Are Inefficient Masks the Hub Merely Redirecting Viruses to the Spokes

Little Available Research on Droplet Evaporation from Inefficient Mask

Small HEPA Air Purifier that can be Hung Around the Neck

Smart Air Reviews a Personal Air Purifier and Sheds Light on COVID Protection

Smart Air has Analyzed Air Pollution Levels in China for the First Six Months of 2020

Are Japanese Pitta Masks Effective Against Air Pollution?

____________________________________________________________________________

Are Inefficient Masks the Hub Merely Redirecting Viruses to the Spokes

Our mask webinar next week is slated for 10:am on Thursday.  More details are shown at   http://home.mcilvainecompany.com/index.php/other-services/free-news/news-releases/47-news/1603-nr2595

One of the subjects for discussion will be the measurement of one stop mask efficiency vs direct flight. An airline passenger can fly from Seattle to Atlanta where he infects the recipient.  Without a mask the Atlanta recipient receives the full virus load. But most Seattle to Atlanta flights stop in Denver. So in this example with the mask being Denver the full virus load lands in this hub. But what happens to it subsequently?

As the millions of deposited viruses start to evaporate or catch the flight from the hub some will end up in Atlanta but others will end up in Chicago and Dallas. In all likelihood an inefficient mask acts as a hub and distributes all the virus passengers in a cough in many different directions.

The original guidance of CDC that masks should be used primarily to catch the large cough and sneeze droplets is based on the assumption that it takes millions of viral particles to infect someone. Furthermore it was originally presumed that viruses will not be airborne and if they are they die quickly. All of these assumptions have been proven to be inaccurate.

With the one stop or hub and spoke flight pattern you more than likely have only thousands or hundreds of virus particles reaching  Kansas City or Albuquerque.

However, if every infected cougher is wearing a cloth mask there will be many transmitters generating hundreds or thousands of viral particles. The recipient may be receiving the millions of virus particles over time from many different transmitters.

Some studies in hospitals address the cumulative effect and conclude that it is significant. Others establish the long distance travel and survival of viruses. Other studies show that some viruses become dormant but are revived by the moisture in the lungs. This deep penetration can lead to more serious infection than larger virus droplets in the nasal passages.

Another way to analyze the problem would be the example of an infected healthcare worker and an elderly non infected patient. The worker is with the patient for an hour and coughs into a mask. Over the hour the patient may receive as many virus particles from the worker as he would have received in the initial cough if the health care worker had been mask less.

Hopefully participants next week can fill in some of the knowledge gaps along with discussing a procedure to measure the one stop flight phenomenon.

 

Little Available Research on Droplet Evaporation from Inefficient Mask

You would think there would be extensive research on what happens to large cough droplets captured on the mask internal surface. But McIlvaine researchers have found no direct analyses and only ones of tangential benefit such as the following.

In a 2006 study, bacterial survival in large evaporating droplets on Teflon-coated slides was measured using the BacLight solution and a microscope. Acinetobacter sp. 5A5, E. coli K12 JM109, P. oleovorans X5, and S. aureus X8 suspended in distilled water, 0.9% saline water and 36% saline water were tested. Over the first 35–40 min of droplet evaporation, the viability fluctuated slightly around 80%. Most of the bacteria died when the droplets were almost dried out. The viability after drying depends not only on the bacteria species but also on the salinity of the suspension solution. This survival pattern revealed that the initial evaporation of a droplet has no effect on bacterial survival. Damage caused by desiccation is the most important mechanism.

During coughing and sneezing, for example, the droplets ejected from the mouth usually contain saliva, foreign material, and substances such as mucus or phlegm from the respiratory tract. These components will affect droplet evaporation. Further work will determine the survival patterns in artificial saliva droplet, as well as the influence of pH value and undissolved small particles. This work is useful to identify an appropriate engineering method for more effectively controlling disease transmission due to large droplets, and thus minimizing the risk of cross-infections in areas such as hospital wards and isolation rooms.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7080038/

 

Small HEPA Air Purifier that can be Hung Around the Neck

LIFAir  has a small air purifier which can be hung around the neck and delivers clean air into the breathing zone. The company says it is more powerful than any other mobile air purifier, 6GCool catches all particulate matter as small as 0.01 microns. In comparison, conventional N95 masks can only catch PM2.5 or larger, leaving a lot of undesirable particles unfiltered into your body.  The 6G filter technology is the culmination of their 30+ years of experience with air purification.

The idea for 6G was simple: to take the best air purification technology and see how small a space they could fit it in. LIFAir  wanted to include an ionizer for charging the particles, traditional HEPA filtering to stop some of the more common air pollutants and finally the latest PECO filtration technology to capture and kill the remaining particles.

After months of prototyping and testing, the concept of 6G started to take shape. It still took well over a year to make the technology work seamlessly. Then the whole world got caught off guard with the COVID-19. Temporarily, the company  had to direct all resources into making millions and millions of face masks, working round the clock, and shipping them all over the world. LIFAir even opened a brand new factory in Finland to serve the growing need of N95 masks in Europe.

It will be interesting to see a study similar to the one on The IQair Atem  shown below. Since this device is very close to the nasal passages it should provide some measure of protection.

LIFAir was founded in Helsinki, Finland in 1988, with a focus on improving indoor air quality. Through outstanding research results, LIFA has made significant contributions for Finnish indoor air quality standards. LIFAair purification products were used in the military applications and later more widely in the  commercial field.

 

Smart Air Reviews a Personal Air Purifier and Sheds Light on COVID Protection

Personal air purifiers could be a way to protect against COVID. But the question is can enough clean air be supplied to  provide protection. We found one example which helps us answer the question.

The Smart Air blog has an analysis of a competitor’s device. A number of pertinent points are made in the analysis. We believe they are worthwhile showing despite this potentially biased viewpoint.

Paddy Robertson is the CEO of Smart Air, running operations from Beijing. He has a Masters in degree in aeronautical engineering from Bristol University, UK having specialized in aerodynamics.

The IQAir Atem is a personal, portable air purifier that’s new on the scene. Recently, air-breather Vincent asked Smart Air to review the IQAir Atem, which IQAir calls “the most effective personal air purifier.” 

Robertson said “Being the data nerds that we are, we decided to get some data to help us answer the question. Unfortunately, since the Atem costs 3,680RMB (550USD) in China, we just didn’t have the budget to buy and test an actual unit. However, in true Smart Air fashion we DIY-ed our own version and put it to the test!

Here’s how we can break down Vincent’s question:

1. Can the IQAir Atem clean a small room? Looking at the official numbers from the IQAir Atem tech specs, the Atem has a CADR of 13 cbm/hr.  That makes it good for a space up to 1.4 sqm according to the AHAM 2/3rds rule.

In short the IQAir Atem can’t clean rooms. With a CADR that low, unless you’re living in a closet, it won’t clean the air in the entire room. “But wait” says Robertson  “I’m kind of missing the point. The IQ Air Atem wasn’t designed to clean a whole room (IQ Air customer confirmed this in a chat).

 

So let’s get to the more important question. The IQAir Atem is a portable purifier. It’s only supposed to shoot clean air into a small area around the purifier, giving clean air to whoever’s sitting next to it. If this is the case, there shouldn’t be a need to clean the air in the whole room. This method could be more effective and efficient than cleaning the whole room, but is it?

2. How effective is directing clean air at your personal space? IQ Air isn’t the only company to think of this idea. Several kickstarter projects have sold the idea of portable purifiers that direct air into a single space, such as the Wynd portable air purifier:

To find out how effective it is to direct air in a specific direction,  Robertson  modified the Smart Air Blast Mini to mimic the Atem.

Then Robertson tested the air flow. The air coming out was strong. Windspeed was 3.52 m/s out of the nozzle. For reference, that’s what the air flow would feel like if you were standing about a step away.

That means the machine is putting out 25 cubic meters of air an hour, based on the size of the nozzle. That’s pretty close to what the Atem gives on its high setting (30 cubic meters per hour). From this we deduced that our prototype gave a decent replication of the Atem.

Next Robertson used a laser particle counter to measure the particulate at different distances away from the Atem-style nozzle. And then plotted this data on a graph, showing the amount of clean air delivered for increasing distances away from the fan. Here’s what was found.

At a distance of 30 cm from the purifier, the air was about 50% cleaner than the air in the rest of the room. That’s all right, but it’s far below the results of purifiers cleaning air in the whole room.

But remember, 30 centimeters is the length of an average ruler. That means this thing is blowing right on your face. You’d be so close you could swing your neck and bite the air purifier!

At a more reasonable distance of 60 centimeters (about the distance of an outstretched arm), the reduction in particulate was 25%. Once you get out of arm’s reach (70 centimeters away), the effectiveness drops below 20%. Below 20%, a lot of people would say the reduction is so small it’s not worth the hassle.

Noise: The IQAir Atem does well at noise. On high, it’s 44 decibels. That’s a comfortable level for most people, which is good considering it’d be sitting right next to you.

Size and Weight: The Atem is designed to be a personal space, portable air purifier. If you’re always on the move or have to commute to and from work, the Atem would need to be portable. So is it?

The Atem is bigger than an average laptop. Most laptops are 9 x 13 x 0.8 inches. The Atem is 12.4 x 11.8 x 5.5 inches (31.5 x 30 x 14 cm; IQAir tech specs). It’d be tough fit that in a backpack, but it could fit into a suitcase, which IQ Air portrays on their website:

The Atem weighs a whopping 6.3 pounds (2.8 kg, including the stand and power supply). That’s like carrying three 2015 MacBook laptops in your bag (specs). So it’s not impossible to carry around, but it would be heavy

https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/iqair-atem-purifier-review-effective/

Smart Air has Analyzed Air Pollution Levels in China for the First Six Months of 2020

On paper, China’s “war” on air pollution is still underway. But with COVID-19 disrupting the first half of 2020, have pollution levels really dropped? If so, what’s the real reason behind any improvements in PM2.5?

Smart Air analyzed PM2.5 data for 11 of China’s major cities, revealing average PM2.5 levels reduced 9% year on year compared to 2019.

 

The most likely reason for this apparent success in reducing PM2.5 levels are:

1. COVID-19 lockdowns reducing air pollution: during the lockdown, the emission of automobile exhaust gas and the suspension of the factory helped reduce PM2.5.
2. Beijing’s continued push to lower the countries’ PM2.5 levels. For 2020, they set a year on year reduction target of 4%. The first half of the year has exceeded this target by two times.

City by City Analysis of China PM2.5 – 2019 vs. 2020 (First Half)

Breaking the data down city-by-city, only two cities saw an increase in PM2.5 levels compared with the same period in 2019: Shenyang and Harbin.

 

Month by Month Analysis of China PM2.5 – 2019 vs. 2020 (First Half)

Why the increase in pollution levels for Shenyang and Harbin? Analyzing the data month-by-month shows that these two cities had a very bad January and April. Despite the reduction in PM2.5 in other months, January and April pulled the average PM2.5 for these two cities above last year’s levels.

 

Wuhan:

Wuhan saw the biggest drop in PM2.5 levels of all 11 cities: 29% lower than the same period in 2019.

All major cities are above WHO limit

From the picture, we can clearly see that all these eleven China’s major cities still above WHO annual standard a lot. Using Shenzhen as an example, although the air quality is the best among these eleven cities, it’s still almost two times more than the standard. Harbin is even six times more than the standard.

 

China’s air pollution improved 9% during the first half of 2020 when compared to the previous year. However, out of the 11 cities analyzed two cities saw worse air pollution – both in the north-west of China.

https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/china-air-quality-pm25-improved-2020-covid-19-reason/

Are Japanese Pitta Masks Effective Against Air Pollution?

This was the question tackled by Neo Kang Wei who  is a chemical engineer from the National University of Singapore. He’s currently working on R&D and engineering at Smart Air.

 

In 2019, the Japanese Pitta masks surged in popularity in Chinese cities like Beijing and Shanghai, as well as in India, the US and South Korea.

 

They look sleek, but Neo Kang Wei  of Smart Air wanted to review whether the Pitta masks actually work, and how effective is the Pitta Mask at filtering PM2.5, bacteria and viruses such as the flu? Data shows that Japan’s air quality is much better than China’s, so it’s possible that they were designed for things other than the tiny PM2.5 particulates that are considered most dangerous to our health. Maybe these Japanese Pitta masks are more about fashion, larger pollen particles, or sickness.

To review the Pitta masks, Neeo first purchased a pack of three Pitta masks on the Pitta mask official Tmall/Taobao for 64RMB (US$9.20) — or about 21RMB each (US$3). That makes them rather pricey compared to a 3M 9010 mask. Data shown the 9010 is highly effective but costs just 3 RMB.

 

 

 

\

When the Pitta mask first arrived, it looked and felt totally different from any of the 3M air pollution masks we had” said Neo.

 

 

The Pitta mask has no filter inside and is made completely of polyurethane, the same material used to make sponges.

Neo tested the particle capture effectiveness of the Pitta and 3M’s 9502 and 9010 masks. In these tests, he burned cigarettes in a sealed room to simulate outdoor air pollution. Using a fan, Neo blew air through the mask and tested the particle count of the air coming out.

 

 

 

The Pitta mask captured an astounding 0% of 0.3-micron particles and only 64% of larger 2.5-micron particles. In fact, even a surgical mask would provide more protection from PM2.5 than the Pitta mask! Meanwhile, the 3M masks captured over 90%.

Is this a fluke—maybe some sort of problem with the testing method? AQ Blue, a company that produces air pollution masks, tested the Pitta masks with different equipment and came up with nearly identical results.

In short, this data shows the Pitta mask is not effective at capturing small particles. That means it won’t do a good job filtering things like PM2.5, viruses, bacteria or fine particles.

Data shows that the Pitta masks capture large pollen particles and are stylish to boot! However, they are completely ineffective against 0.3-micron particles. That means the Pitta cannot capture particles like PM2.5, bacteria, and virus. Moreover, the Pitta is not safe to use in China, India, Thailand, or any other country with high PM2.5. A far more effective and affordable solution for countries with air pollution problems like China and India would be to use any of one of the high-scoring, scientifically validated masks.