4 ms·

I read through your "methodology", and it seems to be too simple to explain your pass/fail results. For example, you fail this mask: https://www.armbrustusa.co

I read through your "methodology", and it seems to be too simple to explain your pass/fail results. For example, you fail this mask: https://www.armbrustusa.com/blogs/mask-review/kn95-arun-flat-fold-adult-regular-white-518 https://www.armbrustusa.com/blogs/mask-review/kn95-arun-flat... even though it seems to meet the filtration and breathability standards, but is still listed as having failed. I guess maybe you explain the failure in the video, and maybe there's a good reason that it failed, but you're asking me to waste a bunch of time watching videos to understand information that could have been provided in print. It doesn't make me trust you.

waynesonfire 5y ago
Read their methodology, > A good example of this is in the text written on the front of N95 and KN95 masks. The standards for each of these masks demand that very specific information be printed on the device. If a KN95 mask does not have the manufacturer name and the standard number they are meeting (GB 2828-2019 or GB2828-2006), then they cannot be considered KN95 masks Such masks are marked failed. My guess is thats what happened here.
- vertis 5y ago
  I disagree with this methodology. At the very least it should be called out as the reason for the 'fail'. Yes, it's less than ideal to not follow the standard. But I would far rather an N95/KN95 mask that didn't have it correctly printed but otherwise passes the criteria than none at all. If it's a filtration test and it filters correctly give it a pass with an asterisk.
  - lloydarmbrust 5y ago
    Yes the reasons for failing are in our testing notes being transcribed now. Over 250 hours of actual testing just to get to this part and with Omicron we wanted to get the raw data up ASAP. Notes should be live in about 275 of them hopefully today.
    - vertis 5y ago
      It's a nitpick. I'm glad someone is doing this.
- pimlottc 5y ago
  That doesn't seem to be the case here, the product images clearly show the required labeling and it's even pointed out specifically in the video review [0] at 3m30s. Would be good to see what the update notes say for this one. It might be because the product listing still claims it's approved from emergency use; the FDA rescinded the EUA for all non-N95 masks back in July [1]. 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeYlKgOI8-w&t=210s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeYlKgOI8-w&t=210s 1: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/revoked-euas-non-niosh-approved-disposable-filtering-facepiece-respirators https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/emergency-use-authorizat...
usrusr 5y ago
And it gets worse when you look at the page on mobile, miss the entire filter percentage column and that the list is ordered by that: then all random samples reached without excessive scrolling are mystery failures despite good filter result. Really strong example of how a seemingly harmless presentation failure can taint the perception of content.
- lloydarmbrust 5y ago
  We have updated the mobile view please LMK what you think.
  - usrusr 5y ago
    Much better and nice to see that the change didn't compromise the desktop version. Still kind of unimpressed by the high weighting of labeling formalities for pass/fail (I live in the realm of EN149 anyways) and I'd certainly prefer a few notes over video. Feature request for the next pandemic: I'm sure people wearing glasses would love being able to filter for masks with that spongy cell foam flow blocker strip on the underside of the nose stripe? But I really love the inclusion of breathability: I'm convinced that in the day to day realities of living through a pandemic, a mask with better breathability won't just be more comfortable than one less breathable, but also provide more protection, because it's worn better and more. And a list like that would have been very helpful earlier in the pandemic not only for buying guidance, but also for instructing people that if they really can't stand wearing a mask, maybe that's in large part because they simply haven't encountered a good one yet. Seeing a range from <50 to >200 and how little it correlates with filtering (it does, but much less than one would expect) is worth more than words. I didn't realize the breathability factor myself until I found myself in a hospital abroad (injury, not infection) where they supplied me with proper FFP2 for going to x-ray and the like. So much better than the emergency use 3-ply crap I used before and almost decadent indulgence compared to the emergency textile contraptions that preceded them.

waynesonfire 5y ago

Read their methodology, > A good example of this is in the text written on the front of N95 and KN95 masks. The standards for each of these masks demand that very specific information be printed on the device. If a KN95 mask does not have the manufacturer name and the standard number they are meeting (GB 2828-2019 or GB2828-2006), then they cannot be considered KN95 masks Such masks are marked failed. My guess is thats what happened here.

vertis 5y ago
I disagree with this methodology. At the very least it should be called out as the reason for the 'fail'. Yes, it's less than ideal to not follow the standard. But I would far rather an N95/KN95 mask that didn't have it correctly printed but otherwise passes the criteria than none at all. If it's a filtration test and it filters correctly give it a pass with an asterisk.
- lloydarmbrust 5y ago
  Yes the reasons for failing are in our testing notes being transcribed now. Over 250 hours of actual testing just to get to this part and with Omicron we wanted to get the raw data up ASAP. Notes should be live in about 275 of them hopefully today.
  - vertis 5y ago
    It's a nitpick. I'm glad someone is doing this.
pimlottc 5y ago
That doesn't seem to be the case here, the product images clearly show the required labeling and it's even pointed out specifically in the video review [0] at 3m30s. Would be good to see what the update notes say for this one. It might be because the product listing still claims it's approved from emergency use; the FDA rescinded the EUA for all non-N95 masks back in July [1]. 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeYlKgOI8-w&t=210s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeYlKgOI8-w&t=210s 1: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/revoked-euas-non-niosh-approved-disposable-filtering-facepiece-respirators https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/emergency-use-authorizat...

usrusr 5y ago

And it gets worse when you look at the page on mobile, miss the entire filter percentage column and that the list is ordered by that: then all random samples reached without excessive scrolling are mystery failures despite good filter result. Really strong example of how a seemingly harmless presentation failure can taint the perception of content.

lloydarmbrust 5y ago
We have updated the mobile view please LMK what you think.
- usrusr 5y ago
  Much better and nice to see that the change didn't compromise the desktop version. Still kind of unimpressed by the high weighting of labeling formalities for pass/fail (I live in the realm of EN149 anyways) and I'd certainly prefer a few notes over video. Feature request for the next pandemic: I'm sure people wearing glasses would love being able to filter for masks with that spongy cell foam flow blocker strip on the underside of the nose stripe? But I really love the inclusion of breathability: I'm convinced that in the day to day realities of living through a pandemic, a mask with better breathability won't just be more comfortable than one less breathable, but also provide more protection, because it's worn better and more. And a list like that would have been very helpful earlier in the pandemic not only for buying guidance, but also for instructing people that if they really can't stand wearing a mask, maybe that's in large part because they simply haven't encountered a good one yet. Seeing a range from <50 to >200 and how little it correlates with filtering (it does, but much less than one would expect) is worth more than words. I didn't realize the breathability factor myself until I found myself in a hospital abroad (injury, not infection) where they supplied me with proper FFP2 for going to x-ray and the like. So much better than the emergency use 3-ply crap I used before and almost decadent indulgence compared to the emergency textile contraptions that preceded them.