[egberts1]

When the tiniest water droplet cannot be stopped by an N95 mask.

After all, the entire length of a single COVID virus is only 70-90nm long.

What was the manufacturer-rated N95 stopping power of particle size again? 95% at 300nm! And it quickly goes south after that.

Also, because of ANY sufficiently virial load, the water droplets are even smaller.

Don't try and pull that nonsense of a human breathing action having cause a Brownian Motion to being able to catch even smaller particles because all cited papers mention unnatural atmospheric pressure (1800 mbar) to achieve this kind of filtering.

So, superiority complex, indeed.

Might as well wear a simple cloth mask. :-/

- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7579175/

- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8436814/

[tiberious726]

300nm is specifically the size the filters are worst at collecting. Below that, _eletrostatic_ forces kick in, and they're much better than 95%.

[egberts1]

Do not confuse “droplets” with “aerosols”, like CDC is doing.

https://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/1_Petty_N...

[egberts1]

Electrostatic seems to have nothing below 460nm.

Maybe Van der Wahl force.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.9b02646

[egberts1]

Citation, please, like I do.

[tiberious726]

It's like the second result when you Google for n95 electrostatic: https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pof/article/32/9/093304/1060745/Rec... (read the first section (not the abstract))

It was actually a really cool story when this happened during the pandemic. The original inventor of the current n95 mask production technique came out of retirement to help out.

[egberts1]

Cool whitepaper, bro.

Too bad that the whitepaper's test sensors only works on particles greater than 300nm.

But it does rejuvenate the mask for another working day and alleviate N95 mask shortages.

But does not measure for virus-sized water-based particles.

[ThePowerOfFuet]

https://www.mpg.de/17916867/coronavirus-masks-risk-protectio...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8452097/

[egberts1]

First link is an article that merely summarize following link. Not exactly the peer-reviewable source.

Second link also has zero “actionable” citation and scarily so, has a paltry 84 citations-by. Making this actionless, “citation-free” paper an even terrible source.

Sole reference: https://www.pnas.org/syndication/doi/10.1073/pnas.2110117118