Show HN: I bought and tested the filtration of every mask on Amazon
1–10 of 250 posts
Re: Show HN: I bought and tested the filtration of every mask on Amazon
#2This is great. Thanks for sharing!
Re: Show HN: I bought and tested the filtration of every mask on Amazon
#3How to see the ones that failed?
Re: Show HN: I bought and tested the filtration of every mask on Amazon
#4Consider adding (affiliate) links to ones that did well, ordered by availability or price.
Why Amazon doesn’t do this is beyond me.
Re: Show HN: I bought and tested the filtration of every mask on Amazon
#5Anyone have a scatter plot of resistance vs filter efficiency? Watching each review would take forever. I want to explore the results visually.
Re: Show HN: I bought and tested the filtration of every mask on Amazon
#6I'm a bit confused by the listed results. For example one mask is listed a KN95 and has a fail although filtering is stated as 99.87%. Isn't a KN95 specifically rated to hold at least 95% of particles of a certain size? Anything above is irrelevant as it holds up to the minimum requirement? Or is it 99.87% of 95% which I would still consider within margins of manufacturing variations.
A KN95 that filtered only 75% is something I would be concerned of. Additionally the fit in someones face can turn a good N99 mask into a useless mask which is also an important factor.
Re: Show HN: I bought and tested the filtration of every mask on Amazon
#7Small note on the methodology link: I thought it was a 404 dead link because when I opened it in a new tab it was a 404 (turns out it's a pop-up modal).
I don't think what's described in the methodology actually lines up with the result pages. In particular the methodology pop-up has sections about construction and smell, but I don't think I see them anywhere in the text of a particular mask review, i.e. it doesn't look like they're actually a part of what goes into a pass/fail score. Likewise there is a "Standard" field in the review that is pass/fail, but it's not explained in the methodology (I think this is basically a catch-all for "marketing fraud" where a manufacturer says something about their product that is just false?).
Nor is it described in the methodology what the pass/fail cutoff is.
But the sheer number of masks is definitely impressive.
Re: Show HN: I bought and tested the filtration of every mask on Amazon
#8I'm a bit confused by the listed results. For example one mask is listed a KN95 and has a fail although filtering is stated as 99.87%. Isn't a KN95 specifically rated to hold at least 95% of particles of a certain size? Anything above is irrelevant as it holds up to the minimum requirement? Or is it 99.87% of 95% which I would still consider within margins of manufacturing variations. A KN95 that filtered only 75% is…
How they rate masks as passing and failing is not transparent. They indicate they rate the masks on construction and smell but do not give the scores.
Re: Show HN: I bought and tested the filtration of every mask on Amazon
#9How does one verify whether the product on Amazon is legitimate? Most masks have reviews referring to comingled fakes, and it's put me off buying.
Re: Show HN: I bought and tested the filtration of every mask on Amazon
#10This problem could be far easier solved by... minimum airflow requirements.... or just stepping outside. Even in the Covid hotspot of wuhan, there are only a handful of outdoor transmission cases.