4 ms·
Yes, but note they added a surfactant as well (tween 20 / polysorbate 20), and I didn't spot a control of surfactant-only. They also didn't seem to report the e
by dgacmu 7y ago
Yes, but note they added a surfactant as well (tween 20 / polysorbate 20), and I didn't spot a control of surfactant-only. They also didn't seem to report the effects of the salting on airflow through the mask, but I'm tired and read the article quickly. Seems nifty,
but I'd also expect real world efficacy to be lower than reported here due to improper mask sealing under normal use.
- contingencies 7y agoreal world efficacy to be lower than reported here due to improper mask sealing under normal use. That problem affects all mask use. I read a 2010 paper[0] this week which IIRC showed that normal mask types (pre-formed, soft-multilayered surgical, etc.) all had about 30% of the efficiency of N95 masks. For the N95 masks, they failed to get 95%, more like 90%, due to poor fit. A silicone pressure fit type is really important. No unixbeards allowed! >:( [0] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/153567601001500204 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/153567601001500...
- sgc 7y agoBut since salt impregnation almost certainly reduces air flow, there would likely be a higher real world failure rate for salt impregnated masks. I would not be at all surprised if this was a worse negative than the salt improvement in real world conditions.
- contingencies 7y agoGood point.
- Brave-Steak 7y ago90% seems good with poor fit. That's a far cry from people saying its pointless to use N95 masks outside of a hospital setting.
- contingencies 7y agoI think the team of academics thought they had a good fit, but after gathering the data realised they didn't. It was unintentional and an unexpected result.