppm before ‘walking at 3 km h–1 measurement
and 890 ± 51 ppm before ‘walking at 5 km h–1 measurement). This can be explained by the
relatively small room in which the treadmill was located, which led to an enrichment of carbon
dioxide from exhalation in the room. The average concentration of 2226 ± 165 ppm while standing
still was, as expected, in the same range as the concentrations measured while doing office work.
A small increase in concentration (2536 ± 245 ppm) could be observed while walking at a speed
of 3 km h–1. This speed corresponds to a leisurely walking pace (low activity). A further increase
in the detected carbon dioxide concentration was observed while walking at 5 km h –1 (2875 ±
323 ppm), which corresponds to a higher walking pace (medium activity) with breathing through
the mouth and an augmented breathing rate.
Inhaled carbon dioxide at lower concentrations (< 10000 ppm) has little or no toxicological
effects. At higher concentrations (> 50000 ppm), it causes the development of hypercapnia and
respiratory acidosis (Permentier et al., 2017). A concentration of 5000 ppm is the workplace
exposure limit (as 8-hour TWA) in most jurisdictions. Exposures to increased inhaled CO 2
concentrations between 2–3% (20000–30000 ppm) are known to produce sweating, headache
and dyspnoea (Schneider and Truesdell, 1922). Inhaled concentrations between 4 and 5%
(40000–50000 ppm) are associated with dyspnoea, increased blood pressure, dizziness, and
headache (Schneider and Truesdale 1922; Schulte 1964). If inhaled CO2 concentrations are at 5%
(50000 ppm), mental depression may occur within several hours (Schulte, 1964).
The concentrations measured in this study are all far below these threshold values and range
between 2150 ppm (office work) and 2875 ppm (walking at 5 km h–1). Concentrations of CO2 in
this range and their association with health symptoms are frequently discussed in the context of
the “sick building syndrome” (Apte et al., 2000; Seppaenen et al., 1999; Wargocki et al., 2000).
In a building, the carbon dioxide emissions are approximately proportional to the rise in odorous
substances given off by human beings by perspiration. In rooms in which no combustion
processes are taking place, the carbon dioxide concentration can therefore be regarded as an
indicator of the indoor air quality. Carbon dioxide-related health-symptoms have been observed
Aerosol and Air Quality Research | https://aaqr.org

5 of 7

Volume 21 | Issue 2 | 200403

Special Issue on COVID-19 Aerosol Drivers, Impacts and Mitigation (X)

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2020.07.0403

at concentrations above 1000 ppm and include drowsiness and loss of attention (Guais et al.,
2011). A portion of the human population has been described as being sensitive to fluctuating
CO2 concentrations. As a vasodilator, the effect on people prone to headache has also been
discussed. For example, Lim et al. (2006) administered a survey to healthcare workers to
determine risk factors associated with the development of headaches. Approximately 40% of the
respondents reported wearing face masks was associated with headaches. This study did not,
however, report the inhaled CO2 concentrations. Satish et al. (2012) suggested in their study that
even moderately elevated CO2 concentrations (approximately 2500 ppm) have the potential to
affect decision-making.

4 CONCLUSIONS
The concentrations of carbon dioxide measured in the breathing zone while wearing a face
mask ranged between 2150 and 2875 ppm depending on the type of activity. The concentrations
of carbon dioxide without wearing a face mask varied from 500–900 ppm, corresponding to
normal carbon dioxide concentrations in indoor environments. Doing office work and standing
still on the treadmill each resulted in carbon dioxide concentrations of around 2200 ppm. A small
increase of approximately 300 ppm could be observed when walking at a speed of 3 km h –1
(leisurely walking pace). Walking at a speed of 5 km h –1, which corresponds to medium activity
with breathing through the mouth, resulted in an average carbon dioxide concentration of 2875
ppm. No differences were observed among the three types of tested face masks. According to
the literature, these concentrations have no toxicological effect when inhaled. However,
concentrations between 1,000 ppm and 10,000 ppm can cause undesirable symptoms such as
fatigue, headache and loss of concentration. This may be relevant for those segments of the
population required to wear face masks over prolonged periods of time such as students, bus
drivers or cashiers as well as persons with respiratory diseases. Wearing face masks only when
strictly necessary may reduce these undesired side effects.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Ivana Bianchi and Josefa Barrero-Moreno for comments that greatly improved the
manuscript.

REFERENCES
Apte, M., Fisk, W., Disey, J. (2000). Associations between indoor CO2 concentrations and sick
building syndrome symptoms in U.S. office buildings: An analysis of the 1994–1996 BASE study
data. Indoor Air 10, 246–257. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0668.2000.010004246.x
Bourouiba, L. (2020). Turbulent gas clouds and respiratory pathogen emissions: Potential
implications for reducing transmission of COVID-19. JAMA 323, 1837–1838. https://doi.org/10.
1001/jama.2020.4756
Cheng, V.C.C., Tai, J.W.M., Wong, L.M.W., Chan, J.F.W., Li, I.W.S., To, K.K.W., Hung, I.F.N., Chan,
K.H., Ho, P.L., Yuen, K.Y. (2010). Prevention of nosocomial transmission of swine-origin
pandemic influenza virus A/H1N1 by infection control bundle. J. Hosp. Infect. 74, 271–277.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2009.09.009
Chu, D.K., Akl, E.A., Duda, S., Solo, K., Yaacoub, S., Schünemann, H.J. on behalf of the COVID-19
Systematic Urgent Review Group Effort (SURGE) study authors (2020). Physical distancing, face
masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and
COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 395, 1973–1987. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9
Dattel, A.R., O’Toole, N., Lopez, G., Byrnes, K.P. (2020). Face mask effects of CO2, haert rate,
respiration rate, and oxygen saturation on instructor pilots. Coll. Aviat. Rev. Int. 38, 1–11.
https://ojs.library.okstate.edu/osu/index.php/CARI/article/view/8038
European Committee for Standardization (2001). Respiratory protective devices - Filtering half

Aerosol and Air Quality Research | https://aaqr.org

6 of 7

Volume 21 | Issue 2 | 200403

Special Issue on COVID-19 Aerosol Drivers, Impacts and Mitigation (X)

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2020.07.0403

masks to protect against particles - Requirements, testing, marking (EN 149:2001).
European Committee for Standardization (2019). Medical face masks - Requirements and test
methods (EN 14683:2019).
Guais, A., Brand, G., Jacquot, L., Karrer, M., Dukan, S., Grevillot, G., Molina, T.J., Bonte, J., Regnier,
M., Schwartz, L. (2011). Toxicity of carbon dioxide: A review. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 24, 2061–
2070. https://doi.org/10.1021/tx200220r
Howard, J., Huang, A., Li, Z., Tufekci, Z., Zdimal, V., Westhuizen, H.M. van der, Delft, A. von, Price,
A., Fridman, L., Tang, L.H., Tang, V., Watson, G.L., Bax, C.E., Shaikh, R., Questier, F., Hernandez,
D., Chu, L.F., Ramirez, C.M., Rimoin, A.W. (2020). Face mask against COVID-19: An evidence
review. Preprints https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v3
Leung, N.H.L., Chu, D.K.W., Shiu, E.Y.C., Chan, K.H., McDevitt, J.J., Hau, B.J.P., Yen, H.L., Li, Y., Ip,
D.K.M., Peiris, J.S.M., Seto, W.H., Leung, G.M., Milton, D.K., Cowling, B.J. (2020). Respiratory
virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks. Nat. Med. 26, 676–680.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0843-2
Li, Y., Tokura, H., Guo, Y.P., Wong, A.S.W., Wong, T., Chung, J., Newton, E. (2005). Effects of
wearing N95 and surgical facemasks on heart rate, thermal stress and subjective sensations.
Int. Arch. Occp. Environ. Health 78, 501–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-004-0584-4
Lim, E.C.H., Seet, R.C.S., Lee, K.H., Wilder-Smith, E.P.V., Chuah, B.Y.S., Ong, B.K.C. (2006).
Headaches and the N95 face-mask amongst healthcare providers. Acta Nuerol. Scand. 113,
199–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0404.2005.00560.x
MacIntyre, C.R., Chughtai, A.A. (2015). Facemasks for the prevention of infection in healthcare
and community settings. BMJ 350, h694. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h694
MacIntyre, C.R., Seale, H., Dung, T.C., Hien, N.T., Nga, P.T., Chughtai, A.A., Rahman, B., Dwyer,
D.E., Wang, Q. (2015). A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks
in healthcare workers. BMJ Open 5, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006577
Permentier, K., Vercammen, S., Soetaert, S., Schellemans, C. (2017). Carbon dioxide poisoning: A
literature review of an often forgotten cause of intoxication in the emergency department. Int.
J. Emerg. Med. 10, 17–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12245-017-0142-y
Roberge, R.J., Coca, A., Williamns, J., Powell, J.B., Palmiero, J. (2010). Physiological impact of the
N95 filtering facepiece respirator on healthcare workers. Respir. Care 55, 569–577.
Satish, U., Mendell, M.J., Shekhar, K., Hotchi, T., Sullivan, D. (2012). Is CO2 an indoor pollutant?
direct effects of low-to-moderate CO2 concentrations on human decision-making performance.
Environ. Health Perspect. 120, 1671–1678. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104789
Schneider, E.C., Truesdell, D. (1922). The effect on the circulation and respiration of an increase
in the carbon dioxide content of the blood in man. Am. J. Physiol. 63, 155–175. https://doi.org/
10.1152/ajplegacy.1922.63.1.155
Schulte, J. (1964). Sealed Environments in Relation to Health and Disease. Arch. Environ. Health
8, 438–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/00039896.1964.10663693
Seppaenen, O.A., Fisk, W.J., Mendell, M.J. (1999). Association of ventilation rates and CO2
concentrations with health and other responses in commercial and institutional buildings.
Indoor Air 9, 226–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0668.1999.00003.x
Sinkule, E.J., Powell, J.B., Goss, F.L. (2013). Evaluation of N95 respirator use with a surgical mask
cover: Effects on breathing resistance and inhaled carbon dioxide. Ann. Ocuup. Hyg. 57, 384–
398. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mes068
Wargocki, P., Wyon, D.P., Sundell, J., Clausen, G., Fanger, P.O. (2000). The effects of outdoor air
supply rate in an office on perceived air quality, sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms and
productivity. Indoor Air 10, 222–236. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0668.2000.010004222.x

Aerosol and Air Quality Research | https://aaqr.org

7 of 7

Volume 21 | Issue 2 | 200403