PROJECT 04 / Human Factors
KN95 Comfort & Perceived Fit Study.
Evaluating comfort and perceived fit during realistic mask-use tasks to identify where discomfort occurs, what makes it worse, and how future mask designs could better accommodate different users.
Question → Study Design → Test with Users → Collect Data → Analyze → Identify Issues → Recommend
- YEAR
- 2026
- CONTEXT
- ENP 114 · Ergonomics in Design
- STUDY
- 6 participants · individual study
- METHODS
- Task-Based Evaluation · Subjective Ratings · Regional Discomfort Mapping · Qualitative Interviews
- MY ROLE
- Study Design · Participant Testing · Data Collection · Analysis · Design Recommendations
MY CONTRIBUTION
RESEARCH DESIGN
- Structured testing procedure
- Participant background questions
- Task sequence
- Rating framework
USER TESTING
- Moderated participant sessions
- Behavioral observation
- Post-task questioning
ANALYSIS
- Participant-level data
- Descriptive statistics
- Regional discomfort comparison
- Qualitative synthesis
DESIGN TRANSLATION
- Identified product opportunities
- Proposed follow-up design directions
- Defined next-step testing approach
Where Does Discomfort Actually Come From?
Protective equipment can perform its intended function while still creating discomfort that affects the experience of wearing it.
For this study, I wanted to understand where users experienced discomfort while wearing a KN95-style mask, how that discomfort changed during everyday movement and speaking, and which aspects of the design might be worth improving.
RESEARCH QUESTIONHow does a KN95 feel during realistic short-duration use, and which contact areas create the strongest opportunities for comfort-focused design improvement?
This was a comfort and perceived-fit study, not a respirator seal or filtration test.
Designing a Short, Consistent Evaluation
- 01
SILENT READING
1 minute
- 02
READING ALOUD
1 minute
- 03
HEAD MOVEMENT
Slowly look left, right, up, and down. Repeat the sequence three times total.
- 04
WALKING
Walk indoors at a normal pace for 1 minute.
- 05
POST-TASK EVALUATION
Overall discomfort · Perceived fit · Five regional discomfort ratings · Open-ended feedback
The procedure was designed to expose the mask to more than static sitting.
Reading aloud introduced facial and jaw movement, head rotations challenged how the mask sat during movement, and walking added a simple everyday activity before participants completed the post-task evaluation.
Combining Overall Ratings with Localized Feedback
1 = totally comfortable · 10 = unbearable
Higher scores indicate greater discomfort.
1 = not fitting at all · 10 = fits perfectly
Subjective perception only.
0 = none · 1 = mild · 2 = moderate · 3 = severe
Nose bridge, upper cheeks, jawline, under chin, around ears.
OPEN-ENDED FEEDBACK
Participants were also asked where they noticed the most discomfort, whether the experience changed during a specific task, and what they would change about the mask.
INSIGHTAn overall rating tells you that a problem exists. Regional ratings and open-ended feedback help explain where it is and what may be causing it.
Study Sample
| ID | Age | Sex | Glasses | Facial Hair | Prior KN95/N95 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | 25 | M | Yes | No | Yes |
| P2 | 46 | M | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| P3 | 42 | F | Yes | No | Yes |
| P4 | 48 | M | No | Yes | Yes |
| P5 | 27 | F | Yes | No | Yes |
| P6 | 22 | F | No | No | Yes |
All six participants had previously worn a KN95/N95-style mask.
No inferential comparisons between participant characteristics were made — the sample was too small and not balanced for that purpose.
Uncomfortable, but Only Moderately Well-Fitting
7.17 / 10MEAN OVERALL DISCOMFORTHigher = worse
5.00 / 10MEAN PERCEIVED FITHigher = better
The mean overall discomfort score was 7.17/10, with participant scores ranging from 3 to 9.
Mean perceived fit was 5.00/10, with scores ranging from 3 to 7.
In this small sample, participants therefore tended to describe the mask as relatively uncomfortable while rating its perceived fit around the middle of the scale. Perceived fit was moderate; objective fit performance was not measured.
The Ears Stood Out
- NOSE BRIDGE
- 1.00 / 3
- UPPER CHEEKS
- 1.33 / 3
- JAWLINE
- 1.17 / 3
- UNDER CHIN
- 1.67 / 3
- AROUND EARS
- 2.67 / 3
The strongest regional pattern was behind and around the ears.
Ear-area discomfort averaged 2.67/3, substantially higher than the other regions measured. The area under the chin was the second-highest region at 1.67/3.
5 of 6participants rated discomfort around the ears as moderate or severe.
4 of 6participants rated discomfort under the chin as moderate or severe.
Comparing the Five Contact Regions
The regional ratings made the design problem more specific.
Rather than treating the entire mask as equally uncomfortable, the data pointed toward the retention system and lower mask edge as stronger areas for further investigation.
An interpretation for design exploration, not a causal finding.
The Numbers Explained Where. The Comments Helped Explain Why.
01 — EAR-LOOP TENSION
Participants repeatedly described:
- Soreness or pressure behind the ears
- Discomfort increasing over time
- Desire for longer or less-elastic loops
- Interest in adjustable straps
- Interest in behind-the-head retention
02 — TALKING + FACIAL MOVEMENT
Multiple participants described greater discomfort, shifting, or awareness of the mask while:
- Speaking
- Smiling
- Moving the jaw
- Moving the face
Static comfort alone did not capture the complete experience.
03 — PEOPLE EXPERIENCE THE SAME PRODUCT DIFFERENTLY
Individual comments included:
- Air redirected toward glasses
- Interference from facial hair
- Sensitive or itchy skin
- Pressure around the chin or throat
- Differences in facial and neck anatomy
The same mask produced different discomfort patterns across users, reinforcing the importance of considering anthropometric variation and individual characteristics during product evaluation.
These comments are individual design signals, not population-level findings. Characteristics are not claimed to have caused any particular rating.
Translating Findings into Product Opportunities
- FINDING
Ear discomfort was the strongest repeated issue.
- DESIGN OPPORTUNITY
Explore alternatives to fixed high-tension ear loops.
- CONCEPT DIRECTIONS
- Adjustable ear loops
- Longer / lower-tension loops
- Behind-the-head retention
- FINDING
Talking and facial movement made discomfort more noticeable.
- DESIGN OPPORTUNITY
Evaluate the mask dynamically, not only while the user is sitting still.
- CONCEPT DIRECTIONS
- Edge geometries that accommodate jaw movement
- More flexible contact areas
- Repeated speaking / movement during validation
- FINDING
Cheek, chin, skin, eyewear, and facial-hair complaints varied by participant.
- DESIGN OPPORTUNITY
Improve accommodation for user variability.
- CONCEPT DIRECTIONS
- Softer edge-contact materials
- Multiple sizes
- Adjustable retention
- Testing across varied face/neck characteristics
DATA → DESIGN HYPOTHESIS → PROTOTYPE → COMPARE → ITERATE
- HUMAN EXPERIENCE
“My ears hurt.”
- MEASUREMENT
Ear-area discomfort: 2.67 / 3 · 5 of 6 moderate/severe
- DESIGN HYPOTHESIS
The retention system may be a major comfort opportunity.
- NEXT PROTOTYPE
Adjustable / behind-head strap concepts.
- FOLLOW-UP TEST
Compare configurations under the same dynamic tasks.
From Descriptive Study to R&D Experiment
The next step would not be to immediately declare one redesign successful.
I would build multiple mask configurations and compare them under the same task-based protocol.
Existing ear-loop design
Adjustable / longer ear loops
Behind-the-head retention
Optional additional variable: softer edge-contact material.
MEASURE
- Overall discomfort
- Perceived fit
- Regional discomfort
- Mask movement during speaking
- User preference
- Qualitative comments
LARGER, MORE VARIED SAMPLE
- Eyewear use
- Facial hair
- Face/neck geometry
- Skin sensitivity
NEXT EXPERIMENTThis would turn the descriptive findings from the first study into testable design hypotheses.
What the Study Can and Cannot Tell Us
- SAMPLE SIZE
- Six participants is useful for identifying potential design issues, not estimating population-level effects.
- ONE MASK CONFIGURATION
- The study cannot determine whether another mask design would perform better without a direct comparison.
- SUBJECTIVE MEASURES
- Comfort and perceived fit were self-reported.
- NO OBJECTIVE RESPIRATOR FIT TEST
- The study did not measure seal, leakage, filtration, or protection.
- PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS
- The sample was not balanced or experimentally controlled for glasses, facial hair, sex, anatomy, or other characteristics.
THEREFOREThe results support design hypotheses and follow-up testing rather than causal or population-level conclusions.
What I Learned
This study reinforced how important it is to combine quantitative ratings with qualitative feedback.
An overall discomfort score showed that many participants were uncomfortable, but it did not explain what needed to change.
Regional ratings made the problem more specific, while participant comments helped connect those patterns to potential design features such as ear-loop tension, edge contact, movement, and user variability.
I also learned that collecting subjective feedback requires structure. People describe physical sensations differently, so clear scale anchors, consistent prompts, and a well-organized recording process are important for turning individual experiences into useful design information.
IF I REPEATED ITI would record the post-task interviews so I could focus more fully on follow-up questions while preserving useful participant language.