Відео

@@cassmacdonald-perfectlyimp2486 Thanks. This video has been out for a while, and they have since updated their instructions with best practices advice.

I don't have any data on how quickly the valves move, but we know that they work because exhalation valve leakage would show up in PortaCount fit test as a reduction in Fit Factor. NIOSH tests exhalation valves using a static pressure test which requires the valve leak less than 30ml of air per minute under a prescribed vacuum pressure. So, engineers and regulators didn't for get to check to make sure valves work at protecting you. However, that being said, valves are a potential point of failure. In high dust environments, lots of build up can cause exhalation valve leakage if not properly maintained and cleaned as needed. And I've had some valves in knockoffs of 3M masks leak significantly - which was revealed in the fit test. It's on my Twitter but I can't link to it because UA-cam will flag this comment as spam if I do. So, a valveless "source control" respirator reduces one possible point of failure.

Thanks for the reply Gerard, yes, I thought after writing that comment that any ingress of unfiltered air would be reflected in your machine, this appears not to be the case which is reassuring. On reflection, my main issue has been poor fit very similar to your experience with GVS mask, the Stealth P3 (UK) has a similar profile around the chin. Not sure if these are available across the pond, but JSP Force 8 half mask I found to be very good, soft seal which goes under the chin proving a reliable seal, one for future tests perhaps, cheers

@@naturesmoments1297 I've had the same experience wit the Trend Stealth, which for reasons that I can't figure, has a very narrow shape like the GVS. The narrow shape is a bit baffling for a mask meant for a wide range of people. I'm not sure if the JSP Force 8 might be available in the US, perhaps under a different name. We do get the JSP Powercap Active, but I've not seen the half masks.

Neat :-) I'll be interested to hear how the unit works.

Hi, thanks for the question. I do plan on testing some more air purifiers. However, I have a backlog of different things to test, and limited access to multiple models of air purifier. So I'll will test what I can. This video was made possible by engineer and manufacturer Adam Wong, who made the unsolicited offer to send me a test unit, without any conditions whatsoever. There is always a bit of a risk of bias when reviewing items sent by manufacturers, which is one of the reasons I think disclosure is important.

Hi, what do you have in mind? I enjoy getting a chance to test masks I've not tried before, but I always try to give the caveat that my tests primarily show how they fit me, though the testing can give some general insight in to the qualities and performance of individual makes and models of mask.

They don't specify why in the instructions but it is possible that higher airflows cause more turbulence, drawing in more outside air. I've not had a chance to test all 3 air speeds at all 3 distances, so I'm not sure why.

@@gerardhughes thanks! maybe I will ask them and see if I get a reply!

Thank you so much :-) I didn't realize it had been over 220 days since I last posted on :-O

This is the first I've tested, so I don't have similar test data for any other models yet. I think the ReadiMask mask nose only hack is your best bang for the buck. Especially if you practice ahead of time on how to breathe just through your nose. Although I am naturally a nose breather, I find that I do subconsciously inhale through my mouth when talking, so that I can talk without long pauses. It takes conscious thought on my part to avoid doing that to breathe only through my nose when talking.

That is definitely an issue that I want to highlight with this air purifier. I can feel the flow on my face, but I know from testing, with real-time feedback that the actual zone of purified air is just a narrow section within that wider airflow. It's a bit counterintuitive if you don't have a way to visualize it or test it. I would not have known without these experiments.

@@gerardhughes I never thought of air mixing and venturi effect to be an issue before I tested one. After testing, its so obvious. Put a fan blowing next to a pile of flower and you'll get a white face. Even if it is a purifier, the pressure difference is still there.

Yeah I think something optical would be a great idea. The spacing on this is so critical, that one would even have to take parallax into account. Aligning your right eye or left eye to the center of the device could put your mouth off axis.

I tested using the recommended fan speeds, but did not do comparative tests to see what difference speeds make on axis or off-axis. So I don't have an answer for that question just yet. Higher airspeeds can increase turbulence, so I'm assuming there was good reason for the recommended airspeeds. More testing would be needed to double check that. I think the device could benefit from a tripod mounting socket. I plan on testing this in the most idealized manner possible in a future video. But it's going to be tricky because it's not easy to position them exactly where they need to be. Respiray make a small neck worn air purifier that provides about 50% reduction in particles in the breathing zone. It's compact and light and sold for allergy symptom reduction. 50% reduction is likely more useful for allergies, where there may be a linear improvement in symptoms based on reducing the amount of pollen by half. But it's less effective for reducing the chance of contracting an airborne disease, where a 50% reduction is helpful but likely to be insufficient. Some hobbyists have worked at creating more robust neck-worn devices. If eating in a contaminated environment is the goal, then the best solution may involve more enclosure to better prevent the mixture unfiltered ambient air in with the purified air. It may be possible to use a powered air purifying respirator hood with the chin portion removed to allow access for eating, perhaps using one of the "CAPR" PAPRs sold for healthcare use.

​@@gerardhughes thanks for the answer and the test; yep the best solution would be a collective one. I can see this maybe as risk reduction for a space that has already decent air renewal and is not already high risk

Yes, I think the future of the laminar flow air purifier is the wearable device. It moves together with your body, so don't have an issue with off axis. and it can be very close to the nose. I already worked for half year on that.

@@AdamWongAirFanta ok thanks for the update! will definitely follow this

@@AdamWongAirFanta Interesting, thanks for sharing this.

The genuine 3M elastomeric respirators have "3M" molded on to the front of the mask. The copy, not genuine, I showed removed the 3M logo. No 3M logo means it's not genuine. However, it is also possible for companies that make copies to put the 3M logo back on. So just because it has 3M on it does not guarantee that it is genuine. But not having the 3M logo on it guarantees that it is not genuine. At least that is the case in the US with 3M respirators. It is possible that there may be differences in other countries.

@@gerardhughes It have 3m embossed logo, number code on the mouth side i think it's imported from europe market, also have a little embossed number code on the side of the front strap

These companies change frequently, and none of them have NIOSH approval or quality control, so there's really not a need to mention the specific company because this is something that is common to a wide range of these knockoff respirators. None of the ones I have tried, none of them, have tested as well as the real article. So, even though some of the companies have a chance of being higher quality, from my sampling, I believe the vast majority of them are lower quality. I think by listing the seller name, which is not the same as the manufacturer, people might get a false sense of safety by avoiding just that seller. The same exact product is sold by many sellers under different brands. The way to be safer is by buying the genuine 3M respirator through a trusted sales channel rather than avoiding a single seller with a disposable name.

@@gerardhughes it appeared from the video that you were following a scientific methodology. With a normal testing procedure you would provide the brand and model number of the product you tested. You can't assume all non-3M brands will test similarly (or all 3M models and samples will test similarly); you can only say that a specific number of samples from a specific model from a brand tested in a specific way.

@@ocluke80 You are correct, I do not have a scientific random sampling. My videos based on general scientific methodology and principles, but, to a degree, have something in common with anecdotes when it comes to science. As with mythbusters, I lack the time and budget to do the requisite number of trials to meet statistical significance, hence why I made a video instead submitting my findings to a scientific journal. It would be nice if I could afford to randomly select 20 different knockoff respirators and do the necessary number of trials on each one for a study with high confidence levels. But that's just not in the cards for me. I should add, though, but it is quite common in peer-reviewed published respirator studies for the make and model of the various respirators in the study to be blinded. So it is perfectly within the bounds of normal scientific practices for me to not mention a specific brand or model. So, I am speculating as to the quantity of knockoff respirators that do not meet standards based on my limited testing. However, I am following the cautionary principle when it comes to respiratory protective equipment. I believe it's reasonable and appropriate based on that principle to avoid knockoff copies based on the uncertainty alone. Stick to NIOSH approved respirators, or those approved by other countries with rigorous testing and approval standards, if you would like to have confidence in your respirator but don't have the resources to do individual PortaCount testing on it. If you look at the number of search results for respirator on Amazon, the results are overwhelmingly knockoffs of 3M respirators by companies with random letter names. Again, I don't believe that there is any real value in naming any one of those disposable brands because that would give the false impression that the exact same generics sold by different sellers with different branding are somehow safe. My considerations would be different if this was a limited market, and there was one or just a few bad actors that could be easily identified and avoided. But that is not the case when it comes to respirators on Amazon.

@@gerardhughes I did not imply that you should have followed a scientific journal-worthy, statistically significant experiment. You can still follow best practices, which is to provide the information on the product you were testing. _"Again, I don't believe that there is any real value in naming any one of those disposable brands because that would give the false impression that the exact same generics sold by different sellers with different branding are somehow safe."_ I do not follow that logic. Why would this be the case? You can only make a claim about the product you tested, not other products sold by similar looking brands. It might very well be the case that another product tests similarly, but only the one you tested has any data behind it.

The dentist office must to use PPEs, purifier, and why not ozone to sterilize the place and enforce mask to the customers and test for obvious infected and also the most important TAKE CARE WHAT THEY PUT INSIDE OUR MOUTHS!

Sure, I would love to get a chance to test out the Air 3 when it becomes available. I've been following your development of the Microclimate with interest. I've been impressed that you decided to go the extra mile and transition from making a consumer PAPR that was distinctive, protective and fairly priced for what It was to engineering and manufacturing one that will meet the newer NIOSH PAPR class performance requirements and expand your market to include OSHA compliant workplace use, while still at the same time, better serving what seems like it was your original target market of individuals.

It is possible to do a home fit test with a nebulizer or ultrasonic mister and some fit test solution.

Are you asking about this specific hack, or ear loop respirators in general? A number of people have made various hacks to make ear loop respirators more comfortable. Including hooks to grab the straps behind your head, buttons on the sides of hats or caps to hold the ear loops, cushions for people's ears, etc. However, I generally only wear an earloop respirator if I'm getting a haircut, specifically this hack, so those options don't work for me because the reason I'm using ear loops is to keep the elastics off of my hair out of the way of a barber or hairdresser. Your application may be different, so perhaps those solutions could work for you.

Good luck! I had to do it again for the second video on this hack (still got good results). 😬

Thank you for your feedback. I will keep this in mind going forward. I'm unable to make any changes to the current video, however. UA-cam does not allow videos to be edited once posted.

I don't know the likelihoods for each, but I have read a case study where a person who is allergic to quaternary disinfectants had a reaction to fit test Bitrex. So allergies are possible with either.

I really hope someday 3M will listen to the chorus of voices asking for a black 3M aura :-) They are aware of the interest. It remains to be seen whether or not they will actually do anything about it. They already make a denim blue aura for the Brazilian market for some reason. So it's not a technological reason, it's strictly whether or not they want to spend the money making and marketing them. I think they would sell well. I would buy a bunch, and I would give them away to friends and family as well as promote them.

I have a couple of dentec NxMD masks, so I wound up punching a hole in one of the masks and porting it in the breathing zone between my nose and mouth. Fortunately, I was able to get a number of dentech NXMDs cheaply back when they were first released, and even now they aren't as expensive as boutique respirators like the ElastoMask Pro or AirBoss 100, which I also had to probe by attaching an N95 probe to the mask body. The N95 filter cartridges are so weak in terms of holding the filter into the pinch seal at the edges, that I wouldn't trust trying to port one of the N95 filters. And you can't plead a pleated filter such as the p100 cartridges. Plus, when you port a filter cartridge, it's best practice is to then run an additional tube from the filter cartridge into the mask body into the breathing zone between the nose and the mouth. So it's not necessarily quite as simple as just punching a hole in the filter and using a TSI probe made for N95s. Probing the filter in the cartridge is potentially doable since it's not a valved mask. But it can give you an artificially good fit factor because it's right next to the filter. There are fit test adapters that can fit between the NXMD and the filter cartridges, however, there are a lot more expensive than the actual masks, so for my personal testing it was cheaper just to port a mask than to buy the fit test adapter.

@@gerardhughes Thank you! That's what I figured - looking for a fit adapter for the Dentec turns up one >$500 kit which doesn't make sense (for me) when the respirator itself is $36.

A "loose fitting" PAPR will do all of that. Full face protection from particles and debris - including impact protection. You can wear your glasses normally without leaks. No fogging or humidity build up.. No breathing effort needed. I've seen more and more wood workers wearing them for all day protection and comfort. A 3M TR 300 with a M 206 hard top is one of the best options if you need just particulate filtration. If you need chemical filtration (for painting or other VOCs) you'd need a TR 600. (Some of the hard tops cost more for features you may or may not need. The M207 is heat resistant, that M307 has a rated hard had for working construction) The 3M TR 300 is sometimes under $500 on Amazon, but only with the soft top. The hard top can be bought separately, but is always >$250. The MSRP for the 3M PAPRs is really high, though. I've also seen some woodworkers wearing cheaper alternative PAPRs that put the blower and battery on your head that are less comfortable and not NIOSH approved, such as the Powercap and Trend Airshield Pro, but I haven't used either of those and can't vouch for them.

@@gerardhughes would I need so buy the tube and belt unit for the TR 300?

@@jellyfish2b Yes, with the VersaFlow PAPRs, it's a system. You need the belt pack with the blower and battery and filter, the connecting hose, plus the head top of your choice. Having a hose and a belt mounted blower makes it seem cumbersome. However, It makes the head top much lighter than if you have to wear the blower and battery and filter on your head as in some of those other units I mentioned. Another advantage of having the belt mounted blower is that it helps keep your filter cleaner. It's not right above your work piece, it's behind you typically, so you're going to get less sawdust into it.