4 ms·
real 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] th
by contingencies 7y ago
real 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.