On #COVID#masks#masking, I frequently read (and empathize with) people around here posting abt comments by various ppl questioning their masks. It sucks!
Wanted to give an other perspective: I've worn N95s (pillowy Dräger 1750) at the office for 2 years (incl. dozens of business meetings) and nobody's ever said anything about it. (A couple of "are you sick today or just cautious" in 2 years.)
Your mileage may vary, but in case you've been thinking about trying, hope hearing that might help?
@hlabrande#COVID
The Dräger 1750 is an FFP2 (roughly. N90 in US terms). It is a very capable mask.
The Dräger 1930 is an FFP3 (US equiv. N95). It is also quite capable.
Both dramatically reduce the chance of infection if consistently used and worn correctly.
N99 or P100 are better yet. But they come with increased airflow resistance, higher trapped CO2 and higher humidity. Not everyone can wear them for long periods. Without an exhalation valve, they can condense moisture quickly.
My conversion equivalence is based on efficiency. No precise conversion is possible without doing a defined test.
More though, it is all relative as we don't (that I have seen or found) have test data for penetration of SARS-CoV-2 in real world conditions. And since each mask (whether ffp or N rated) relies on a certain particle size distribution.
All of these work. Higher efficiency is generally better. But their are caveats for each. CO2, H20, DP
Add comment