Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: I bought and tested the filtration of every mask on Amazon

armbrustusa.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 250 posts

Re: Show HN: I bought and tested the filtration of every mask on Amazon

#151

Post by dzhiurgis »

genericone wrote: post #15
david_allison wrote: post #9

How 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.

If in doubt about fakes, don't buy it. I don't buy anything on Amazon that could result in absorption in the body. No food, no lotions, even certain fabrics can be radioactive in the case of "negative ion" mumbo-jumbo: This guy on youtube contacted the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to force Amazon to delist these products with excessive negative-ion radiation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BA5bw1EV5I

Thought Emporium is so good I refuse to believe it's legit

A bit like Applied Science.

Re: Show HN: I bought and tested the filtration of every mask on Amazon

#152

Post by ricardobeat »

mmahemoff wrote: post #142
lloydarmbrust wrote: post #12

I've spent about 1,000 hours on this with my team using a very expensive (~$250k) lab and I'd love for this to be a great resource for people when choosing a mask. The heavy lift we are doing here is around our particulate filtration efficiency test in which we do either the NIOSH N95 NaCL (0.3 micron) test or the ASTM 0.1 micron latex particle test. I'd love HN feedback on how we improve the interface and make this…

If you're open to taking "requests", I'd love to see this Australian one tested. https://amazon.com.au/gp/product/B093B8QKVP/ Good N95 style masks are difficult to get hold of in Australia. A few places are either charging absurd prices (like $10+ per disposable mask), but most pharmacies just don't stock them. The one above has some fancy photos of certs in its listing, so it would be interesting to see if it's genu…

I see a ton of KF94 results, may be easier to find them due to proximity to Asia? They are supposed to be more comfortable than the beak-shaped kn95 anyway, and offer the same protection.

Re: Show HN: I bought and tested the filtration of every mask on Amazon

#153

Post by ricardobeat »

viraptor wrote: post #141

I understand not literally everything can be tested, but I'm surprised that the Korean AirQueen is missing. It seems pretty popular on Amazon.

It’s listed as “Nano Filter Face Mask” and [spoiler] it fails the test.

Re: Show HN: I bought and tested the filtration of every mask on Amazon

#154

Post by beebmam »

cpeterso wrote: post #56
halpert wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but if everyone is wearing one it doesn't matter. Some of the masks on this site are vented as well.

Most of the point of wearing a mask is to prevent you from unknowingly spreading COVID to other people. Many stores I visit have signs prohibiting vented masks.

That's not why nurses and doctors wear elastomeric respirators or PAPR devices.

Re: Show HN: I bought and tested the filtration of every mask on Amazon

#155

Post by theogravity »

lloydarmbrust wrote: post #88
Tagbert wrote: post #29

@lloydarmbrust , I’m curious about the fail rating for masks where Standard = KN95 is fail? Specifically for masks that claim to be KN95 and filtration values are high. How do you determine a failure here? Just curious. I think this work is amazing.

Thanks! Yes we are adding those notes now... most of the KN95 fails are the incorrect markings on the mask. To pass the GB2626-2019 standard (where the KN95 lives) you have to put the manufacture name, standard name (eg, "GB2626-2019"), and mask type (eg, "KN95"). About 90% of "KN95s" on amazon are fake because they do not include this... I image because the manufacturers are just trying to make a quick buck and didn…

It'd be nice if there were notes on the failures on why it failed. I'm on mobile so I'm not sure if you are providing that information or not on the page.

Re: Show HN: I bought and tested the filtration of every mask on Amazon

#156

Post by mmahemoff »

ricardobeat wrote: post #152
mmahemoff wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're open to taking "requests", I'd love to see this Australian one tested. https://amazon.com.au/gp/product/B093B8QKVP/ Good N95 style masks are difficult to get hold of in Australia. A few places are either charging absurd prices (like $10+ per disposable mask), but most pharmacies just don't stock them. The one above has some fancy photos of certs in its listing, so it would be interesting to see if it's genu…

I see a ton of KF94 results, may be easier to find them due to proximity to Asia? They are supposed to be more comfortable than the beak-shaped kn95 anyway, and offer the same protection.

Might be, but it's hard to trust any of those listings - where they come from and if the KF94 really means anything at all (some reviews indicate as much too, but realistically most consumer have no way of knowing). The one I mentioned stood out as it's locally made and supposedly locally certified.

Re: Show HN: I bought and tested the filtration of every mask on Amazon

#157

Post by viraptor »

ricardobeat wrote: post #153
viraptor wrote: post #141

I understand not literally everything can be tested, but I'm surprised that the Korean AirQueen is missing. It seems pretty popular on Amazon.

It’s listed as “Nano Filter Face Mask” and [spoiler] it fails the test.

Interesting. It seems that "brand name search" actually searches by product name not by brand.

Re: Show HN: I bought and tested the filtration of every mask on Amazon

#158

Post by nabla9 »

jcun4128 wrote: post #34

Well... that sucks (finds the brand I've been wearing all this time).

Good mask helps only so much. You must also wear it properly.

Cheap surgical mask is just as good as N95 respirator if you don't wear them properly. It much seal around your skin. For example, if you don't trim your beard so that mask touches skin all around, better mask does not help.

In fact, increased humidity under the mask may be one of the main reasons why wearing mask protects their user.

Re: Show HN: I bought and tested the filtration of every mask on Amazon

#159

Post by formerly_proven »

lloydarmbrust wrote: post #12

I've spent about 1,000 hours on this with my team using a very expensive (~$250k) lab and I'd love for this to be a great resource for people when choosing a mask. The heavy lift we are doing here is around our particulate filtration efficiency test in which we do either the NIOSH N95 NaCL (0.3 micron) test or the ASTM 0.1 micron latex particle test. I'd love HN feedback on how we improve the interface and make this…

Being able to filter the list by pass/fail or minimum PFE and/or maximum breathing resistance would be nice.

Re: Show HN: I bought and tested the filtration of every mask on Amazon

#160

Post by bjarneh »

lloydarmbrust wrote: post #71
wrycoder wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your filtration test appears to be only testing the mask fabric, but not the fit. I see a number of surgical masks over 95%. I don't think that would be possible in practice, because of leaks at the sides and top. I'd expect more like 50%. But, you don't appear to have the equipment to do a fit test. Refer to the 3M video on how to fit test an N95. I realize that N95 and surgical masks have different standards, but y…

A good mask needs both fit and filtration... most people can put a mask on, check for air gaps and see how well it fits, but they don't have a $250k mask lab to make sure the fabric is good. We are just solving for the filtration and letting people figure out the fit. But, you make a good point, in the videos I try to point this out but we could do better. Where could I add this to make this more clear?

> but they don't have a $250k mask lab to make sure the fabric is good

Hard to argue against that, but on HN I'm sure someone's gonna try :-)

Post reply on HN