A good informative article, though take it with a grain of salt. It often weighs specifications and official recommendations over common sense or even evidence.
The article accepts the conjecture that mask 300nm (0.3µm) particle filtering is a minimum with smaller particle filtering being better (that's how standards were formed), while providing evidence that 50-90nm is fair, but notably lower[1].
It largely dismisses self-protection of surgical masks, saying they "may provide more than zero protection", while providing evidence they should be notably better than no protection. Just keep in mind they are likely only a marginal help.
It doesn't seem apparent from the text - the linked aerosol study takes measures to keep the virus aerosolized so it only tests degradation in air. Thus the graphs exclude settling and adhering to surfaces, photo-degradation and other likely faster agents.
2 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 7.6 ms ] threadThe article accepts the conjecture that mask 300nm (0.3µm) particle filtering is a minimum with smaller particle filtering being better (that's how standards were formed), while providing evidence that 50-90nm is fair, but notably lower[1].
It largely dismisses self-protection of surgical masks, saying they "may provide more than zero protection", while providing evidence they should be notably better than no protection. Just keep in mind they are likely only a marginal help.
It doesn't seem apparent from the text - the linked aerosol study takes measures to keep the virus aerosolized so it only tests degradation in air. Thus the graphs exclude settling and adhering to surfaces, photo-degradation and other likely faster agents.
[1] https://fastlifehacks.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/n95-par...