I have been following this board for several months now and appreciate all that I have been able to learn from it. It has also posed questions that are hypothetic in value and this is what got my colleagues and I to perform the following test on the NanoMask.
I am not going to go into the NanoMasks claimed attributes or NIOSH testing (or lack of.) This test is being performed without prejudice, facts only.
The following is an OPINION based an actual circumstances and tests that have been conducted by myself and nine other professionals. The qualifications are (for myself) a degree in respiratory therapy. For the other nine (to include) two Doctors, three respiratory therapists, and four registered nurses. Of course I asked their permission to post this message, but, of course agreed not to name the Hospital or participants as this is an independent test not sanctioned by the institution and was totally based on a curiosity of the NanoMask claims and its effectiveness.
They also agreed that the public should be made aware of this device as it could be (literally) a choice of life and death.
Okay, lets go. All measurements are approximate.
We pooled our monies and purchased 10 NanoMasks with filters. This was in October. After a two month wait, we received the products from John Hart, a supplier on the Internet. As far as we could tell the masks and filters come from Oregon Digital that is claimed on his site. http://www.buynanomask.com/
The mask itself consists of two pieces. (Not including the filter or straps.) An inner shell that has the consistency of a stiff but semi-malleable silicone and an outer shell with the consistency of a hard but semi-malleable plastic. These two shells separate and the filter is held between them by compression and two “buttons”, one being square and the other circular. The dimensions of these buttons is approximately 3/16 inch x 3/16 inch. The filter has matching holes cutout in the filter itself so you cannot go wrong in attaching the filter.
The filter is then matched up on the inner shell with the square matching square and the circular matching circular. The mask is then squeezed and the outer (harder) shell is mated to the inner mask. At the bottom of the inner and outer masks there is also a male female mating slit in the chin area. At the bottom of the inner mask is an extrusion approximately 7/8 in wide, 1/8 inch tall by approx 1/32 inch thick. These mate in harmony with the outer mask that holds a matching cut out. The rest of the filter is held by compression from the above mentioned components. The filter area now resembles a triangle within the two shells.
The resulting filter area after the mask is assembled with filter is approximately 2 1/8 inch at the bottom of the triangle to 2 1/8 inches measured from the center of the bottom to the apex that rests on the nose. (Triangular configuration.) This was measured in a two dimensional aspect.
Measuring to include the curve at the bottom of the mask we now approach 3 inches at the bottom with the apex going to the “flat” with very little curvature. Curvature at the apex of the mask is negligible.
I should also mention that the “raw filter” measures 6 inches at the widest portion to 3 5/8 inches measured vertically from the center of the wide portion to the apex. (Triangular formation.) When the filter is in the mask, ¾ inch of this filters entire circumference is now covered by the harder outer shell mask.
Straps
Two straps are provided. They appear to be made of surgical rubber and are quite elastic. The dimensions are approx. 24 inches long by 3/8 inch wide. Strap configuration on the outer mask is (measured from the apex of the nose.) to be 1 ½ and 3 1/8 inches centered, on each side. One full side of the mask measured from apex to heel is 4 ¼ inches.
Each end of the strap is equipped with a retainer. However the back (loose strap end) of the retainers has an open slit in the center of the plastic. We’ll get to this part later.
The Test Each individual “loaded” their mask with a filter and then we compared all ten. It took a few tries for some of us, but, we finally got the hang of it.
Now we donned the masks. All had the same problem of the straps popping out of the retainers, thus having to remove the mask to rethread the retainer. This is definitely a two handed many fingers in different locations operation. We decided to do the tests one person at a time.
Having now a person with a mask “on” we asked him to tighten the straps to give a snug but not uncomfortable fit. He ran into the same problem of the straps “popping” off due to the retainer, however, with a little help the mask was on and snug.
Leak testing was done with an instrument resembling a dandelion that has gone to seed. Very fluffy, made of extruded cotton. Smoke tests were also done.
The leak tests failed exhalation at the apex of the nose and the center of the chin area so we tightened the straps. This also failed.
Straps were tightened to the point of circulation failure of the face and exhalation test continued to fail. We also used an ordinary pair of glasses and these would “fog up” on exhalation from the apex of the nose.
Inhalation tests were done with feather, dandelion, smoke, and video. These tests also failed in the apex of the nose and center bottom of the chin area, no matter how tight the straps were pulled, with the chin area being only slightly worse than the nose area. The only success was holding the mask firmly to the face with one hand and spreading the fingers along the circumference of the mask.
We concluded that possibly is was the configuration of his face. Not all masks fit all people. Nine to go.
ALL ten people’s tests failed, in both the inhalation and exhalation tests. No matter how tight the straps were pulled or reseating the mask in many different configurations. The only way to get a tight seal was to hold the mask firmly with one hand and spreading the fingers along its circumference. After removing the mask, the straps had been pulled ever increasingly tight that deep welts were noticed on the participants’ faces. This would not facilitate an acceptable comfort level.
Breathing at rest is acceptable. However, if one was under any stress, the volume and exchange of air with exerted breathing would not be adequate as there is significant resistance to inhalation and no exhalation valve.
So this was a ten out of ten failure rate with a high percentage of individuals face contours represented. The mask seems to be too stiff and unforgiving to facilitate a good seal and the filter area is quite small.
These tests were done with no prejudice towards the product and only the facts as we have seen from testing have been presented.
Remember, this is only an OPINION, from our tests. What you do and use is up to you. It’s our job to care for people. If you use a mask (any mask) also please use eye protection. Your eyes are as susceptible as your airways.
Boy, now this is what I call useful info. An actual systematic consumer test of a product that has been making what I consider expansive claims. Why can’t there be more of these kind of efforts?
good going, Dante. What’s next?
Thank you for sharing your testing methods and results. It is definitely something to ponder! (and a little scary for Nanomask owners)Thanks again!
Sounds to me like none of the many masks (not to mention the goggles & what to do about ear canal exposure) work as they should, they all have their faults and issues. Guess I will just stick to the plan of staying home and if I have to venture out, on goes the NBC suit and full-face mask.
dante,
Good work.
Does anyone have any feedback on the Triosyn T-3000™ Respirators?
Triosyn® resin is a unique iodine preparation that uses the germicidal power of iodine against viral and bacterial threats by thermally fusing pure iodine crystals with the most advanced particulate barrier available. NIOSH Approved P95.
http://www.triosyn.com/usa.php
viralprotein
Dante,
I have been contacted by the manufacturer of NanoMasks. He has taken your complaints into consideration and would like to offer you a new set of reconfigured masks to test, along with the manufacturer’s “best practices” for fit testing. Email me of you want to do this and I will send you his contact information.
I would be happy to oblige and I’m sure the rest of the team would too. I would require 10 masks with 20 filters. We will test with the exact same controls as the first round. Thank You Dante
We are currently involved in a 3M - P95 and P100 test at this time.
dante,
Email me and I’ll get you the contact information.
Melanie, Have been reading the link with great interest since I have invested about $800 in Nano Masks and many filters. Have friends who have done the same. My question is, and would like clarification from manufacturer, on the use of this mask for Bird Flu! You state you have been in contact with the manufacturer and he is offering the study group a “set of RECONFIGURED MASKS’. Are these “different” from what we have purchased??? Also, the “ best practices” for “fit”. No such instruction offered with purchase of these masks. Can they make this available to everyone and “On Line” so all buyers can review?
With the many questions cocerning this mask and the Oregon Digital problems, does the manufacturer not have an obligation to respond? Going to be interesting?
I am eager to hear the results on the 3M Masks.
richard,
I am in touch with the manufacturer and will share everything that I and the testing team learn with all of you here. Since I have not seen the orginial mask, I don’t know what,if any, changes the manufacturer has made or if they simply have crafted better instructions. Whatever we find out, you will all learn about it as soon as we have something to say.
The manufacturer reads this site, so if they choose to address your concerns they can directly or through me.
Just out of interest, why does nobody here ever mention the many HEPA masks that are available from 3M and other companies?
You can see a selection at this url
http://www.westernsafety.com/3m/3mrespiratorypg4.html
However, I am sure there are plenty of places to find these items.
Please explain the hazard of H5N1 to uncovered ear canals? Is this a realistic problem or more an issue of covering all bases?
Does anyone know if Dante posted to a different thread the results of a second test on the Nanomasks? I, too, have a supply, and if the masks in my possession are defective and I should be pursuing replacements, I’d like to do that. In retrospect, I’m thinking they were a poor purchase, but I’d like to salvage something from my investment and if the company is willing to recall their original masks that would be great. I would, though, be hesitant to work through John Hart, given some of the other postings I’ve read.
Extensive scientific nanomask discussion here:
http://www.curevents.com/vb/showthread.php?t=43722&highlight=nanomask
http://www.curevents.com/vb/showthread.php?t=35632&highlight=nanomask
We make THE ONLY non leak Virus Sealed facemask available called VIRAMASK.
NIOSH tests all masks by gluing to test plates yet allows makers to userubber bands.
If you ask NIOSH to fit test these N95 masks they will pass you ofF to OSHA as that is not their jurisdiction. SO WHAT GOOD IS A NIOSH N95 RATING SINCE THEY ONLY MEASURE THE PENETRATION RESISTANCE AND BREATHING RESISTANCE OF THE MATERIAL UNDER IDEAL 100% FACESEALED CONDITIONS!!! VIRAMASK HAS BEEN TESTED BY WORLD EXPERTS. NANOMASK HAS ONLY 15CM2 OF FILTER AREA WHICH MEANS TREMENDOUS MEDIA VELOCITY AND VERY LOW PENETRATION RESISTANCE TO SUBMICRON PARTICLES IF IT WERE 100% FACESEALED. VIRAMASK HAS OVER TEN TIMES THE FILTER AREA .IT USESXMEDICAL GRADE ADHESION TO MOLD PERFECTLY TO ANY FAVE WITHOUT RUBBER HEADBANDS AND IS EASY TO TALK AND BREATHE THROUGH. LOOK UP www.weinproducts.com VIRAMASK
. . . commercial ends. . . Now back to our regular programming
If ya can’t pass the NIOSH test. . .
What do you think about the test they did to kill the Avian Flu?
What’s conspicuosly absent from this report is a statement that the custom-engineered nanomaterial formulation used is the same formulation that is found on the nanomask. My suspicion is that it is not. If it were, there would be much more fanfare, in view of the fact that we’ve been waiting months for this test.
I would like to see Emergency Filtration Products, Inc. have their nanomasks tested against the same virus and share the results.
germkiller – at 03:53 “If you ask NIOSH to fit test these N95 masks they will pass you ofF to OSHA as that is not their jurisdiction.”
NIOSH tests the QUALITY of masks. OSHA makes sure that masks that are NIOSH approved are properly fitted to the workers face.
they should test the filters and masks (how they fit) separately
Closed to increase Forum speed.