Have you tried Softseal N95 3D respirators? These have been my family's standard "serious" masks since early 2020. We love the tight seal created by the silicone gasket. They're $31.95 for a box of ten masks with valves.
I do wonder how inferior the filtration is compared to the respirators you list. Certainly this one feels much more effective than KN95s which do not seal.
https://softsealmask.com/
I'm only looking at reusable respirators, with the idea that in an extended pandemic you'd need ones that continued to give a good seal across many uses.
I wouldn't compare to a KN95, but other disposable N95 respirators (which should all seal well, though not each mask model to each face shape).
Having never used an officially reusable respirator, I'm wondering what the advantage is over disposable ones.
I use my disposable ones for many hours total, until they either look or smell a little dirty, before I discard them. Do you know if this is significantly bad? I've been assuming not.
With reusable respirators, there's still a disposable filter that you have to replace regularly, right? Plus you have to clean the reusable parts. Do you expect that filter replacement frequency, supply reliability, and cost to be approximately equivalent between N95s and the filters for reusable respirators?
I can imagine the filters are probably cheaper. But it's easier for me to store a few silicone-sealed N95s in the car and house. It's also less unusual-looking to wear them at high-risk locations like the pediatrician's office. Finally, if one gets irreversibly dirty for some reason, it's no big deal to toss it.
I'm not trying to convince you that disposable N95s are better than reusable respirators (though I do feel those particular Softseal ones are less widely known about than they ought to be). I am genuinely confused why people would prefer reusable ones and think I might be missing something.
Is the eponymous difference between 95 and 100 really due to the filtration of the fabric itself? Or is it mainly due to the assumption of an excellent seal on the P100 and only a moderate one on most N95s? A comparison of N95s to KN95s suggests it's not the latter reason, since KN95s have very poor seals; but since that also mixes different countries' standards, I'm not sure it means much.
The big issue with disposables is that supposedly the fit gets much worse with additional wearings, and they start leaking around the edges. They're engineered to be single-use and only have to pass testing in their never-worn state.
disposable filter that you have to replace regularly
The filter lasts for months of continuous use unless you're wearing it in a very dusty environment.
you have to clean the reusable parts
You mostly don't need to clean them -- it's a bit like a hat in terms of how dirty it gets.
Do you expect that filter replacement frequency, supply reliability, and cost to be approximately equivalent between N95s and the filters for reusable respirators?
Replacement filters are generally more expensive than replacement disposables, but cost per use is way lower.
For supply, you can just buy the filters ahead of time. A 2y supply is 1-3 filter changes.
Is the eponymous difference between 95 and 100 really due to the filtration of the fabric itself? Or is it mainly due to the assumption of an excellent seal on the P100 and only a moderate one on most N95s?
Sorry, I don't know!
A well-fitting elastomeric respirator is something everyone should have on hand for emergencies. [1] Primarily for infection prevention, since a future pandemic could be much worse than covid, though they're also useful for smoke. There are a lot of options, though, and which one is best for you depends on the size and shape of your particular face. To help people figure out what they should get, I'll be hosting a fitting session in Somerville on 2025-05-22; write jeff@jefftk.com for location. Drop in any time between 7:30 and 9:30pm.
If you have a beard I recommend shaving before you come: in my testing I couldn't get a full seal with anything more than a short stubble.
I'll have the following masks available for testing:
• ElastoMaskPro: Small ($30), Large ($30)
• Envo Pro: Standard ($41)
• 3M 6200 P100: Small ($17 + filters), Medium ($16 + filters), Large ($19 + filters)
• 3M SecureClick with Speaking Diaphragm: Small ($56), Medium ($61), Large ($59)
• GVS Elipse P100: Small-Medium ($35), Medium-Large ($41)
• Flo Mask Pro: Low-Medium ($90), Medium-High ($90)
• Flo Mask Kids: Age 4-12 ($50)
Some of these are valved masks, while others filter your exhalation ("source control"). There are advantages to both:
Valved masks are easier to breathe in, are less likely to fog glasses and generally build up less condensation, and reduce your CO2 intake.
Unvalved masks reduce your chance of getting others sick. If a mask reduces risk by two logs, both people wearing unvalved masks reduces risk by four.
For some of the respirators you can determine if you have a good seal by closing the valve and seeing if you can still breathe; the 3M SecureClick even has a button for this. For the others I'll have a qualitative fit test setup (hood, sweet and bitter test solution, nebulizer; video) if you'd like to see how well the filtering is working.
Afterwards I'm happy to lend out the collection of respirators and the fit test kit to others who would like to hold their own fitting sessions.
[1] Some back-of-the-envelope math: let's very conservatively guess that:
- A really bad pandemic has at least a 1% chance of happening in
the next ten years.
- If one does happen, having a well-fitting high-filtration
respirator would have a 1% chance of making the difference between you
surviving and not.
- Surviving is worth $7.5M to you.
Then spending $50 on one to set aside now is worth ~$700 in expectation. Plus some benefit from getting to use it in less severe scenarios, and some quality-of-life benefit in a range of scenarios.Comment via: facebook, lesswrong, mastodon, bluesky