MASKS

Seriously, are these just one size?

chickenhawk, you could try it on a piece of paper first.

So,we have to be fashinable too????  I wonder just who is going to make alot of money on these?  I think I will stick with the tried and true,not some "fashionable" thing.  What's next personalized.....

No approval from NIOSH????

Post today on icna.co.uk forum:

"We are having real problems here. The new TB guidance states that if you are caring for a patient with suspected or proven MRD TB whilst they are considered infectious or conducting aerosol generating procedures on patients with sensative TB then staff should wear an FFP3 respirator. This is also the case for staff conducting aerosol generating procedures on patients with pandemic influenza. The PPE regs (updated 2002) state that staff should be fit tested.
We contacted 3M and they informed us that the fit testing should consist of the hood with a solution of either Bitrix or Saccharin. We undertook training in the fit testing procedure taking extreme care with facial seals on a variety of different staff with different shaped faces and had a very high fail rate (of 15 tested only 1 passed!) We recalled the company who returned to fit test a number of staff and after 3 hours managed to pass 3 different staff with 3 different masks.
Since then we contacted Mike Clayton from the Health & Safety Executive Laboratory in Buxton who suggested that he had experinces of significant failure rates and he would be interested in hearing of experiences of fit testing currently being undertaken in the health service. We have also been contacted by a Dr Ben Killingsley from the DOH who is laeding on respiratory protection and is also interested in experiences from the shop floor.
We have since abandoned fit testing until we get advice from either the DOH or HSE. This is because we do not wish staff to loose faith in what we believe to be a good product if it is the actual fit testing procedure itself that is the problem Also it is hugely time consuming and costly to fit test several different types of masks. I am aware of another hospital (a large London Trust) that has also abandoned fit testing for the same reasons and is instead training staff in donning and removal of masks until they hear otherwise from the powers that be."

This is a very good article..

Simple Respiratory Mask

Virginia M. Dato,* David Hostler,* and Michael E. Hahn*
*University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

Suggested citation for this article

---

To the Editor: The US Department of Labor recommends air-purifying respirators (e.g., N95, N99, or N100) as part of a comprehensive respiratory protection program for workers directly involved with avian influenza–infected birds or patients (1). N95 respirators have 2 advantages over simple cloth or surgical masks; they are >95% efficient at filtering 0.3-μm particles (smaller than the 5-μm size of large droplets—created during talking, coughing, and sneezing—which usually transmit influenza) and are fit tested to ensure that infectious droplets and particles do not leak around the mask (2–4). Even if N95 filtration is unnecessary for avian influenza, N95 fit offers advantages over a loose-fitting surgical mask by eliminating leakage around the mask.

The World Health Organization recommends protective equipment including masks (if they not available, a cloth to cover the mouth is recommended) for persons who must handle dead or ill chickens in regions affected by H5N1 (5). Quality commercial masks are not always accessible, but anecdotal evidence has showed that handmade masks of cotton gauze were protective in military barracks and in healthcare workers during the Manchurian epidemic (6,7). A simple, locally made, washable mask may be a solution if commercial masks are not available. We describe the test results of 1 handmade, reusable, cotton mask.

	Figure
	Click to view enlarged image Figure. Prototype mask. A) Side view, B) Face side. This mask consisted of 1 outer layer (37 cm × 72 cm) rolled and cut as in panel B...

For material, we choose heavyweight T-shirts similar to the 2-ply battle dress uniform T-shirts used for protective masks against ricin and saxitoxin in mouse experiments (8). Designs and T-shirts were initially screened with a short version of a qualitative Bitrex fit test (9) (Allegro Industries, Garden Grove, CA, USA). The best were tested by using a standard quantitative fit test, the Portacount Plus Respirator Fit Tester with N95-Companion (TSI, Shoreview, MN, USA) (10). Poor results from the initial quantitative fit testing on early prototypes resulted in the addition of 4 layers of material to the simplest mask design. This mask is referred to as the prototype mask (Figure).

A Hanes Heavyweight 100% preshrunk cotton T-shirt (made in Honduras) (http://www.hanesprintables.com/Globals/Faq.aspx) was boiled for 10 minutes and air-dried to maximize shrinkage and sterilize the material in a manner available in developing countries. A scissor, marker, and ruler were used to cut out 1 outer layer (≈37 × 72 cm) and 8 inner layers (<18 cm²). The mask was assembled and fitted as shown in the Figure.

A fit factor is the number generated during quantitative fit testing by simulating workplace activities (a series of exercises, each 1 minute in duration). The Portacount Plus Respirator Fit Tester with N95-Companion used for the test is an ambient aerosol instrument that measures aerosol concentration outside and inside the prototype mask. The challenge agent used is the ambient microscopic dust and other aerosols that are present in the air.

A commercially available N95 respirator requires a fit factor of 100 to be considered adequate in the workplace. The prototype mask achieved a fit factor of 67 for 1 author with a Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) panel face size of 4, a common size. Although insufficient for the workplace, this mask offered substantial protection from the challenge aerosol and showed good fit with minimal leakage. The other 2 authors with LANL panel face size 10, the largest size, achieved fit factors of 13 and 17 by making the prototype mask inner layers slightly larger (22 cm²).

We do not advocate use of this respirator in place of a properly fitted commercial respirator. Although subjectively we did not find the work of breathing required with the prototype mask to be different from that required with a standard N95 filtering facepiece, persons with respiratory compromise of any type should not use this mask. While testers wore the mask for an hour without difficulty, we cannot comment on its utility during strenuous work or adverse environmental conditions.

We showed that a hand-fashioned mask can provide a good fit and a measurable level of protection from a challenge aerosol. Problems remain. When made by naive users, this mask may be less effective because of variations in material, assembly, facial structure, cultural practices, and handling. No easy, definitive, and affordable test can demonstrate effectiveness before each use. Wearers may find the mask uncomfortable.

We encourage innovation to improve respiratory protection options. Future studies must be conducted to determine levels of protection achieved when naive users, following instructions, produce a similar mask from identical or similar raw materials. Research is needed to determine the minimal level of protection needed when resources are not available for N95 air-purifying respirators since the pandemic threat from H5N1 and other possible influenza strains will exist for the foreseeable future.

References

1. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Guidance for protecting workers against avian flu. [cited 2005 Oct 23]. Available from http://www.osha.gov/dsg/guidance/avian-flu.html
2. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 42 CFR Part 84 Respiratory protective devices. 1995 [cited 2005 Oct 23]. Available from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pt84abs2.html
3. Garner, JS. Guideline for isolation precautions in hospitals. The Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17:53–80.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Laboratory performance evaluation of N95 filtering facepiece respirators, 1996. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1998.47:1045–9.
5. World Health Organization Regional Office for the Western Pacific. Advice for people living in areas affected by bird flu or avian influenza. 2004 Nov 8 [cited 2005 Oct 22]. Available from http://www.wpro.who.int/NR/rdonlyres/04FA6993-8CD1-
   4B72-ACB9-EB0EBD3D0CB1/0/Advice10022004rev08112004.pdf
6. Capps JA. Measures for the prevention and control of respiratory infections in military camps. JAMA. 1918;71:448–50.
7. Kool, JL. Risk of person-to-person transmission of pneumonic plague. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40:1166–72.
8. Darling RG. Biological warfare and bioterrorism. Slides 47 and 48. [cited 2006 Mar 19]. Available from http://www.regionsem.org/~trjoing/papers/123456/clr/Slides%20with
   %20Notes/Biological%20Warfare%20&%20Bioterrorism.pdf
9. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Fit testing procedures (mandatory)–1910.134 App A. [cited 2006 Jan 21]. Available from http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=
   STANDARDS&p_id=9780&p_text_version=FALSE#Appendix%20A
10. TSI incorporated. How to quantitatively fit test filtering-face piece respirators using a TSI Portacount Plus and N95-Companion (ITI-054) c2006. [cited 2006 Jan 21]. Available from http://www.tsi.com/AppNotes/appnotes.aspx?Pid=33&lid=445&file=iti_054

 

Reusability of Facemasks During an Influenza Pandemic: Facing the Flu (2006)
http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309101824/html/

Read "4. Findings and Recommendations"
I couldn't cut and paste it.

rhe following models are  even better !
http://www.defend.com/shopping/product.asp?product_masterid=MK1046&product_id=MK%2D1056&dept_id=2&sub_dept_id=1

and
http://www.defend.com/shopping/product.asp?product_masterid=MK2007&product_id=MK%2D2010&dept_id=2&sub_dept_id=1

http://www.defend.com/shopping/product.asp?product_masterid=MK1076&product_id=MK%2D1076&dept_id=2&sub_dept_id=1

Need help here: My sister-in-law gave me a box of 50 Defend cone masks, MK-1007, they are manufactured in Germany. She is a dental technician and it says on the side and it says on the side they are manufactured to "provide healthcare professionals with the best infection control available". Also says "excellent BFE". Anybody know about these and how they compare to US standards???? TIA

yes, redcloud that it true. I was really surprized that the guy on the phone gave me the wrong information.

Bumpman, prices do vary and they may've gone up since I last checked but it was a box of 20 for about $20. (prices are sure to go only up IMO) There are other masks out there that may be more efficient than the N95's but they are def more $. It really depends what you need them for. If you think you may be caring for infected individuals than you would want the highest protection you could get, I would think. IHMO, most of the folks here plan to bug in early so family members can avoid being infected. However, there are alot of 1st responders and medical professionals here as well who plan on being out in the world and helping people so they need MAX protection for sure. It is all a guessing game and that is the most nerve wracking part of it. You have to spend $ where you think it will do you the most good. Masks are just one part of being prepped. There's food, water, blankets & clothes for warmth, basic medical supplies, tioletries, water purification & cooking gear etc.

I know it's a lot but just take one step at a time and read through the threads while you make your lists and tackle what you can at a pace that's comfortable for you. However, time may be limited so do take care of as much as you can as soon as you can.

good luck. fritz :>}

ReadyMom:

Thank you!  I fee so much better, now.  I'll go and get more.  If anyone else wants to get these ... they are at Home Depot in the 'Personal Safety' Isle ... 20/$19.99 and you don't pay Ship/Hand. charges!! -k

ReadyMom - your masks will be fine.  The important thing to look for is the N95 designation from NIOSH (the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). 

I went with the 3M 1860, because of their widespread use during the SARS outbreak. They are specifically designed with a coating to prevent absorption of fluids.

I, too, was dumbfounded by the vast number of choices. But after many years of using respirators to protect against stone dust (I'm a sculptor), I decided to rely on my trusty North 7700 half-mask with P100 cartridges for extended trips into the contaminated world. It is very robust, fairly cheap, and reusable after wiping down. The P100 filter is 99.9xxx% effective against ANY particulates. That's what you want when you are banging granite, or avoiding death.

The 1860's will be used for very short trips or to care for a sick person.

Red

striper wrote: Where can I get the 3M 9211 at a good price? Thanks.

Where can I get the 3M 9211 at a good price? Thanks.

Welcome Redcloud, good to see your posts, if you need anything more please ask.  I hope you enjoy our group,it can get lively as members have different opinions on things.

Hi all,

This is my first post here, and I would like to thank all of you for this
excellent site.

I'm a stone sculptor, and have always used a North 7700 half-mask
respirator with P100 filters to keep out the stone dust. I chose this
combo because it was recommended by other stone people as a true
HEPA filter that would keep out silica dust from sawing and chiseling
granite.

One thing I've never understood about the mask rating system is the
difference between the designations "R" "N" and "P." Does anyone know
the difference?

Also, wouldn't a "100" mask be better than a "95" mask, simply because it
would filter out smaller particles?

I'm thinking of just adding a stock of P100 filter cartridges to my existing
North respirator and going with that for flu protection. Can anyone see
anything wrong with that?

Thanks for all the great info you have shared on this site.

Red

 

Thanks.

I tried the 8511 and 8110. They fit me well. The only problem is they are awfully expensive at Home Depot compared to online merchants.

I've ordered MANY different brands and numbers.  I like the 3m 8511 (the ones with the yellow valve). I have some without valves and they fit my son well (he's 15) but he said that breathing through them takes some modification. The valve ones he likes MUCH better as the breathing is not so difficult.  SOOOO..........I am only ordering the valve ones from now on. Got a good deal on a case of 100 3m 9211 (ohhh la la).....for 100 dollars...a dollar a mask! AND they are valved 3M  9211's, no less ......

 

My daughter and I are having trouble finding masks to fit our small faces, so I ordered some of the surgical green ones, but....

I bought rolls of duct tape also. We may have to tape them if we have to wear the 8000 ones. And I would like to see a virus try to get through duct tape.

Sure is going to look weird, though.

Thanks Hope. The 1860 doesn't seem to have a valve. Did you try it on? Was it comfrotable to breath and exhale weraing it? Which other model do you have? Thanks.