Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Masks & suggestions for how to use them

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • yielddude
    replied
    Re: Masks & suggestions for how to use them

    Originally posted by gsgs
    with the nanomasks, wasn't that all fraud ?
    I think, I read something like this about emergency filtration products.

    Searching google... I just found this board:
    http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/b...cgi?board=EMFP

    haven't read it yet...

    The nanomask is not a fraud. However, it does not yet have any regulatory approvals. It has been independently tested in labs, but until it receives FDA or NIOSH approval, it will not achieve "universal" acceptance.
    The mask/filters were submitted to the FDA for approval as a class II medical device, and the company is basically waiting for approval before trying to proceed with any commercial transactions. Until this is resolved, the company is more or less in standby mode.
    They did get aqpproval from the Australia regulatory agency in August (TGA), however there was a subsequent issue that arose, and they are now also trying to get that resolved.
    Most think the FDA question will not be resolved until Dec. 20th at the earliest (this would be 3 months from FDA submission).

    Regards,
    yield

    Leave a comment:


  • sharon sanders
    replied
    Re: Masks & suggestions for how to use them

    I think we should be open to all ideas, however, this is an international site and many of our visitors who speak other languages and/or who do not have access to an adequate public health system may rely on us for valid suggestions.

    gsgs- I am glad that you cleared up the point about putting the head in a plastic bag. In no circumstances is this acceptable.

    Never put your head in a plastic bag.

    Leave a comment:


  • gsgs
    replied
    Re: Masks & suggestions for how to use them

    Originally posted by Florida1
    "....a large plastic bag..."

    Please do NOT try this.

    And remember...do not leave plastic bags around small children.
    not the head into the bag, if that's your concern.
    Just mouth-breath into-from it repeatedly through a small opening.
    That should be safe, or not ? Well, I tried it. After a while you
    start breathing more and faster. In a severe pandemic you might
    prefer it over masks for short shopping or visits.

    Leave a comment:


  • gsgs
    replied
    Re: Masks & suggestions for how to use them

    this all should long have been tested and known. We know about
    influenza since centuries, but not how it spreads and what
    interrupts its spread ?!?

    For multiple masks in a row we need a different design, but it can
    clearly be done. Maybe with these disposable N95 and you can
    just put 2 filters in it instead of one ? e.g. North CFR-1 or AOsafety

    I'm not sure, how much it helps, though. What goes through one might
    also go through both.
    For breathing resistance, imagine a long filter formed as a flexible
    tube, which can be bended. Make it longer when resistance is big.
    Close one end of the tube, attach the other to nostrils or mouth.

    Leave a comment:


  • sameo416
    replied
    Re: Masks & suggestions for how to use them

    Originally posted by gsgs
    when one N95 filters 95% then I calculate that two N95
    in a row , maybe in a tube, should filter 99.75%.
    Or two N100s should filter all except one in a million particles.
    Breathing resistence is proportional to the surface of the mask.

    So, shouldn't we be able to build mask-systems of any level
    of protection ?
    The problem with 'layering' masks is twofold. First, breathing resistance is a function of both surface area and density of the filter media. Increasing the number of layers in a mask increases the density of the filter without increasing the surface area, so breathing resistance goes up appropriately.

    Second, the fit around the edges of the mask might negate some of the added filter density. If you increase the breathing resistance in the middle of the mask without improving the face seal there is a chance for increased 'blow by'. I would also wonder about how well the edges of the masks would line up, which might increase this problem.

    Disposable masks are designed to be used by themselves. Layering could compromise the design.

    Rather than focusing on ways to upgrade, perhaps just start out with a better mask. The ultimate in protection would be a full-face respirator with particulate filters. When properly fitted there is next to no leakage and the full-face mask protects against vapour and droplet risks (impinging on the eyes). The breathing resistance also tends to be better depending on the mask design.

    Next best would be a half-face mask with catridge filters.

    These require some practice to use but it is easily done with an instruction book and some rehersal.

    This mask also gives the added benefit of being able to add chemical cartridges such as organic vapour cartridges - these will give you particulate protection as well as protection against some hazardous vapours.

    For the general public who need to occassionally walk-about during a possible pandemic I would feel comfortable recommending a disposable N-100 mask and good hand-washing practice. After each trip out the mask should be disposed of outside your residence, followed by good hand washing.

    The best defence will always be to limit exposure as much as possible. Even with a mask and gloves the key is to minimize the amount of time in public places.

    Higher levels of self-protection would be needed for those who were in deliberate and sustained contact with potentially infectious people. For example, a church group performing outreach to street people during a pandemic would need to consider providing volunteers with training and personal protective equipment (masks, gloves, eye shields, gowns).

    Leave a comment:


  • T. Modesto,PhD
    replied
    Re: Masks & suggestions for how to use them

    I think we need to see more about the research on al of this. My sense is that there will be a number of suggestions that will be offered by numerous sectors of society in the coming time of this medical disaster. We will need to be using common sense about some of this and common sense and fear / panic are not the same thing - frankly not even kissing cousins! Remember that for many, the need will not be on a regular basis for the use of a mask since most will be self-sheltering and not needing to use the ones that they will hopefully have on stock. Only in populated situations will that be a necessity.

    I suggest that we contact OHSA or UP to see what they have to say independently of the information of al sorts that is offered. I appreciate the idea to be offered here for suggestion and I hope we can completely investigate it prior to deciding on the possibility of using it as a resource.
    TM

    Originally posted by Florida1
    "....a large plastic bag..."

    Please do NOT try this.

    And remember...do not leave plastic bags around small children.

    Leave a comment:


  • gsgs
    replied
    Re: Masks & suggestions for how to use them

    with the nanomasks, wasn't that all fraud ?
    I think, I read something like this about emergency filtration products.

    Searching google... I just found this board:
    http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/b...cgi?board=EMFP

    haven't read it yet...

    Leave a comment:


  • sharon sanders
    replied
    Re: Masks & suggestions for how to use them

    "....a large plastic bag..."

    Please do NOT try this.

    And remember...do not leave plastic bags around small children.

    Leave a comment:


  • gsgs
    replied
    Re: Masks & suggestions for how to use them

    when one N95 filters 95% then I calculate that two N95
    in a row , maybe in a tube, should filter 99.75%.
    Or two N100s should filter all except one in a million particles.
    Breathing resistence is proportional to the surface of the mask.

    So, shouldn't we be able to build mask-systems of any level
    of protection ?

    I also built a mask by attaching the filter to a tube in my pocket,
    which I can breathe through the mouth whenever someone sneezes
    or hustles in my neighborhood. In waiting rooms,buses,..
    Most of the time you won't need a mask but mask on-off-on...
    is tedious.

    Hey, my favourite 100% safe mask is a large plastic bag.
    Take your air with you ! It lasts 10-20 minutes, then you have to
    exchange the air. It's light but voluminous. Maybe good for
    crowded elevators, shopping queues,.. but not socially accepted.
    The mouth-tube-pocket mask is better here, hardly noticed.

    Or use compressed air as in the diver-bottles,
    but it weights some kg.
    You can also get Oxygen in bottles. I tried one for 4l oxygen
    in a light box for 4 Euro, equivalent of 20l air, sufficient for
    maybe 5 minutes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Johnny Yuma
    replied
    Re: Masks & suggestions for how to use them

    Here is a nice pdf file on how to fit test a respirator mask:



    It is from this website:



    The National Academies of the IOM (Institute of Medicine) did a study on reuse of respirators---and it is NOT recommended. In a pandemic emergency, however, one can place a plastic shield or cloth surgical mask over the N95 to increase its useful life:
    QUOTE:
    "However, the following steps would allow a person to reuse a disposable N95 respirator if necessary. A protective covering such as a medical mask or a clear plastic face shield should be worn over the respirator to protect it from surface contamination. The respirator should be carefully stored between uses, and the wearer should wash his hands before and after handling it and the device used to shield it. These steps are intended for reuse of a respirator by a single person."

    Leave a comment:


  • kr105
    replied
    Re: Masks & suggestions for how to use them

    > Face Facts
    > By LAWRENCE M. WEIN Published: October 25, 2006
    > Stanford, Calif.
    ...
    > hundred dollars. Such waste isn't necessary. The virus does not
    > survive longer than a few hours on the material used for masks and
    > respirators, so they should be re-used until they disintegrate.

    ...

    ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE!!!!!!

    The influenza a virus (which h5n1 is) can live on surfaces for 48 hours. The following is from a German Study available on PUbMed:

    Most viruses from the respiratory tract, such as corona, coxsackie, influenza, SARS or rhino virus, can persist on surfaces for a few days. Viruses from the gastrointestinal tract, such as astrovirus, HAV, polio- or rota virus, persist for approximately 2 months. Blood-borne viruses, such as HBV or HIV, can persist for more than one week. Herpes viruses, such as CMV or HSV type 1 and 2, have been shown to persist from only a few hours up to 7 days

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

    I get very angry when these academic "publish or perish" persons write articles that are not only incorrect - but they have the potential of indirectly killing people who read them and believe the trash they write. It's outrageous!

    PLEASE do not trust everything you read. The informed consumer is the best one. Research the facts and draw your own conclusions. All the data is out there - you just need to go get it.
    Last edited by sharon sanders; November 1, 2006, 07:17 AM. Reason: changed derogatory references

    Leave a comment:


  • T. Modesto,PhD
    replied
    Re: Masks & suggestions for how to use them

    WOW you need to publish this as an article. Excellent. Thank you so much. I'll never look at a mask the same way!
    TM

    Leave a comment:


  • sharon sanders
    replied
    Re: Masks & suggestions for how to use them

    Thank you very much for this input. Very informative.

    Leave a comment:


  • sameo416
    replied
    Re: Masks & suggestions for how to use them

    Gracious, that is quite a set of questions. I?ll do my best. Please note I?m not a medical specialist but an electrical/aerospace engineer with much safety training from industry and health-care and nuclear, chemical and biological defence training from the military. My experience is mostly in the practical aspects of self-protection and survivability (we called it "STO" - survival to operate).

    >We will face a critical shortage of masks once a pandemic starts and we >need to discuss and explore all alternatives now while we still have time.

    CDC has a good general-public info sheet on masks and respirators available at: http://www.cdc.gov/elcosh/docs/d0500...0/d000570.html

    Particulate masks (like the N-95) have a very long shelf life if properly packaged and stored. There is no reason why you could not store a few boxes of N-95 masks in your ?just in case? cupboard.

    In buying any personal protective equipment ensure that it is certified ? for masks look for NIOSH labelling. This indicates the mask has passed independent testing.

    >What do we know about the nano masks that I am now hearing about. Is >that the n-100 you mentioned or is that something different?

    I had not heard of the ?NanoMask? before but did a bit of research. The company info is available at: http://www.respaide.com/index.htm

    This is a half-face mask with a replaceable filter. The company reports that the filter is 99% efficient but it is unclear what size of particles and what airflow they are using to prove that claim. They mention the filter is tested down to 0.027 micron particle size (a smaller virus) but I can not find a clear statement of what filter efficiency has been proven at that size.

    The filter has been treated with a rudimentary ?nano? particle which is hostile to living pathogens. The company reports that this prevents pathogens from existing and reproducing on the filter surface.

    However, the filters have only a two-year shelf life so could not be easily stockpiled for any length of time. I also note that these filters are not yet certified by an independent test agency and so have not received NIOSH approval. The company claims a high level of performance but independent certification is really necessary before you start trusting your safety to the filter (it may be a great product, but I trust things that are certified).

    A word on filter efficiencies: masks are certified to a NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety) standard that rates masks as providing a certain level of filter efficiency for a certain size of particles at a certain air flow.

    So, the N-95 masks often spoken of will remove 95% of particles with a median diameter of 0.3 micron or larger at an airflow of 85 litres per minute. That is a laboratory-qualified number that assumes the mask is properly fitted and the filter material is not compromised (for example, by being saturated).

    No simple filter system will remove 100% of all sizes of particles. The idea is to reduce exposure and thereby reduce the probability of encountering a sufficient quantity of a pathogen to transmit an infection. To achieve 100% protection requires either a self-contained breathing system or a high-quality multi-stage filter.

    >Are the virus particles of H5N1 small enough to penetrate the N95? N100?

    Yes, any of those masks can be penetrated by a virus as the mask pore size is larger than most viruses. For example, influenza virus is listed as ranging from 0.08 to 0.12 microns in size which is well below the test particle size of 0.3 microns.

    The reason 0.3 microns is used as a test standard is that you will rarely encounter a pathogen that is airborne by itself. Pathogens are usually airborne in droplets of liquid or along with dust (think of the cloud of particles created by a sneeze). The idea is that if you filter out the dust and droplets, you also catch the pathogens.

    The idea that individual viral units are floating around is not something I?ve ever seen documented. Unless something has been highly processed to exist in a form that travels on very fine particles it is not likely these will be encountered in a care-giver situation. You will recall back in the anthrax scares the media was often speaking of the so-called ?weaponized? pathogens ? those which had been processed to remain viable while being easily dispersed.

    Transmission of influenza is done by airborne droplets containing the virus which are around 5-10 microns in size. Those droplets decrease in size after being expelled due to evaporation, and the smaller the particles in the aerosol the longer they tend to remain suspended in the air.

    I?m not a disease or pathogen specialist so that is about the limit of my knowledge in that area (my training on bio hazards was military, so it was less on the why and more on the how of self-protection).

    I have read several recommendations that persons working in areas where they may be exposed to hazardous pathogens should wear at least an N-95 mask, and not a surgical mask. For example, http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol12no11/06-0426.htm .

    >The surgical masks appear to me to look as if they do not have a secure fit. >Is this true?

    All masks only work as well as they fit the wearer, and fitment of masks requires some specialty training. The surgical masks are among the poorest fitting masks ? usually ?one-size fits all? based on what box happens to be open on the shelf (I?ve only ever seen one cart in a hospital that had 3 sizes available). There is air leakage around the sides of the mask which is made worse if it is not securely fitted.

    The N-95 molded masks have a better seal but you have to identify which size fits your face and then wear it properly. The best seal will come from a silicone half-face mask that has been fitted by a mask specialist.

    A note on higher efficiency masks. The N-100 masks have a higher filter efficiency than the N-95 (99.9% versus 95%) but there is a practical trade-off. Typically when the filter efficiency is higher you have greater the breathing resistance (and cost). The mask is less comfortable to wear and more limiting on the amount of exertion you can undertake.

    >What are the most effective alternatives to masks if none are available? >Most of the world will not have access to Nanything.

    You can achieve some protection from improvised masks, since most of the threat comes from rather large airborne droplets. There is an interesting article out of the University of Pittsburgh that outlines how to make such a mask from t-shirts.


    >Under what circumstances would protective eyewear be worn? And which >type is the best? What type of gloves are the preferred? And if there are >no gloves available, how often, with what, and under what circumstances >should the hands be washed?

    There are basically three paths for transmission of a pathogen ? direct contact (i.e. fluid exchange); through the air as an aerosol or droplets; or through second-hand contact of a contaminated surface or person (and then through the skin by a cut or cross-contamination of a mucus membrane).

    The goal in preventing infection is to break those paths. So, during flu season avoiding sick people and washing your hands regularly (while avoiding touching eyes, mouth and nose) helps break the direct contact, airborne path and the second-hand path.

    Health care usually recommend that protective eyewear be worn whenever there is a splash hazard (blood sampling or inserting an IV) or an aerosol hazard (sneezing). The eyewear makes it more difficult for the airborne particles to find their way to your eye and into your body. Likewise for gloves.

    For most people outside health-care settings it is impractical to wear eye or hand protection. Good hand washing discipline and use of waterless hand cleaners is sufficient. Controlling any personal habits of touching near mucus membranes with hands is also important (near nose, eyes, mouth).

    Wearing such protection (and this includes masks) also requires some training to avoid re-contamination. For example, once a mask has been worn in a potentially contaminated area the mask surface must be considered contaminated and can not be touched. Removing protective gloves must be done such that contaminated material on the outside of the gloves is not transferred onto your skin (there?s a neat trick to this that ends up with the gloves off your hands and inside out but it takes practice).

    The reality is that we?re exposed to all sorts of pathogens everyday whether we?re out in public or working in our garden. Most of that exposure is handled by our natural defences and adding regular hand washing and caution in touching your face is pretty good at preventing transmission of infection.

    I hope that is of some help.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowy Owl
    replied
    Re: Masks & suggestions for how to use them

    Welcome Sameo416 and thank you for sharing your expertise.

    Snowy

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X