Critical Aerosol Theory Profile picture
Jun 18, 2023 22 tweets 9 min read Read on X
1/21 What am I up to? Just testing 5 PAPRs against each other as is normal. All of these offer a high level of protection except one. Highly relevant to the #PAPRbuggy #pramPAPR #PAPR Image
2/21 As I have posted before some of the tests NIOSH performs on these is to make sure the air flow stays at 170lpm to maintain positive pressure and a filter test to see that it is 99.97% efficient. I have confirmed all of these stay at 170lpm with included air flow testers.
4/21 With a portacount I can back calculate the filtration efficiency from a fit factor. The fit factor is a ratio of particles inside and outside a respirator. How we calculate apparent filtration efficiency. 1-(1/FITFACTOR). We can say a FF of 3340 is 99.97% Image
5/21 Now to meet some of these devices. 3M TR-600. Approval: NIOSH. LPM >170. Filtration efficiency >99.97%. Cost to me($575, new open box) from ebay. The fit factors on these devices can reach MUCH higher depending on how you test but this is 99.99%. ImageImage
6/21 Ford PAPR. Approval: NIOSH(emergency use). LPM: >170. Filtration efficiency >99.97%. Cost to me $130 (ebay). It is technically expired. Still works if you have ability to test the filter. Within limits of this test filter is assumed to be 99.99%+ efficient. Still works. ImageImage
7/21 ADG Airboss Flexair. Approval: NIOSH. Some units w/ full approval, some limited. LPM >170. Filtration Efficiency >99.97%. Cost to me: $150 (Facebook marketplace). Within limits of my test: >99.99% efficient. ImageImage
8/21 3M Versaflo TR-300. Approval: NIOSH. LPM >170. Filtration Efficiency >99.97%. Cost to me: ($500 new, open box ebay). Again, within limits of my test: >99.99% efficient. This one always scores the highest though the differences so far are insignificant. ImageImage
9/21 Trudsafe "PAPR". Approval: None- *no one* has approved this or validated its protection or safety. LPM >170(per my testing). Filtration efficiency: ???. This the same configuration recommend in a scientific appearing paper widely shared on Twitter. This is our second test. Image
10/21 First let's review here: I tested this already and found it to have a FF of 4.2 aka 76% filtration efficiency- same score as my surgical mask from Costco. Definitely not real PAPR protection.
11/21 Now for this test I checked all the connections for tightness & missing orings, replaced the filters. Gives a low fit factor of 12, about 91.6% filtration efficiency. Still well below the protection of an actual PAPR. Image
12/21 The Trudsafe accepts standard 40mm filters used by the military, police, & industry. I can not fathom why Twitter experts recommend either Chinese filters or 3M filters with an adapter that is a point for failure. It could leak or snap off entirely. Connection not secure.
13/21 Here we are with the ADG filters which are standard NATO 40mm. Suddenly we see fit factors in the hundreds. 385 here in a "realtime" test I can see effects of adjustments as I manipulate the device and filters. This not PAPR level protection but so much better. Image
14/21 Based on the tests of @FitTestMyPlanet we know that the device leaks. He used a truck bed liner spray to seal the device with risks of offgassing unknown to me so I wouldn't do that. I did place my finger over the charging port for a nice boost in fit factors! Image
15/21 To try and confirm the device was leaking in the frame I connected a drawstring bag to my TR-300 and placed it around the frame between the filters and the power button/charge port. Fit factor above 5,000 now PAPR level. ImageImage
16/21 To try and get the level up there I wanted to try and seal it up with duct tape. Unfortunately not able to fully seal up all the leaks and I don't recommend this since it's temporary. ImageImage
17/21 The proper way to fix this is to use a medical grade adhesive that is used for ventilator parts and has been tested to meet cytotoxicity limits. Unfortunately it may cost as much as or more than a Trudsafe. I am ordering some to try it.
18/21 If anyone has a Trudsafe I would replace it with *any* device with some form of NIOSH approval, especially if you can check airflow and replace filters you can make a better assumption it's offering some good protection. Ford filter can not be replaced/sourced at all.
19/21 It was unethical for so many twitter "experts" including at least 1 engineer to recommend this Trudsafe without having any method to validate its protection. A CPC such as a portacount is the only good way for a DIYer to verify. Would like to see retractions & updates.
20/21 Now that the pandemic emergency has been declared "over" it is common for PAPRs to be sold as surplus or overstock such as in government auctions, by fisher scientific etc. Will become more common. 40mm filters easy to source, can provide info.
21/21 Hopefully can soon offer some further information on sourcing of good devices and update on Trudsafe though I expect it to be cost prohibitive. Questions? DM's open.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Critical Aerosol Theory

Critical Aerosol Theory Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @CriticalAerosol

Jun 28
1/20🧵 Family fit testing Friday is back! 2024 edition! Previously, I did lots of community testing. I am back at it with some major improvements. How? By empowering people to learn how to test themselves and take that skill home their family. Image
2/20 I have set up fit testing kits including: a Portacount 8020A, all accessories, the N95 Companion, custom probe installers made by me and designed by @masknerd , portacount probes given to me by @NukitToBeSure , and a computer for fit testing or data collection software. Image
3/20 We must always remember that the objective of fit testing is to ensure that the mask, as worn, fits to the face. The fit test allows us to determine if it fits and if there is a leak. For me this means to stabilize the sampling tube to make sure we aren't creating a leak. Image
Read 21 tweets
Mar 10
1/11 🧵 On a month+ of extended use of the ZM95S. There has been discussion on which type of masks are best suited for reuse and how the straps/nose seal/mask rigidity place into all of this and if the best masks to reuse are also comfortable. Image
2/11 The ZM95S features a semi rigid frame, an elastomeric like cloth seal, and adjustable straps, & very high fit factors. I speculated that these properties make it ideal for reuse. The straps can be tightened and the filter media provides a generous margin for safety. Image
3/11 My son used the same ZM95S for over a month- 2 to 3 times each week, & each use up to 3 hours. I modified the face seal before the first use. I manually tightened the straps to his face each time. Here it is ported after all that use(20 hours?) Some light wear and soiling. Image
Read 11 tweets
Feb 17
🧵 1/12 Testing of the Zimi ZM95W (earloop only) which is under a newer Chinese kids mask standard. Surprisingly this is not a KN95 like the other kids Zimi I tested. It is actually listed as GB/T 38880-2020, Class W. Follow to see what that means. Image
2/12 You may have noticed your KN95 says "GB 2626-2019" or 2006. It is required for this to be on the mask to meet the standard. This means the mask maker tested it things such as the particle filtration efficiency (PFE) (%) is ≥95%, the breathing resistance is ≤210 Pa. Image
3/12 So the kids masks with GB/T 38880-2020 standard means that: breathing resistance is ≤ 45 Pa for Class F(protective) masks, and no strict requirement I found for Class W(hygenic) masks like the ZM95W- but it happens to be 45Pa. This means the kids masks are more breathable. Image
Read 13 tweets
Feb 3
1/12🧵 The Zimi ZM95S (earloop). My son says "it is 100% comfortable, it is 100% good. I love it". This mask is a KN95 available in headbands and earloops for kids 4-7. Read for more information on the Zimi masks and limited testing results. Image
2/12 The design of the Zimi is modeled after the Japanese Shigematsu DD11V. This type of mask uses a semi rigid plastic frame with nose foam and an outer filter with a cloth-like soft seal. This is becoming a popular design in East Asia. Image
3/12 I was first altered to the Zimi by @noms780, however these are no secret within China. See the excellent threads by @paibangzhu explaining some benefits of this design which may lead to increased breathability and better fit.
Read 12 tweets
Jan 28
1/5🧵A newly published study on N95 reuse is being shared. This does not show that "dome" N95 are necessarily better for reuse vs trifolds. It only shows certain respirator models(all but 3M 9205+ are surgical respirators) worked better for reuse, partly due to strap material. Image
2/5 2 of the 3 "dome" 95 have very sturdy straps (3M 1860, 1860s) and both of the trifolds(3M 1870+, 3M 9205+) have weaker straps. I would always limit reuse on those two models. However to compare different styles for public use you would need to compare w/ similar straps also. Image
3/5 3M Aura 9210+ and Drager 1950 have straps that are suited for some reuse. They can also be far more comfortable. The "dome" style N95 are outdated and the least comfortable- I had pressure ulcers on my nose from using these in 2020. Don't recommend "dome" as first choice.
Read 6 tweets
Jan 22
1/21 🧵 On fit testing my family on Canadamasq Q100. This is a unique opportunity to try something that we don't often use, earloops! Canada has now allowed them under their new standard for respirators, CSA Z94.4.1:21. CSA(Canadian Standards Association). What does it all mean? Image
2/21 In 2020 CSA was tasked w/ creating a Canadian respirator standard. Leading up to this 3M Canada was the only long established big respirator company and new Canadian mask makers had to obtain NIOSH approval. NIOSH gave priority to US applicants over new Canadian mask makers.
3/21 A need was identified both for domestic production and approval of respirators and efforts were also made to improve upon NIOSH standards by incorporating quantitative fit testing, and attempting to meet physiological/functional/comfort needs of the wearer.
Read 20 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(