Show HN: I bought and tested the filtration of every mask on Amazon | Hacker News Reader

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

armbrustusa.com

594 pointslloydarmbrust237 comments

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 a true resource for people.

Disclaimer: Yes, I'm a mask manufacturer and that's how I justify keeping all of this equipment up to spec, but I'm not big enough to make all of the masks for the world so I'd rather people find a good mask than just use my mask.

Any feedback is appreciated.

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 you are making them look comparable, when they are not.

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?

You could start by adjusting your given filtration ratios by predictable leakage based on the type of mask. It's wholly misleading to rate the filtration potential of an earloop mask as equivalent to that of a 3M Aura.

Not exactly.. it really depends on the situation.

For example an ASTM 2 or 3 surgical mask fabric has a filtration of 98%+

On my face I have a leakage of about 21% or PFE of 79% when worn normally.

With an ear saver, it jumps to 91%.

With a mask brace, it jumps to 98%.

So it really is about the fit.

If I put leakage % it would vary from person to person and many people would be mislead by this.

> On my face I have a leakage of about 21% or PFE of 79% when worn normally.

> With an ear saver, it jumps to 91%.

> With a mask brace, it jumps to 98%.

I had no idea it could vary so much for surgical masks. I’d be curious what range of leakage people could typically expect for other designs such boat-shaped KF94 or flat-fold KN95 masks.

Fit seems important enough to deserve a mention in the intro paragraph at the top of the home page. A more detailed explanation, including the example you gave of how much it can vary for even one person, could go in the “Click here” link to the full testing methodology.

Thank you for doing this, by the way, rare to see a manufacturer test so far beyond their own masks. It clearly takes resources to do this and is a great service to all of us who have been relying on guesswork.

Okay I put a disclaimer right on the front and we are typing up an explanation right now. Thank you for this feedback!

https://www.armbrustusa.com/pages/mask-testing

thanks! all the notes about fit will be very helpful, including how to use the extra accessories you mentioned above.

For example I found this study on beard length which made me reconfigure my facial hair: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-021-00337-1

The charts in that paper also make it seem that n95 *typically* has a much better seal on the face which is worth noting.

I also wonder if the breathability you're measuring affects filtration, given imperfect fit. I would imagine that worse breathability would cause more air to flow around the mask rather than through it.

How did you determine those percentages?

Using the industry standard TSI PORTACOUNT® RESPIRATOR FIT TESTER 8048

It measures the air outside the mask verses inside the mask.

https://tsi.com/products/respirator-fit-testers/portacount-r...

Do you have the same measurement for you for an N95 with the typical elastic straps that you can share?

Yes but it differs from model to model.

I get as low as 80% and as high as 99% on my face.

Fit is a big deal because it's personal and hard to communicate. I think it was Amazon that found when scanning their workforce that they discovered 29 different face shapes!

> 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 :-)

Someone on HN recently did:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29878971

hahaha got me on that one.

You could add a clear statement to the testing procedure popup that you are measuring the fabric only, and that (except for N95) the filtration of a mask is strongly dependent on fit and leakage.

Okay working on this now.. thanks for the suggestion. I should note that even N95 is extremely effected by fit. I've gotten as low as 80% filtration on a flat-fold N95.

Unhhh, fit and leakage matter a lot for N95 too.

Done

I think it should be made way more clear - and here I take the opposite stance of the person you're replying to.

Change title to "Comprehensive Mask Material Testing" or "Comprehensive Mask Fabric Testing" or similar.

Similarly; "...that's why we're testing the filtration capabilities of every mask in our laboratory"

At some point (on the front page, above the fold) there could be a small notice box explaining the difference, or ?-link or tooltip to read more.

I think a lot of the suspicion you're facing in this thread wouldn't have been there if it weren't for that ambiguity, and the need to go into deep content to resolve it.

For someone who just browses to your site and spends 5 min finding "the best mask", they would never realize as it is today.

Okay I put a disclaimer and typing up a post to link to LMK what you think: https://www.armbrustusa.com/pages/mask-testing

Thanks!

https://www.armbrustusa.com/blogs/news/mask-fit-vs-filtratio...

Oh, excellent update!

(It might be a good idea to break your database into two sections: one for N/KN/KF respirators and one for other masks.)

I also notice that you have a "collections" page

https://www.armbrustusa.com/collections/

That page has a very helpful section, "USA made N95 masks and KN95 respirators".

https://www.armbrustusa.com/collections/usa-made-n95-masks-r...

Exactly what we need. Two questions:

1. Aren't all N95 "masks" actually respirators? 2. Why do you offer "made in USA" KN95 (Chinese standard) instead of an Armbrust branded N95?

Thank you for doing this!

Hey, I think it's a lot more clear now :)

woot

These are good points. Working on rewording this now.

Perhaps you could add a “fit ease” row to your scoring? Masks with head straps could have a check and others could have a ? or something.

yes i could make a mask out of plastic film and it would have 100% efficiency

this probably explains why in these results, most adult masks have a pass rating, but most kid masks have a fail rating

Great work, thank you for sharing it with the world.

I am very curious about country stats and have 2 questions.

First, I found this one randomly: https://www.armbrustusa.com/blogs/mask-review/kf94-try-mask-...

The country of origin on your page says China, but the photo's box says Korea. Is this a mask repackaged and exported from Korea that is actually from China?

Second, does "China" also include Taiwan? If so, I would be interested in separating them for statistics.

for those interested, here's a first level breakdown of pass/fail by country

  | country   | # pass | # fail | pass rate |
  |-----------+--------+--------+-----------|
  | USA       |     39 |     27 |        59 |
  | China     |     48 |    186 |        21 |
  | Korea     |     31 |     13 |        70 |
  | Thailand  |      0 |      2 |         0 |
  | India     |      2 |     12 |        14 |
  | Mexico    |      1 |      0 |       100 |
  | Germany   |      0 |      1 |         0 |
  | Singapore |      1 |      0 |       100 |
  | Vietnam   |      1 |      0 |       100 |

also, in this dataset it looks like adult masks have a 66% pass rate as a whole, while kids masks have a 73% FAILURE rate!

So a third question is, are you using adult mask testing methods for testing kid masks as well (which would explain the failure; on the other hand, the kid masks that passed must be quite some mask!), or do kid masks just suck in general?

In the US the standards for adults are the same as kids... in China they just came out with a new standard but for reasons I wont go into we don't cover it (very China specific).

That said, I have also noticed this... if a manufacturer in China makes a great adult masks, their kids mask is likely to fail standards for filtration AND be harder to breath.

Having made both adult and kids masks I can tell you that there is way less of a demand for kids masks and because of that less attention gets paid to them on the manufacturing floor. Theory: People are just lazy and make worse masks for the kids I think because kids are not paying attention.

Furthermore, kids don't care that it passes standards, they care if there's a dinosaur on the mask or not. Even my own kids tell me my kids masks are boring! So manufacturers put their time on making it fun and not on protection.

We test both kids and adults to the same standards, use the same fabric, etc. Boring but effective :)

Ah! You caught a mistake. Thank you it's fixed.

China and Taiwan are separate (they make very different masks) but I haven't been able to find any from Taiwan to test.

thanks for the clarification!

(apologies, I edited my original message with a third question, which I would love to get an answer to, but now I don't want to mess with this thread anymore)

I read through your "methodology", and it seems to be too simple to explain your pass/fail results. For example, you fail this mask: https://www.armbrustusa.com/blogs/mask-review/kn95-arun-flat... even though it seems to meet the filtration and breathability standards, but is still listed as having failed.

I guess maybe you explain the failure in the video, and maybe there's a good reason that it failed, but you're asking me to waste a bunch of time watching videos to understand information that could have been provided in print. It doesn't make me trust you.

Read their methodology,

> A good example of this is in the text written on the front of N95 and KN95 masks. The standards for each of these masks demand that very specific information be printed on the device. If a KN95 mask does not have the manufacturer name and the standard number they are meeting (GB 2828-2019 or GB2828-2006), then they cannot be considered KN95 masks

Such masks are marked failed. My guess is thats what happened here.

That doesn't seem to be the case here, the product images clearly show the required labeling and it's even pointed out specifically in the video review [0] at 3m30s.

Would be good to see what the update notes say for this one. It might be because the product listing still claims it's approved from emergency use; the FDA rescinded the EUA for all non-N95 masks back in July [1].

0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeYlKgOI8-w&t=210s

1: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/emergency-use-authorizat...

I disagree with this methodology. At the very least it should be called out as the reason for the 'fail'. Yes, it's less than ideal to not follow the standard. But I would far rather an N95/KN95 mask that didn't have it correctly printed but otherwise passes the criteria than none at all.

If it's a filtration test and it filters correctly give it a pass with an asterisk.

Yes the reasons for failing are in our testing notes being transcribed now. Over 250 hours of actual testing just to get to this part and with Omicron we wanted to get the raw data up ASAP.

Notes should be live in about 275 of them hopefully today.

It's a nitpick. I'm glad someone is doing this.

And it gets worse when you look at the page on mobile, miss the entire filter percentage column and that the list is ordered by that: then all random samples reached without excessive scrolling are mystery failures despite good filter result. Really strong example of how a seemingly harmless presentation failure can taint the perception of content.

We have updated the mobile view please LMK what you think.

Much better and nice to see that the change didn't compromise the desktop version.

Still kind of unimpressed by the high weighting of labeling formalities for pass/fail (I live in the realm of EN149 anyways) and I'd certainly prefer a few notes over video. Feature request for the next pandemic: I'm sure people wearing glasses would love being able to filter for masks with that spongy cell foam flow blocker strip on the underside of the nose stripe?

But I really love the inclusion of breathability: I'm convinced that in the day to day realities of living through a pandemic, a mask with better breathability won't just be more comfortable than one less breathable, but also provide more protection, because it's worn better and more. And a list like that would have been very helpful earlier in the pandemic not only for buying guidance, but also for instructing people that if they really can't stand wearing a mask, maybe that's in large part because they simply haven't encountered a good one yet. Seeing a range from <50 to >200 and how little it correlates with filtering (it does, but much less than one would expect) is worth more than words. I didn't realize the breathability factor myself until I found myself in a hospital abroad (injury, not infection) where they supplied me with proper FFP2 for going to x-ray and the like. So much better than the emergency use 3-ply crap I used before and almost decadent indulgence compared to the emergency textile contraptions that preceded them.

Greetings from Germany. Of course my local interest lead me to the one and only product tested that originated here.

https://www.armbrustusa.com/blogs/mask-review/surgical-medte...

The accompanying video is informative and I can add that the way the earloops are attached is wide-spread in Germany. Also confirmation from my side that the strings rip right off with this type of attachment regardless of the actual manufacturer.

On an iPhone, the value for color in the details is slightly too far to the left and in this case wrong because it reads Black. I’d like to be able to tap on the color and see a list of matching masks and also have a top level filter for color.

As a parent I’d love to have a top level filter to see masks for kids.

Finally, German quality engineering exists but it’s really not found that often in the wild as the myth would lead someone to believe. So thanks for helping to debunk that in the video.

>Finally, German quality engineering exists but it’s really not found that often in the wild as the myth would lead someone to believe. So thanks for helping to debunk that in the video.

I don't think you should base anything on N=1, either for or against.

If it helps 100% of my grandparents are from Germany :) might be obvious by my last name.

Crossbow. Yeah, you mentioned in the video. :)

Table only shows mask names on mobile. Don’t be surprised if your announcement doesn’t have the impact you wanted it to. You need a website that does its job on mobile.

Okay we updated the site to work on mobile. Thanks for this... seems obvious now but total miss on our part.

Thank you!!

Ahhh... good point. The search will work but you are correct that the full version is better on desktop.

The GP has a good point - I was about to write a long HN reply about being able to sort or show the “best” masks. Saw the “list doesn’t show scores” on mobile led me to this comment.

As a consumer, when I land on that site, “what’s the best mask I should buy” (protection level, budget, comfort, local/globally made). If it’s not clear on mobile, it’ll be pretty hard to get non-tech people to stay on page for more then 10s or funnel them to the page you want.

Even with "desktop mode" enabled on mobile (android chrome) I still see only one column. You can click in for more information but it is pretty useless as an interface.

I think this is great and thanks for doing this! I have three small suggestion:

1. For masks that fail on marking issues but not filtering efficiency, could they get a third category that’s not pass or fail (something like ‘non-compliant’)?

2. I wish you could filter on pass/fail

3. I wish you included/could filter on price per box and price per mask.

Also big thanks for doing this from me and a third suggestion:

I wish I could filter for "valve" because valved masks are not allowed where I live.

My question is after weeks with the same mask… how does it perform… also bonus what kind of additional germs to I get to experience close to my face

You are not supposed to keep the same mask for weeks... They are meant to be replaced after hours.

Sorting by breathability is broken.

It'd be nice if you had pop-up dialogs upon hover over each of the fields. For example, if I hover over breathability, explain what it is and how you measure it.

Some color codes/gradient would be nice to help with the visual effect (Green for Pass, Red for Fail etc.) But please do include a toggle for color-blind mode if you do add color.

It's working for me, can you describe what's happening?

Good call on the color coding... I'm color blind so didn't think of this :)

Interesting, it seems somewhat fixed now.

Initially, I was seeing the sort return 1, 10, 100, 2, 20, 200.. so sorting by the first numeral instead of the number. But now it seems to be sorting ok-ish except if you jump to the bottom and the row for "Staples / Beixikang Face Mask" shows a % symbol for some reason. So possibly some data entry issues.

Below the Beixikang, there are then about 12 entries in 80-168 range so the entry for the Beixikang may be throwing the sort off.

When I sort by breathability (Firefox desktop) it goes 9 up to 572 for most of the list then '79.46%' then 80.2-183. The other way it goes 162 down to 9 then '79.46%' then 572 down to 80.2.

> Sorting by breathability is broken.

I'm seeing this too; I think the single entry [0] that includes a percent sign in its breathability score is screwing up the sort.

0: https://www.armbrustusa.com/blogs/mask-review/surgical-beixi...

> Some color codes/gradient would be nice to help with the visual effect (Green for Pass, Red for Fail etc.) But please do include a toggle for color-blind mode if you do add color.

If the green and red shades are chosen to have enough contrast to look different when convert into black and white (e.g. when printed), it should be usable even for most colorblind people, while also being easier to read for everyone.

Nice! Fixed

I looked at the linked page and it had a big list of masks, each of which linked to a page about that mask with a picture but no information such as test results. Was that intended? Could you just ditch all the fancy web design and have a big table with test results for each mask, with an ordering link for the models that you sell? That would be awesome.

It would be great if you also sold the stuff you use for testing masks. I spent a while looking into testing masks myself, but then the shortage eased up so it seemed less important.

Testing masks is very specialized and all in I've spent about $250k on the mask lab. I just bought a new machine that costs about $90k. Here's an overview of the machine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpjajJrDWBk

Thanks, I'll watch the video when I get a chance. My idea was to basically reproduce the setup in Joel Amilcar's PhD thesis (https://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/2002/) using an off the shelf air quality sensor (PM2.5 with the hope of being able to extrapolate below that size), using a salt spray nebulized with vape gear. I didn't have any good ideas about how to control the particle size (this isn't my area at all) so had hoped to get some advice at some point (let me know if you have any thoughts). I had remembered reading about a guy on Youtube who did some tests like that but never managed to find the channel. Maybe it was yours! Someone else here mentioned Aaron Collins so I will have to check his videos too.

I think it would be great to have easily reproduceable, low cost test equipment available at shops and clinics because the quality of masks (even of a specific make and model) is likely to vary between units. You might find a good mask with your tests, and then find that your next order of the exact same mask is crap. So you have to keep testing. Maybe it is less bad now. I was interested in this more when masks were in very short supply, but then I managed to get a few boxes of them, and set the testing idea aside.

> I looked at the linked page and it had a big list of masks

All test results disappear when the browser window isn't wide enough (eg. on mobile, or narrow PC windows).

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

Adding this to the feature list

Perhaps interesting for you: The University of Delft has done research on mask fit. A report in Dutch can be found here[1]. Perhaps auto-captions in English work for you?

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJZBNwa6QMk

Is this a mask testing company or a mask selling company?

How could I possibly trust one company to do both?

Hi, thanks for doing this. 1 piece of feedback is to have a couple lists of masks that you recommended so we don't have to comb through all the listings. I would put this page as the front page and then link/refer to the list to provide authority/weight to your recommendations.

Eg by type (surgical,duckbill,n95,kn95), by budget (budget, price/performance, premium), ships now on amazon, doesn't ship now but better in some way if you're willing to wait, etc.

Also I was looking at the 3m 9210 that you have 2 entries for in your table. The breathability is quite different between the two samples (98 vs 242). Is this expected? That seems a lot of variability for the same mask.

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 genuinely good. Happy to send some to you if it's helpful (you can dm me on twitter listed in my profile).

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.

The biggest issue with surgical masks is most of the nose strips are pathetically thin so they bend out of place and stop you from getting a good seal, which means they're a nightmare for glasses wearers.

> which means they're a nightmare for glasses wearers

More importantly, it greatly reduces their effectiveness. Fogging up glasses is, by far, the lesser issue of the two.

Depends on whether you're the type of person for whom fogged glasses means a mistyped line of code or the type of person for whom fogged glasses means blowing up a lab or getting your arm ripped off in a machine.

Yes. Look for masks with a double nose wire. We make one and many find it does not fog their glasses... but there are plenty of others that make them too.

Hi, was interested to see this, but the video is just of you buying them? And the methodology link is to https://www.armbrustusa.com/pages/ which doesn't seem right, and 404s anyway.

From the comments here it seems others have got to the right content, so I'm not saying 'avoid this spam nothing here' or whatever, just not sure what's going on. Accessing from Europe (UK) if that's something to do with it.

I sorted the list by breathability, filtered out the failed ones, and only focused on the n95/kn95/94 masks (as breathability rating for surgical masks does not make sense, because it is not supposed to be tight), and the top 5 were:

https://www.armbrustusa.com/blogs/mask-review/n95-gerson-duc...

https://www.armbrustusa.com/blogs/mask-review/kf94-dr-puri-b...

https://www.armbrustusa.com/blogs/mask-review/n95-honeywell-...

https://www.armbrustusa.com/blogs/mask-review/n95-indiana-fa...

I was thinking the same. Do you have a video of you testing some of them as well? It would be interesting to see how it works!

Click on any individual mask, and it takes you to a separate page. On most of those pages, there will be a 5-7 minute video showing that particular mask being tested while Lloyd talks about the features of the mask.

I’m also not seeing U.S. Mask on that list. The thing I like about their KN95 style mask is that each one is individually packaged, unlike almost all the other masks I’ve seen.

https://www.armbrustusa.com/blogs/mask-review/surgical-beixi... has breathability expressed in percentage. Others not.

Buy this mask button should be green :)

The viewer should be able to select only those masks that pass. They should also be able to select a maximum breathability score. They should also be able to select minimum PFE rating.

I’m not seeing AirPop masks on this list, see https://www.airpophealth.com/us/home

Thanks for putting in the effort and publishing the data. Are there indications that point to good/bad filtration quality? What do the good/bad products have in common?

Um, Your site appears to be completely broken - once I scroll down once scrolling (up or down) no longer works at all.

My budget is limited, but I just purchased a $50 shipment of your masks because this is awesome.

Thank you.

Thanks! Honestly didn't do this to directly sell masks... according to shopify we have made a whopping $248 from this post

List doesn't seem to scroll in Safari desktop :/

on the 3M aura, "made in american". otherwise great site

It actually depends on the model.

9205 is US made, the 9210 is made in Singapore.

Did you fail all the Chinese masks?

Wow, this is fabulous! They spent almost $5000 to buy and test every mask available on Amazon.

If you click on a mask it will take you to a page with the test details. More incredibly, most of the masks also have 5-7 minute video review!

If you click on the "Breathability" column, then on "Grade" twice, you will end up with a list of masks that Pass with the most breathable masks first.

Way to go, Lloyd. I've never heard of you or your company before, but I am genuinely impressed.

A lot of content marketing these days is low-effort and spammy but this is a great example of content marketing done well.

Haha thanks.. this one got out of hand. People kept asking me if x or y mask was "good" and I was just really curious... one day I looked up and had tested more masks than the CDC.

I learned so much though about how different manufacturers do things, where they cut corners, where they invest.

One crazy thing I learned was that almost all of the KN95s on amazing were not following the GB2626-2019 ("KN95") mask spec.... even though it's not that hard. So I decided to make a KN95 that followed the spec! Great way to really get into the product.

It's an incredible effort that he's put into all this. I'm very thankful for it and the video reviews are well done, some of them funny as well.

Project N95 is the National Critical Equipment Clearinghouse for personal protective equipment (PPE), COVID-19 diagnostic tests and critical equipment. Edit: stupid typo on url, sorry https://www.projectn95.org/

US based non profit, not tied to amazon. I've bought their stuff. They are legit.

FYI it doesn't seem to work with the www. for me (https://n95project.org does work though, as does https://www.projectn95.org).

Thanks, I fixed the url.

I guess they just got slammed with orders?

It would be much nicer if they showed 'SOLD OUT' on anything not in stock rather than nothing. (Firefox, Linux, even on my 'no plugins' profile and after creating an account.) It just shows reviews and nothing else on any masks page.

Debug console shows...

They aren't depending on Facebook for antifruad are they? How will they ever sell to someone security minded like me that refuses to ever sign up there?

[Facebook Pixel] - Invalid PixelID: null. fbevents.js:24:37725 Some cookies are misusing the recommended “SameSite“ attribute 12 Cookie “VtexRCSessionIdv7” will be soon rejected because it has the “SameSite” attribute set to “None” or an invalid value, without the “secure” attribute. To know more about the “SameSite“ attribute, read https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Set-Cook... rc.js:1:1836 Cookie “vtex_binding_address” will be soon rejected because it has the “SameSite” attribute set to “None” or an invalid value, without the “secure” attribute. To know more about the “SameSite“ attribute, read https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Set-Cook... common.min.js:2:141767 Cookie “vtex_binding_address” will be soon rejected because it has the “SameSite” attribute set to “None” or an invalid value, without the “secure” attribute. To know more about the “SameSite“ attribute, read https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Set-Cook... common.min.js:2:141767 Cookie “checkout.vtex.com” will be soon rejected because it has the “SameSite” attribute set to “None” or an invalid value, without the “secure” attribute. To know more about the “SameSite“ attribute, read https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Set-Cook... v1 Cookie “checkout.vtex.com” will be soon rejected because it has the “SameSite” attribute set to “None” or an invalid value, without the “secure” attribute. To know more about the “SameSite“ attribute, read https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Set-Cook... v1 Cookie “VtexRCMacIdv7” will be soon rejected because it has the “SameSite” attribute set to “None” or an invalid value, without the “secure” attribute. To know more about the “SameSite“ attribute, read https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Set-Cook... rc.js:1:1836 Cookie “VtexRCMacIdv7” will be soon rejected because it has the “SameSite” attribute set to “None” or an invalid value, without the “secure” attribute. To know more about the “SameSite“ attribute, read https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Set-Cook... 2 rc.js:1:1836 Cookie “VtexRCSessionIdv7” will be soon rejected because it has the “SameSite” attribute set to “None” or an invalid value, without the “secure” attribute. To know more about the “SameSite“ attribute, read https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Set-Cook... 3 rc.js:1:1836 Cookie “_ga” will be soon rejected because it has the “SameSite” attribute set to “None” or an invalid value, without the “secure” attribute. To know more about the “SameSite“ attribute, read https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Set-Cook... analytics.js:35:486 Cookie “_gid” will be soon rejected because it has the “SameSite” attribute set to “None” or an invalid value, without the “secure” attribute. To know more about the “SameSite“ attribute, read https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Set-Cook... analytics.js:35:486 Cookie “_ga” will be soon rejected because it has the “SameSite” attribute set to “None” or an invalid value, without the “secure” attribute. To know more about the “SameSite“ attribute, read https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Set-Cook... analytics.js:35:486 Cookie “_gid” will be soon rejected because it has the “SameSite” attribute set to “None” or an invalid value, without the “secure” attribute. To know more about the “SameSite“ attribute, read https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Set-Cook... analytics.js:35:486 Welcome to Render! Want to look under the hood? https://careers.vtex.com common.min.js:2:169250 Source map error: Error: request failed with status 404 Resource URL: https://io.vtex.com.br/rc/rc.js Source Map URL: rc.js.map

GEThttps://n95.vteximg.com.br/arquivos/favicon.ico [HTTP/2 404 Not Found 115ms]

> How will they ever sell to someone security minded like me that refuses to ever sign up there?

You represent a small enough proportion of the population that it's not worth their time to cater to you.

Probably, their support system mailed me back overnight asking me to use anything webkit based (using consumer terms; Edge or Chrome).

I know that Apple's other webkit fork has to be on the tested path too, but you'd think they could also at least do BASIC validation (does it work at all) against some version of Firefox (even if it isn't the Linux version).

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:95.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/95.0

Small 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.

Thanks for noting, this was our old methodology and I will get that updated ASAP.

We are now removing the subjective feedback and only talking objectively:

1) Does the mask pass the claimed PFE (particulate filtration efficiency) standard that it claims to pass?

2) Does the mask pass the claimed breathability (as stated in the standard they are claiming, ie N95, KN95, surgical)?

3) Does the mask meet other parts of the standard?

KN95, N95, KF94, Surgical, FFP2 and others all have hundreds of pages of standards that they have to meet. Most people don't know what these are but we make masks so I've read all of the standards.

Most masks or respirators fail in #3 and we are working on being specific as to why those are failing but we have about 400 masks posted and the notations are being transposed as I write.

With regards to #3, I found it a bit incongruous that you failed some KN95 masks (like Boncare) for incomplete labeling, while allowing a mask to pass that met a standard that appears to be entirely of their own devising (the Lutema M95i [0]). This seems to be a bit unfair, given that they both performed well in the PFE and breathability tests. It seems like if Boncare decided to call theirs an “MN95” mask, it would have passed too.

0: https://lutema.com/pages/frequently-asked-questions

A few things. The PFE test I'm doing is a 2min test and doesn't tell you what the mask will do under load (all day use). It's really a simple way to tell if the mask sucks but not if the mask is good (if that makes sense).

If someone doesn't label the mask correctly...are they even reading the standard?

The gb2626-2019 standard is 57 pages and in it you have to do a lot of very technical testing. One test requires several days of testing in a lab and is very expensive, but it's designed to make sure the mask performs under actual use (called the loading test).

If the manufacture isn't willing to put some simple words on a mask, do you think they did this complicated several-day test? Probably not.

IMO it's the brown M&M or canary in the coal mine test.

Thanks for the response. I understand your reasoning for failing the KN95s, but then what about the Lutema mask, which uses a proprietary standard? Lutema includes some lab test documents [0] but I can't find any technical information about what results exactly is required to qualify as an "M series" mask. They mostly seem to compare with with KN95 masks, but without really saying what makes them different [1] (note that the testing info on that page are for their surgical mask).

It seems like the "M series" designation is mostly a branding effort to make their masks stand out from the competition, and less about specific technical improvements.

I did look to see if you had a video on this mask but there doesn't seem to be one, would love to hear your take on this unusual designation.

And regarding the Boncare (et al) masks, I suspect the omission is at least partially motivated by style; it makes the mask less conspicuous for mainstream use. The labeling on most (passing) masks tends to be rather obtrusive.

0: https://lutema.com/collections/made-in-usa-masks/products/ad...

1: https://lutema.com/pages/m95-vs-kn95-masks

The Lutema does not claim to have an internationally recognized standard, which is why it "passes" because there is no way to fail it.

The pass/fail column can be considered more of a "is this manufacturer lying?" field. Perhaps it needs another value if it doesn't claim any standards.

No way to fail it but you also can't pass a non-existent test. N/A for cases like this would be more accurate.

If a product claims to be X and doesn’t meet the X standard, it’s not an X and it’s entirely fair to mark it failed.

Otherwise, everyone would just mark their mask however the hell they wanted, benefit in the market, and as long as they passed the MN95 standard, they’d get a passing mark on their “N95” masks.

Related, for those who havent seen, is Aaron Collins collection of mask test data https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M0mdNLpTWEGcluK6hh5L...

I think it's important to point out that Collins is doing on-face quantitative testing, while Armbrust is only testing the material of the mask.

They're not really comparable - a loose surgical mask may be made of good materials and filter well in Armbrust's test, but it's not even worth including in Collins' list because it doesn't seal against the face and won't ever get more than around 60% efficiency. Collins does often test again with a "mask brace" which is a rubber loop that seals that mask against your face, and can achieve similar numbers to Armbrust.

Of course, since everyone has different faces, Collins' testing becomes less valuable the more different your face is than his. But he also has advice for getting a decent face seal.

Indeed. And ideally everyone would get a third party to do a fit test. Or at least do their own self test. But either way Im happy for both datapoints so consumers can filter out obvious junk and then focus on their best available option insyead of starting tabula rosa.

Honestly this is great. It allows to sort by pressure drop so I can pick a mask that has the least resistance.

I enjoyed his youtube channel. He discusses how he does the filtration testing here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4YdtH-ccMU&t=0s

So much focus is on N95 masks, but P100 full-face respirators are AMAZING. I bought one for a home construction project I as doing. I was fully expecting fully labored breathing. To my surprise, my breath was completely unhindered. You also have full visibility and your glasses don't fog up, which is nice. I could definitely wear a full-face respirator all day.

Yes, Elastomerics are awesome but require a completely different machine to test... plus I've found that most consumers will not buy them because of the darth vadar effect.

these don't have filtered output, do they?

So most of them are vented BUT there are some that are not.

GVS sells one with source control: https://www.gvs.com/en/catalog/elipse-p100-with-source-contr...

Most of 3M's stuff does not have source control but I just discovered tonight that there is an add-on exhaust filter to the 6000 series of masks: https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/v101254496/

I wore a 6000 series mask for most of 2020 and 2021 but upgraded to a 7000 series when the elastic wore out on the 6000. Both the 6000s and 7000s are super comfortable. You just might get some strange looks, particularly if you are sporting the bright pink P100 filters. I have not yet been able to find a source control equivalent for the 7000 series.

One great superpower of the 3M masks (6000/7000 etc.) is that wearing one of these while going to a port-a-potty means that you do not smell anything at all =)

Some models (particularly from 3M) can be fit with output filters: https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/v101254496/ I have even seen explicit P100 filtering for these output filters.

Anecdotally I just ziptied a surgical mask over the exhaust on mine and it's fine.

There are 3D print attachments you can use. I used them with P100 filters and tested flow. Pretty damned good.

Others will not trust you, however, so I always carry another mask with me to swap to.

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.

I'm pretty sure a vented mask is at least as effective as a cloth or surgical mask in that regard, both of which mostly contain the aerosol spray rather than actually filter out small particles. I doubt the stores you go to require true respirators?

Apparently the CDC agrees: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/respirator-use...

> Yes, an N95 filtering facepiece respirator will protect you and provide source control to protect others. A NIOSH-approved N95 filtering facepiece respirator with an exhalation valve offers the same protection to the wearer as one that does not have a valve. As source control, findings from NIOSH research suggest that, even without covering the valve, N95 respirators with exhalation valves provide the same or better source control than surgical masks, procedure masks, cloth masks, or fabric coverings.

I'm sure its fine for most situations, but you should be aware: below that entry it states that elastomeric respirators (like you are using with P100) are not included in that category:

> Until more is understood on exhalation valves, elastomeric respirators with unfiltered exhalation valves should not be used as source control in surgical and other healthcare settings due to concerns that air coming out of the exhalation valve may contaminate the sterile field.

That's for healthcare and surgery, not for going to the store...

Thus why "I'm sure its fine for most situations". I just want to make sure that when we're throwing around CDC stuff, we're doing it in context.

Goodness knows enough people are taking expert snippets and doing terrible things with them, I'd hate to see HN become a source of that.

I've been wearing a surgical mask on top of a valved N99 some of the time. That seems to satisfy. Maybe I could put more serious filtration material over the valve though.

I would like to find some affordable PAPR's (powered air purifying respirators). I see a number of places claiming to make them, but none seem that actually available to buy.

It might be interesting to measure the amount of CO2 inside a mask after a person has been wearing it for a while. There are some differences between mask types, but I don't know if any would appear between mask brands and models. Here is a study where they tested some masks that way:

https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s128...

I have a CO2 sensor on order from Adafruit and while try doing some tests like this myself when I can.

I don't see how CO2 or any other exhaled gasses could possibly be an issue if the volume of air inside the mask is significantly smaller than the volume of a breath, which it is by a large factor.

Not anymore with omicron. The rules have changed, your primary focus should be filtering the air you breath. We are two years into this thing and mask compliance for the general public is at the lowest levels possible. You can only protect yourself in public, you have to start wearing masks that protect you primarily.

If you can't catch it (but the mask does), you can't spread it..

Because of course people wearing vented masks wear them whenever they are near another human. It’s not like they have family or friends they spend time with maskless.

Sad, but true. Those who don't care had to leave..

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

The effect is multiplicative. If my mask filters 95% of the air on the way out, and yours filters 95% on the way in, that's 99.75% filtration. Add a HEPA into the room, and you're pretty safe.

Studies show the same too.

Thanks for this comprehensive test!

Here's a (translated) test from half a year ago of the German "Stiftung Warentest" (similar to the US "Consumer Reports")

https://www-test-de.translate.goog/Masken-Welcher-Mund-Nasen...

Surprisingly there's only one mask in both tests as far as I can see: - Kingfa, deemed not suitable by Stiftung Warentest, passed in this test

Not totally sure it's the same mask though.

I'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.

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.

Thanks for this... I tried to answer this here but LMK if I can be more clear: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29878971#29882192

The website says:

> Subjective Scoring: Construction > Ear loop strength, build quality, and comfort. This test is somewhat subjective, which is why we don’t include in pass/fail analysis.

> Smell is not considered as part of pass/fail analysis.

Why is one pass one fail here?

https://www.armbrustusa.com/blogs/mask-review/kn95-powecom-f...

https://www.armbrustusa.com/blogs/mask-review/kn95-allmed-fl...

isn't the passing one worse actually?

From elsewhere in the thread (and on the site's methodology information) it looks like the one that failed was not marked with the information required by the standard, so it fails to meet the standard.

thanks!

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.

If it's on Amazon or eBay, you have no way of knowing if it's fake. Buy directly from a distributor such as https://www.projectn95.org, https://bonafidemasks.com, etc.

If you prefer the KF94 types, I've heard good things about https://kollecteusa.com and https://behealthyusa.net.

There's also Costco which I suspect has control over its supply chain.

That's the biggest problem with Amazon... I honestly would not buy from them. If you find a mask you like, google it and buy direct from the manufacturer.

IMO Amazon is convenient, but this is your health and it's worth an extra step.

@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't ever read the 57 page standard.

If a KF94 fails it is usually because it's not made in South Korea where all official KF94s are made.

Do you consider this to be an important criteria? Are there any practical concerns when buying a mask that doesn't technically meet the spec that I'm not aware of?

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.

Anyone have a scatter plot of resistance vs filter efficiency? Watching each review would take forever. I want to explore the results visually.

This is a good idea... we can put this together for you.

Make sure that however you graph it, up and to the right is better.

Sounds like a PG quote....

PG?

The up and right = better guidance came from a sales guy that I didn’t initially have a lot of respect for. But, he was right. People naturally assume up and right is better on any graph, so present your data in that way.

So, 1/resistance versus filtration? Or how much air is passed through the filter (cubic meters per second) given a fixed amount of lung power.

Paul Graham

The page claims over 99% filtration by some dinky earloop surgical masks, which seems impossible unless they are only measuring the fabric and not the mask as a whole. It definitely seems like the testing method can't possibly account for side leakage, which IMO makes the measurements basically useless.

Useless? It still tells me that the US-made masks I bought from a reputable manufacturer aren't up to spec.

Eliminating the ones that fail regardless of fit is extremely helpful.

Exactly. We can't tell you how it will fit on your face but can tell you if the fabric fails.

You need both filtration AND fit to make a good mask.

Perhaps partner up with someone like Honey (the browser extension). They can then provide your info on every Amazon listing page, and it sounds like just the sort of gimmick feature they'd like to include for good PR.

Lloyd, I very much appreciate all your work and efforts put into this testing! I stocked up on the Powecom masks very early after seeing all their thorough testing and backing and I'm glad that I did. I also went overboard and bought nice high end gas masks and CBRN filters and P3 particle gas mask filters in February 2020 but I've not used/wasted any of those. :)

https://www.armbrustusa.com/blogs/mask-review/kn95-wwdoll-fl...

The review for this mask is a great example of the games on Amazon. The review claims this product is from a well known vendor of counterfeit items. The big claim on this product is that the required printing is not on the mask, so they just write it off then and there. However, clicking the link to the item, the required text is prominitely visible in the image. Somewhere along the way, the vendor must have been made aware of the negative reviews (not on Amazon though), and tried to up their counterfeit game.

Daily, I see more and more reasons to never use Amazon for anything. Luckily, I made that decision years ago, and just constantly am amazed at how it gets even more blatant.

Beware confirmation bias…

sorry. should have included, that i looked up that mask specifically because i have some. they do not have the printed text on them, nor the original images from when originally purchased.

can't be biased if i have like physical evidence of it, but in this post fact world, i guess that might not be worth much???

You have a valid measurement. Whether that measurement is confirmation that you shouldn’t buy anything from Amazon is where the possible bias comes in.

For another set of data, NIOSH, the official US government agency tasked with certifying respirators and other PPE, has tested and released a large set of data, including masks that were already in volume production before the pandemic:

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/respirators/testing/default....

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/ppecase.html

They did not test every one as they missed what I got last week:

GVS N31000 Segre Folded N99

So far they are great. Snug fit but not horribly uncomfortable like some N95s I have worn. They also have a plastic do-dad that so far has kept the straps from breaking off (all so common to N95s). Short use period of a few days but no issue with the metal nose piece either.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08PH37ZLK?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2_dt_b_...

Got the HDX N95 mask for a con over weekend I was nervous about, so very happy with its test results. First time I've used an N95, and first time I've shaved in quite a while. I now understand how difficult it is for healthcare workers and others wearing these for long periods of time. I didn't have an issue with breathing, rather my face hurt after just a few hours, primarily cheekbones and nose, and I wore it for many hours more than that over multiple days. To know it was an effective mask is comforting.

I was lucky enough to find some of those 3M Auras at a local hardware shop. They are like $2 a pop, but everything about them is nice -- materials feel great, I find the inside volume is enough that I can breathe easily, they don't stick out like a beak (IMO having the beak style ones in my field of view is annoying). 10/10 mask, still hope to not need them sooner or later, but given the state of the world would buy again.

great mask would recommend

Don't see any of the masks I've been buying off Amazon for a while:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08H3WDXMS/

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B087Z7N4XF/

Maybe because not sold by Amazon directly?

Your second link completely looks like another similar item that we've been buying, down to the box graphic design (but with obscured brand name) ... https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08JZL41H8 . Just under the "10 PCS" in the lower-left corner on the front ours says "MAXBOOST N95", implying maybe the brand name is "MAXBOOST"?

Further details if you care to compare:

    * manufactured by:  Suzhou Fangtian Industries Co., Ltd.
    * distributed by:  Endliss Technology Inc.; 30773 Wiegman Rd.; Haward, CA 94544; USA

I haven't seen them... second one looks legit to me.

This is great, and thank you for going out of your way to do this.

There seems to be some minor issue (I think) with the table you present on the page.

I just watched the test done on the Gerson N95 Model 3230+ mask, and in that video you mention that you had just done a test on the Gerson N95 Model 3230.

However it does not seem to exist in the table. Perhaps there are more missing?

It's there, but it's missing the word "Gerson" in the description so it's easy to miss. If you search for 3230 you'll find it: https://www.armbrustusa.com/blogs/mask-review/n95-gerson-duc....

my favorite mask, the Moldex 4200 is not listed. This is the only mask that does not fog my glasses

(used to be a lot cheaper)

https://www.amazon.com/Moldex-4200N95-Disposable-Respirator-...

I only use Moldex. But got downvotes here. Moldex are made in the States, in fact, in Culver City, Southern California. Well, materials might be coming from China, but it's a reputable brand, easy to put on, and take off, unlike 3M!

We've been avoiding buying masks from Amazon because they don't do a good job of dealing with fakes (commingling, etc) and they've argued that unlike other retailers they're not responsible for counterfeits. What do you suggest people do to ensure that the masks they get are authentic?

That's a real trove of information!

I see there are no cloth masks tested. I'd love to know how useful they are (or can be) as I much prefer being able to reuse my masks.

Edit: just realised that both Type and Style can be cloth and the cloth ones are presumably all under Style. All of them failed :(

Cloth is pretty useless... here's a neck gaiter compared to a surgical mask: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40gAXGOlEmI

Also tested my kids minion pillow case which beat the gaiter :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK_WryN-Y40

That's what I suspected... it would be instructive to include the cloth mask on the chart, just as a comparison to show the difference.

you can reuse n95s, nurses do it all the time. let them sit near a sunny window, off-smells will dissipate in a day. each mask is good for around 8 hours of continuous usage, but it's likely that the mask becomes too soiled before the electrostatic charge is neutralized.

In a non-healthcare setting the lifespan of an N95 is way longer than 8 hours perhaps 30-40.

Generally the idea is to get a new one when it becomes noticeably harder to breath.

Generally for COVID use, as opposed to say, construction, I find the mask will physically fail (e.g strap breaks or stretches too much, nose foam detaches) before the filter media is close to being used up.

Awesome!

I'm having some issues on the Search Brand part (Pixel, Chrome) it's not clickable and I'm unable to scroll down past that point.

But it works great on Firefox.

Also, I don't see the Envo masks - but they aren't on Amazon. Any chance to expand beyond only what uncle Jeff sells?

Just one kids mask passing for 95. Interesting.

Does anyone know if any passing good ones on the list are just a bit smaller for small faces? Not super tiny like for small kids.

This deserves more attention. Thank you for this.

Amazon being Amazon, I was wondering was whether it’s possible to distinguish real N95 and KF94 masks from counterfeits.

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.

I know you're also manufacturing masks but it'd be helpful if you pulled whether it was in stock and the price/unit from Amazon API

I'm not seeing anything but a list of mask names with no other information. Has the site fallen over? (Chrome 96 on MacOS 11.6)

It wasn't optimized for mobile but is now... please LMK what you think!

Not mobile — Chrome 97 on MacOS.

One of the best mask I have found is Cloud Mask. Super light weight, highly breahable and doesn't fog up my glasses. It's also the most expensive mask in this format. Is it possible you can add this one?

https://www.amazon.com/ORIGINAL_MESH-Airflow-Breathable-Comf...

Consider adding (affiliate) links to ones that did well, ordered by availability or price.

Why Amazon doesn’t do this is beyond me.

I had wanted to do this.. cause, money... but I felt that took away our credibility.

For a random consumer opinion I dont think collecting marginal payment on sales leads hurts credibility per se. The huge red flag for me is taking payment from manufacturers. But an adequately disclosed commission, applied equally to different masks, doesnt obviously introduce bias in to your test results. I guess it could induce you to recomend higher priced masks. But readers have the qualitative data available to select comparable, cheaper, products as well.

Perhaps you could provide two links. Once with affiliate tag and one without? Give users the information and the choice.

Oh ha this is a good idea

I guess the key is to make it easy for people to pick any decent mask. I’d prefer yours, but, as you say, you’re already selling at capacity.

I don’t care either way if you make a few percent off a sale of a competitor’s mask, and there’s no obvious conflict of interest, at least as long as there’s some mask on Amazon that works and isn’t sold out.

Thanks for doing all the tests!

Can you also list the worst filtering masks? Or the masks that let air through with the least resistance?

I can't name the instituition or lab but for the purposes of protecting us from COVID their results showed 100% failure of all masks because of both lack of proper fit and inconsistent manufacturing quality. Especially from KN95 masks made in China.

Essentially mask are useless long term for COVID protection. Short term they may slow some spread but that is it.

How to see the ones that failed?

Just realized you dont see the full data set unless you are on desktop...

Not exactly surprising that a majority of the "fail" masks came from China.

Especially since the majority of masks come from China.

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.

Was funny today at the post office this old guy took his mask off, cleared both nostrils like blowing with his fingers and put his mask back on like wtf... Oh well. Then he touches the pad that you pay with oh man...

IYKYK

I've been buying masks from Armbrust since early in the pandemic. I didn't trust anything on Amazon, and I wanted something made in the US, on the theory that the high-quality stuff made in China would be less likely to be exported.

I have a stack of 50ish Armbrust masks after learning about them last year. Every single one i wore failed at the strap weld within a few minutes. I’ve got a big head and they ran a little small, but this was pure QA fail.

I’m guessing they’ve fixed it since then, but i don’t see how people can release products without testing them.

Yes, it took us a long time to get it right... manufacturing is hard but that's why we have an earloop guarantee. Write support@armbrust.com and they will refund you or get you a new order.

Appreciate you replying. I think I found your company by a video you (?) posted about the magic of the meltblown process which sent me down a pretty entertaining rabbit hole.

I had some issues with import masks previously so I went deep with an order of the denim colored masks thinking this would get us squared away. It was extremely frustrating when I couldn't get a single one to hold together and wasn't sure if I just got took by a bullshit story or you all were just going through growing pains. I'm glad to see it was the latter and am really glad to see some domestic manufacturing stood up.

I'll give the earloop guarantee a shot and get a few on your tab. Would love to get a steady supplier, it's always hit and miss around here. If you have any suggestions for big head folks so we don't look like walking wingnuts I'm all ears...literally.

Yes! Use these: https://www.armbrustusa.com/products/armbrust-ear-savers

Screenshot this post and let support@ that I said to include a pack for free with your earloop replacement.

Behind the head is much nicer than behind the ear. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one that thinks this

I've had a lot of strap welds break on all kinds of masks. I fix them with hot melt glue and they are as good as new.

I just stab a hole in the mask just inside the weld spot and tie the elastic to it. Works surprisingly well when I'm in the produce section at Kroger. XD

I wonder if that is more likely to cause an air leak than fixing the strap with glue. I usually have a few spare masks with me in case one breaks while out of the house. In practice the straps usually break when taking the mask off or putting it on, not while wearing it. So I'm unlikely to experience breaks at Kroger ;).

Moldex is made in US and the mesh support requires more work to counterfeit.

Looks cool too!

Just went down the list from the top on Amazon looking for masks in black. A lot aren't there, some have way out delivery dates. Dr. Smile, Lutema (flat fold!)and KN Flax are the first to pop up though delivery dates are next week.

This 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.

I agree but many places, IE, schools, have terrible ventilation... also I own a mask factory so my bias is going to be providing info on mask filtration :-)

Tested by someone with a prominent beard, no less.

This is great. Thanks for sharing!

Full disclosure:

I intentionally keep the metal stripe unbent to create two air gaps to both sides of my nose for more comfortable breathing.

Cheers!

If you are wearing glasses that will fog them up real quick. There are even 3d-printed clips to make them even more tight.

I am a huge gan of Modlex and I've been wearing their N95s without getting infected.

This is great! This is what I wanted to see early on in the pandemic. Just curious, why test now? This would've been (more) useful a year or two ago.

This data set took me 2 years to compile but just recently seemed complete enough to post.

Got it. Thanks for doing this!

What’s the best mask for not caring about Covid but wanting everyone to think that I do? Is there a perfect balance between “double masking” and “American Flag Print Bandana”? I don’t want to go medical grade but I need something surgical that really evokes me in the trenches risking my life shopping at TJs.

You can buy cheesecloth masks on amazon. They aren’t really any more comfortable though than a surgical mask.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com