Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets
advances.sciencemag.org
Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets
1–10 of 92 posts
Re: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets
#2[flagged]
Re: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets
#3The market for face masks is probably enormous right now but the information out there on which ones to buy is anemic. I assumed this was because masks were such a commodity that it didn't really matter which ones you bought, but this article shows otherwise. Even just among the cotton ones there is quite a difference.
Re: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets
#4[flagged]
Do you really think everyone in the 50s was in stem, supported the space program, and innvoates? It's always a minority. They were bombing soldiers, us soldiers with nuclear weapons saying it was harmless to see the effects. Is it sad we don't do that anymore?
Just because you watch TV and have a bad Facebook feed doesn't make it America
Re: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets
#5The low-tech way I've seen (but not cross-calibrated), thanks to a pair of argie firemen: use an aerosol spray can, eg hairspray, to see what makes it through the mask candidate.
Re: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets
#6[flagged]
Many US scientists from the 50s hadn't been educated in-country, as they were refugees from the Old World.
Re: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets
#7I have an even better way, albeit a bit dirty. Take a vape pen and simply put your mask on before exhaling; "eyeball" the size and trajectories of the exhaled vapor, select the mask that wins, and call it a day.
Re: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets
#8The market for face masks is probably enormous right now but the information out there on which ones to buy is anemic. I assumed this was because masks were such a commodity that it didn't really matter which ones you bought, but this article shows otherwise. Even just among the cotton ones there is quite a difference.
I think the broader point is one that still stands: wearing literally anything over your nose and mouth is shown, by this study, to cut droplet by at least 50%. Even the cotton varieties cut it from 70% to 90%. So...people need to just slap something over their two air exchanging orifices on their faces before leaving the house and contribute to the our greater health.
You're right about the differences in effectiveness but 70% is still pretty good as long as many people are wearing something and not exposing their noses or wrapping the mask lovingly around their chins.
Re: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets
#9[flagged]
Do you really think everyone in the 50s was in stem, supported the space program, and innvoates? It's always a minority. They were bombing soldiers, us soldiers with nuclear weapons saying it was harmless to see the effects. Is it sad we don't do that anymore? Just because you watch TV and have a bad Facebook feed doesn't make it America
I think it's important which minority is seen as role model. The cultural narrative is was shapes the next decades.
Re: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets
#10The market for face masks is probably enormous right now but the information out there on which ones to buy is anemic. I assumed this was because masks were such a commodity that it didn't really matter which ones you bought, but this article shows otherwise. Even just among the cotton ones there is quite a difference.
I think the broader point is one that still stands: wearing literally anything over your nose and mouth is shown, by this study, to cut droplet by at least 50%. Even the cotton varieties cut it from 70% to 90%. So...people need to just slap something over their two air exchanging orifices on their faces before leaving the house and contribute to the our greater health. You're right about the differences in effectiven…
> wearing literally anything
Well, no: the fleece mask broke larger droplets into many smaller ones, resulting in an increase of 10% in the number of droplets compared to the no-mask baseline. Being smaller droplets, they would also hang in the air longer.