***YOU MUST ORDER AT LEAST 25 MASKS - price savings will show up in your cart***

Price Breaks:25 $15ea, 50 $12ea, 100 $10 each, 250 $9 each, 500 $8 each, 1000 $7 each (E)

If you order multiple sizes to reach a better price break, reply to our order confirmation and we will refund the appropriate amount.

THIS IS A FLEECE MASK,which is what Gov Cuomo called foron 3/20/2020.

Fleece masks have been shown to beon par with surgical masks for virus protection- 75%. The N95 mask is rated at 95%.

The CDC recommends changing the N95 mask after each patient is seen. With the current shortage of masks,medical personal are keeping the N95 on and changing a reusable mask like this between each patient visit.

Our fleece masks should be washed between patient visits and can safely be washed with bleach.

Here is information from Oxford Academic, there are formatting issues and we recommend you go to the link.

->https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744

Simple Respiratory ProtectionEvaluation of the Filtration Performance of Cloth Masks and Common Fabric Materials Against 201000 nm Size Particles

Samy Rengasamy,Benjamin Eimer,Ronald E. ShafferThe Annals of Occupational Hygiene, Volume 54, Issue 7, October 2010, Pages 789798,https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/meq044Published:28 June 2010Article history

Abstract

A shortage of disposable filtering facepiece respirators can be expected during a pandemic respiratory infection such as influenza A. Some individuals may want to use common fabric materials for respiratory protection because of shortage or affordability reasons. To address the filtration performance of common fabric materials against nano-size particles including viruses, five major categories of fabric materials including sweatshirts, T-shirts, towels, scarves, and cloth masks were tested for polydisperse and monodisperse aerosols (201000 nm) at two different face velocities (5.5 and 16.5 cm s1) and compared with the penetration levels for N95 respirator filter media. The results showed that cloth masks and other fabric materials tested in the study had 4090% instantaneous penetration levels against polydisperse NaCl aerosols employed in the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health particulate respirator test protocol at 5.5 cm s1. Similarly, varying levels of penetrations (998%) were obtained for different size monodisperse NaCl aerosol particles in the 201000 nm range. The penetration levels of these fabric materials against both polydisperse and monodisperse aerosols were much higher than the penetrations for the control N95 respirator filter media. At 16.5 cm s1face velocity, monodisperse aerosol penetrations slightly increased, while polydisperse aerosol penetrations showed no significant effect except one fabric mask with an increase. Results obtained in the study show that common fabric materials may provide marginal protection against nanoparticles including those in the size ranges of virus-containing particles in exhaled breath.

fabric material,H1N1,H5N1,infectious aerosol,influenza,pandemic,particle penetration,respiratory protectionTopic:

• aerosols
• filtration
• masks
• sodium chloride
• textiles
• ventilators, mechanical
• filters
• n95 mask

Issue Section:Original Articles

INTRODUCTION

The outbreaks of avian influenza A (H5N1) and the recent novel influenza virus A (H1N1) pandemic are major health problems (WHO, 2006,2009). To reduce exposure to infectious influenza aerosols, several government agencies and nongovernment organizations have recommended a number of nonpharmaceutical interventions, including respiratory protection. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends the use of National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-approved respirators for reducing exposure to infectious aerosols such as those that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and novel influenza (H1N1) (CDC, 2001,2003,2004,2009). The use of large number of respirators created a demand during the spread of SARS in the USA (Srinivasanet al., 2004). Recently, CDC predicted that the need for disposable N95 respirators could exceed 90 million for the protection of healthcare workers for an outbreak of 42 days of influenza A (H5N1), indicating a possible shortage of respirators (Bailaret al., 2006;CDC, 2006).

The issue of a respirator shortage during a widespread influenza pandemic was addressed by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), which released a report entitled Reusability of Facemasks during an Influenza Pandemic. Facing the flu (Bailaret al., 2006). One of the recommendations was to conduct research on the effectiveness of woven cloth masks for the transmission of influenza virus because cloth masks may be the only option available for some individuals during a pandemic. Research on alternative respiratory protective materials, including common fabric materials such as T-shirts, handkerchiefs, and scarves, was also recommended (Bailaret al., 2006). In the absence of respirators, some individuals may use improvised common fabric materials for respiratory protection while entering a contaminated environment, such as when caring for an infected family member at home. These household materials are not designed for respiratory protection and their use may provide a false sense of protection because their effectiveness against larger and <1000 nm size particles including viruses is not well understood. This indicates that further studies are needed to better understand the filtration performance of cloth masks and common fabric materials against a wide range of particle sizes, including the size of many viruses.

The knowledge on the filtration performance of improvised materials for particulates is limited, however. Previous studies challenged the improvised materials with large-size biological and inert particles and reported varying levels of protection for different size particles (Guytonet al., 1959;Cooperet al., 1983a,b). In one study, the filtration efficiency of a number of fabric materials was tested using human subjects. The authors reported that the filtration efficiency of single layer of bath towel, cotton shirt, handkerchief, and other materials was in the 2873% range againstBacillus globigiiaerosols of 2000 nm mass median diameter (Guytonet al., 1959). Another study measured the effectiveness factor obtained from filtration efficiency and pressure drop for different common fabric materials using a manikin (Cooperet al., 1983a). Fabric materials were challenged with mineral oil aerosol particles of 4104800 nm diameter size and the effectiveness factor calculated. For many fabric materials including shirt, sheet, towel, and handkerchief, the effectiveness factor decreased with decreasing particle size from 4800 to 410 nm, indicating further decrease in the respiratory protection for virus-containing particles <410 nm (Cooperet al., 1983a).

Recent studies showed that patients, as well as control subjects, generate significant levels of submicron as well as larger size particles including the size of many viruses during breathing, coughing, and talking (Fairchild and Stampfer, 1987;Papineni and Rosenthal, 1997;Edwardset al., 2004;Yanget al., 2007;Fabianet al., 2008;Blachereet al., 2009;Lindsleyet al., 2010). Although some viruses can be quite small (20 nm), they are often generated by humans as larger size particles (e.g. attached to mucus secretions). For example, one study (Fabianet al., 2008) showed 87% of particles in exhaled breath of influenza-infected patients were under 1000 nm in diameter and the rest of the particles larger than that size. Similarly, the transmission of infectious diseases through exposure to smaller and >1000 nm size aerosols has been reviewed (Fiegelet al., 2006;Hall, 2007). Although much debate still exists on the relative contributions of the various routes of disease transmission (e.g. inhalation, contact, and droplet) (IOM, 2009), infected individuals produce smaller size particles (<1000 nm) that can travel long distances and larger size particles (10000 nm) capable of reaching shorter distances. Some individuals may improvise fabric materials for emergency respiratory protection to reduce inhalation of infectious aerosols, indicating the need for further studies to assess their filtration performance against a wide range of particle sizes. In this study, household fabric materials and cloth masks were challenged with polydisperse as well as monodisperse particles in the 201000 nm size range, which include the size of many viruses and initial penetration levels measured and compared with those values obtained for N95 respirator filter media. In this study, we hypothesized that cloth masks and fabric materials would capture some aerosol but would exhibit high variability because they were not designed for that purpose.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fabric materials

Common fabric materials of five major categories including sweatshirts, T-shirts, towels, scarves, and cloth masks were selected for aerosol penetration tests (Table 1).Table 1also shows the fiber composition of fabric materials and the resistance levels measured at 5.5 cm s1face velocity. The fiber composition for cloth masks is not available. Fabric materials for each category were randomly selected from three different manufacturers based on availability. The commercial cloth masks were advertised as pollution and allergen masks and did not make any claim as to their effectiveness for submicron-size particles. It should be noted that none of the other fabric materials was designed to be used as a filtering media. N95 respirator filter media was tested in parallel with the fabric materials for comparison of the filtration performance against submicron-size aerosol particles.

Table 1.

Fabric materials tested for particle penetration measurements

Fabric material	Description	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Cloth mask	Brand name	Respro	Breathe Health	Breathe Health
Bandit Mask	Cloth Mask	Fleece Mask
Fiber composition	Not available	Not available	Not available
Resistance (mm water)	2.00.3	3.20.7	1.20.1
Sweatshirt	Brand name	Norma Kamali Tunic	Hanes	Faded Glory
Fiber composition	85% Cotton/15% polyester	70% Cotton/30% polyester	60% Cotton/40% polyester
Resistance (mm water)	2.00.1	1.10.1	0.40.1
T-shirt	Brand name	Dickies	Hanes	Faded Glory
Fiber composition	99% Cotton/1% polyester	100% Cotton	60% Cotton/40% polyester
Resistance (mm water)	1.60.2	1.60.1	0.90.1
Towel	Brand name	Pem America	Pinzon	Aquis
Fiber composition	100% Cotton	100% Cotton	80% Polyester/20% nylon
Resistance (mm water)	3.80.2	7.90.8	3.70.2
Scarf	Brand name	Today's Gentleman	Walmart	Seed Supply
Pocket square	Fleece	Cotton
Fiber composition	100% Cotton	100% Polyester	100% Cotton
Resistance (mm water)	5.90.1	2.00.1	1.40.1

Fabric material composition and airflow resistance measured at 5.5 cm s1face velocity. 1 mm water gauge = 0.133 kPa.

OPEN IN NEW TAB

Polydisperse aerosol penetration test method

Three samples from each fabric materials were tested for polydisperse NaCl aerosol (7520 nm count median diameter and a geometric standard deviation not exceeding 1.86) penetrations with a TSI 8130 Automated Filter Tester (TSI 8130) used for NIOSH particulate respirator certification (NIOSH, 2007). Penetration levels for 100 cm2samples were measured at two different face velocities 5.5 and 16.5 cm s1corresponding to 33 and 99 l min1flow rates. A standard face velocity of 5.3 cm s1is employed for testing various filter media. In this study, a face velocity closer to this value, i.e. 5.5 cm s1, and a relatively higher face velocity, 16.5 cm s1, were employed for testing the filtration performance of fabric materials. The flow rates are based on the area of the fabric material tested to achieve the face velocities employed in the study. Initial penetration levels of NaCl particles were measured for 1 min with no loading as conducted in the NIOSH 42 CFR 84 test protocol. Percentage penetration was determined as the ratio of particle concentration downstream to upstream multiplied by 100. Polydisperse aerosol is commonly used for filtration performance testing and allows comparison to standard filters made (N95, P2, P3, high efficiency particulate air, etc.).

Monodisperse aerosol penetration test method

Another set of three samples from each group of the same fabric models was tested against monodisperse NaCl particles using a TSI 3160 Fractional Efficiency Tester (TSI 3160) as described previously (Rengasamyet al., 2007). Similar to polydisperse aerosols, penetration levels for 100 cm2samples were measured at face velocities 5.5 and 16.5 cm s1. Initial percentage penetration levels for 10 different monodisperse aerosols (20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 80, 100, 200, 300, and 400 nm) were measured for each sample. These monodisperse aerosol tests were conducted to better understand the filtration performance against <400 nm size particles. This size range is necessary to determine the aerosol size range of minimum efficiency.

Penetration of NaCl particles as a function of particle size from 500 to 1000 nm

Penetration levels for larger size particles (5001000 nm) were measured as a function of particle size. Polydisperse NaCl aerosols were generated using a constant output atomizer (Model 3076; TSI, Inc.) and passed through a dryer, a85Kr neutralizer, and then into the Plexiglas box containing the test fabric material. The upstream and downstream aerosol number concentrations and size distributions (5001000 nm range) were measured for 2 min alternately using a scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS 3080; TSI, Inc.) in scanning mode and an ultrafine condensation particle counter as described previously (Rengasamyet al., 2009a). Percentage penetration was calculated from the ratio of the particle number concentration downstream to the concentration upstream. These monodisperse aerosol tests were conducted to better understand the filtration performance against 5001000 nm size particles.

Data analysis

The data were analyzed using the SigmaPlot(Jandel Corporation) computer program. Average penetration values and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each model.

RESULTS

Polydisperse aerosol penetrations

Average penetration levels for the three different cloth masks were between 74 and 90%, while N95 filter media controls showed 0.12% at 5.5 cm s1face velocity (Fig. 1). The penetration levels increased significantly for the N95 control filter media but remained <5%, while none of the fabric materials showed any significant increase at 16.5 cm s1face velocity.Figure 2shows polydisperse aerosol penetration levels for sweatshirts and T-shirts. Of the three sweatshirts, one model (Hanes) showed 40% penetration level at 5.5 cm s1, which increased to 57% at 16.5 cm s1face velocity. The other two models (Norma Kamali and Faded Glory) showed penetration levels in the 7082% range at both 5.5 and 16.5 cm s1face velocities (Fig. 2a). At the same time, T-shirts showed penetration levels >86% at 5.5 cm s1with no significant increase at 16.5 cm s1(Fig. 2b). Average penetration levels for the three different model towels and scarves were in the 6066% and 7389% ranges, respectively, with no significant increase at 16.5 cm s1(Fig. 3a,b).Table 1shows airflow resistance (in millimeter water) at 5.5 cm s1face velocity. In general, the resistance levels were less than or comparable to N95 filter material employed in the study (9.80.2 cm water gauge; 1 cm water gauge = 1.33 kPa). A cotton towel model (Pinzon) and a scarf material (Today's Gentleman) showed slightly higher resistance levels than the other fabric materials. Slightly higher airflow resistance levels were obtained at 16.5 cm s1.

Fig. 1.Open in new tabDownload slide

Polydisperse NaCl aerosol penetration levels for cloth masks at two different face velocities. Error bars indicate 95% confidence level.