Dony  is a Large Vietnamese Mask Producer

Statistical Studies Showing Advantages of Masks Without Regard to Mask Efficiency Have Limited Value

Kowa of Japan Offers Masks Among Many Other Textile Products

Unicharm 'Super-fast, Comfortable' Mask (超快適)

Kowa 'Three-Dimensional' Mask (三次元)

Easy Breathing Fabric Mask (息らくらく不織布)

Elleair Urucochi (Elleair うるごこち)

Masks-for-All for COVID-19 not Based on Sound Data

Argument Against Masks is That They Cannot be Efficient Enough

Why N95 Masks do Remove Virus

___________________________________________________________________________

Dony  is a Large Vietnamese Mask Producer

Dony Garment, a Vietnamese garment production company, has joined the global fight against the COVID-19 pandemic by producing protective gear that are in continuous high demand including face masks. This has become the company's main production line throughout the last few months and has been vastly sought after worldwide.

"We began with two local orders in March with about 70,000 units. By the end of the month, we sealed the first export order from the Middle East. Then, it was a series of shipments to Australia, Europe and the Americas, mostly from the United States, France and Canada,” said Pham Quang Anh, Director of Dony Garment. 

In fact, DONY has achieved prominent certification on quality and safety from Vietnam, France, Germany, the United States and other countries from the very beginning. Its masks have met standards for protecting public health from US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), certified by Directorate General of Armaments (DGA) from France, and received CE certification from French Cert.

Most importantly, Dony Masks have been approved by the REACH Certificate of Compliance from Germany, which is the most vital document as it guarantees that Dony's products are compliant with the EU REACH regulation (EC).

The Dony Masks are produced with the highest standards and are: 

• anti-droplet (Intertek, TUV tested and certificated)
• 99.9% anti-bacterial efficiency after 30 washes
• medical packaging and sterilized by ethylene oxide
• chemical-free and reusable

"We do not compromise on our product's quality. There was one buyer who requested us to remove the aseptic packaging to reduce the price, but we insisted on quality and so we turned away the client," Pham explained. 

Dony Garment's efforts have been widely recognized globally. "There are many mask manufacturers in Vietnam but not all the factories follow international standards. The reason why we chose Dony mask is because they fulfil Japan's market needs and their manufacturing system meets our standard," said Nicolas Jo, Founder and CEO of JJFT, a fashion and textile group. 

Pham said through the pandemic, he came to deeply understand the adversities that other firms and people around the world were suffering.

Therefore, he and other leaders at Dony have made a huge effort to contribute medical supplies for other countries, such as the US, Russia, and Cuba. Most recently, Dony has donated 100,000 antibacterial and anti-droplet cloth-masks to a Vietnamese medical supplies charity to send to the United States.

Talking about Dony's latest success, Pham said Dony Mask was "the medication" that the company needed to survive during the pandemic. And due to the company's fast changing tactics – from producing clothes and uniforms to cloth-masks, the company's revenue is expected to double in 2020 compared with a year ago. 

Its factory site has expanded to 1,600m² from 420m² before the COVID-19. Moreover, it is strategically beneficial for DONY to gain new partnerships with wholesale buyers and producers from various sectors. Dony is also able to buy specialized machines, which it could not afford before the pandemic because of insufficient funding.

"Since we have done business with Dony, and we have built a trust between us, Dony offered Toop Sports to distribute and sell their face masks in the US market. With Dony's help and cooperation, we can continue to produce, ship out, and sell face masks," said Razz Yayapour, co-owner of Toop Sports and one of Dony's partners.

However, Pham said they realize that with the over-supply of facemasks currently on the market, it is now time to change tactics once again. 

The garment producer has put in place some short-term strategies including manpower reducing and inventory management. However, for long-term strategy, the company will keep their traditional garment production and add an additional line of personal protective equipment (PPE). These products include certificated protective clothing, shoes, hats and gloves.

"We have learned that PPE has a more sustainable demand since they are also required in sensitive industries and national strategic stockpiles, and therefore, they will become our next specialized products," Pham explained.

Established in 2009, the Dony Garment Company, a subsidiary of Dony International Corporation, is a garment manufacturer focusing on producing clothes and uniforms in Vietnam. In the local market, Dony Garment is one of the biggest manufacturers of uniforms. The brand's garments are also exported around the world including to America, Europe, Australia and Asia. 

Statistical Studies Showing Advantages of Masks Without Regard to Mask Efficiency Have Limited Value

More widespread wearing of face masks could prevent tens of thousands of deaths by COVID-19, epidemiologists and mathematicians project. The perplexing aspect of these studies is that they do not differentiate between mask type and in some cases equate home made cloth masks with more efficient ones. A 24-65% reduction is forecast if some kind of mask is worn according to the Arizona study.  We would argue that the difference could easily be based on mask efficiency.

This statistical approach can be reduced to absurdity by concluding that a mask worn in an  isolation room is 99.9% effective whereas if worn in a public space would be much less effective.

In the last Alert we likened the battle against COVID to a golf match. The opponent can be a plus 40 handicap when the contest takes place in wide open spaces. The opponent can be a minus 3 handicap professional in a crowded bar setting or hospital isolation room.

To win the contest we need a set of clubs adequate to the task. A homemade mask may be no better than one broken club. We have now verified that a large percentage of COVID is transmitted by small aerosols emitted by breathing or talking. If the transmitter is wearing an N95 Mask only 5 % of the small aerosols will escape. If the recipient is wearing an N95 mask he will inhale only 0.25% of the virus particles.  Contrast this to the situation when both are wearing N30 masks and 49% of the virus is inhaled. This creates a 200 times multiple between the masks and it should not be ignored by the statisticians.

A model from the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation shows that near-universal wearing of cloth or homemade masks could prevent between 17,742 and 28,030 deaths across the US before Oct. 1.

The group, which advises the White House as well as state and local governments, is submitting the model for peer review, says Theo Vos, Professor of Health Metrics Sciences at IHME.

Another projection developed by researchers at Arizona State University in April showed that 24–65% of projected deaths could be prevented in Washington state in April and May if 80% of people wore cloth or homemade masks in public.

These projections shed light on the promises face masks might hold as COVID-19 cases surge in some states and more local authorities mandate the wearing of face masks.

Texas is now mandating face masks in public in most of the state; Jacksonville Fl, host city of the Republican National Convention in August, mandated wearing face masks in public and indoor locations where people cannot otherwise social distance on June 29.

None of these mandates stipulate a minimum mask efficiency. A home made mask where much of the air circumvents the fabric and all the small aerosols penetrate may be worse than no mask at all due to the false confidence it inspires.

 

Kowa of Japan Offers Masks Among Many Other Textile Products

Since its founding in 1894 as a cotton fabric wholesaler in Japan, Kowa Group has grown into a global enterprise with more than a 120-year history. Kowa Company Ltd., as the core of the Group, is actively engaging in various business fields including the trading of textiles, machinery, and construction materials, in addition to the manufacturing and sales of medicines, medical equipment, and energy saving products.

Corporate Profile

Corporate Name	Kowa Company, Ltd.
Foundation	December 25, 1894
President & CEO	Yoshihiro Miwa
Capital	3,840 million yen
Sales	422,576 million yen (Fiscal year ended March 31, 2020, Kowa Group consolidated)
Employees	6,583 (As of March 2020, Kowa Group consolidated)
Headquarters	6-29, Nishiki 3-chome, Naka-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan
Business Fields	«Trading» Import / Export, Intermediate Trade, and Domestic Sales of Textile, Machinery, Construction Materials, Chemicals, and Commodities «Manufacturing» R&D and manufacture of OTC , ethical drugs, and medical equipment; R&D, manufacture / sales and import / export of LED lighting equipment, renewable energy power generation systems and optical equipment

Kowa and Itochu  said on April 24 that they are recalling all undelivered cloth masks they supplied under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's mask handout program to address the novel coronavirus pandemic following numerous complaints of tainted products earlier this month.

Trading house Itochu Corp. and pharmaceutical and medical equipment maker Kowa Co. said they have also found similar problems with masks still in their inventories.

Itochu and Kowa are among the four companies tapped to provide face masks to pregnant women and general households under Abe's initiative, which aims to give each household two cloth masks amid shortages due to the coronavirus pandemic.

The two companies said they procured the cloth masks from overseas and will strengthen quality-control measures to prevent a similar problem from recurring.

Itochu explained that the government, after failing to secure the necessary quantity of masks from domestic manufacturers, had expanded its call for help to companies other than mask producers.

"We also received a strong request as part of these efforts. We decided to respond because it is a state emergency and doing so will help prevent the spread of the new coronavirus," the company said.

The Nagoya-based Kowa said in a separate press release, "We have facilitated the emergency production of cloth masks through cooperative overseas factories, mainly in China, at the request of the government."

On April 14, ahead of the deliveries to general households, the health ministry started distributing around 500,000 cloth masks to pregnant women through handouts at municipal offices and by shipping them to medical and nursing facilities.

But the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare was soon flooded with complaints about tainted masks, including those with human hairs.

Health minister Katsunobu Kato told a press conference on Tuesday that the ministry confirmed 7,870 defective masks had been delivered to 143 municipalities. The ministry also suspended deliveries the same day.

Deliveries of cloth masks to ordinary households started on April 17 in Tokyo, with the government aiming for distribution to some 50 million households across the country by the end of May.

The mask handout initiative has drawn derision on social media, earning the nickname "Abenomask," a pun on Abe's "Abenomics" economic policy mix.

The policy has also been met with skepticism in foreign media due to its hefty cost of 46.6 billion yen ($430 million) despite the relative ineffectiveness of cloth masks in preventing coronavirus infection.

The program is part of the government's emergency economic package worth over 100 trillion yen, designed to support the economy through the coronavirus outbreak.

Kowa is one of five companies whose masks were rated highly by a research group. The others are shown below.

 

Unicharm 'Super-fast, Comfortable' Mask (超快適)

With a name that means 'super-fast, comfortable' in Cantonese, it's no wonder this brand wins bragging rights when it comes to comfortability. The manufacturing company, Unicharm, claims its masks can effectively block out 99% of virus bacteria droplets, pollen, and PM 2.5 suspended particles. The masks are made with a silk-like material along with a pain-free ear band design. Its rectangular-shape ensures pollen and droplets have a hard time getting through any gap. 

After-use feel: The mask is thicker, and the silky material will not fluff for a whole day. It definitely feels super comfortable.

Air permeability: ★★★★★
Surface degree: ★★★★☆
Ear band comfort: ★★★★☆
Material comfort: ★★★★★
Functionality: ★★★☆☆ (BFE ≧ 99% / VFE ≧ 99% / PM2.5)

Stay ahead with our exclusives on Asia

Kowa 'Three-Dimensional' Mask (三次元)

If you can't live without your glasses, Kowa's 'three-dimensional fit and high-performance' masks are exactly what you need. The mask uses painless ear bands and high-quality non-woven fabrics for optimum comfort, the nose wings are strengthened to prevent eyewear from fogging up. While most masks have only three layers, Kowa's masks have a five-layer protection design that claims to block 99% of virus/bacteria droplets effectively, particles, pollen, and PM2.5 suspended particles. The antibacterial layer and a double protective layer between the inner and outer layers effectively stops bacteria from going through the surface of the mask.

After-use feel: It feels thickest. Yet because it has antibacterial protection layer, there's no odor even if you wear it for a whole day.

Air permeability: ★★★☆☆ 
Surface degree: ★★★★☆ 
Ear band comfort: ★★★☆☆ 
Material comfort: ★★★★☆ 
Functionality: ★★★★★ (BFE ≧ 99% / VFE ≧ 99% / PFE ≧ 99% / PM2.5)

Easy Breathing Fabric Mask (息らくらく不織布)

Worried about the germs you might catch from the hands packing and producing your masks? Not only are these 'easy breathing fabric mask' designed to help you breathe easy, but the masks are also produced entirely by machines, without manual processing. Another highlight is that the elastic ear band is hollowed out in the middle so it won't feel uncomfortable even when worn for a long time.

After-use feel: This mask is relatively thin and doesn't fit well, it feels a little unsafe. However, the thinness of the mask means the air permeability is really good.

Air permeability: ★★★★☆
Surface degree: ★★★☆☆ 
Ear band comfort: ★★★☆☆ 
Material comfort: ★★★★☆ 
Performance: ★★★☆☆ (BFE ≧ 98% / PFE ≧ 99% / PM2.5)

Elleair Urucochi (Elleair うるごこち)

The selling point of Elleair's masks is that it uses a special non-woven material to prevent pesky fluffing inside the mask, which makes breathing while wearing the mask uncomfortable. Another plus for this mask is its moisturizing design, which protects your skin from getting too dry after being cooped up in a mask for a long period of time. The protective performance of the mask is also relatively high, and it can effectively block 99% of virus bacteria droplets, particles, pollen and PM2.5 suspended particles.

After-use feel: The air permeability is great. The steel wire of the nose position is solid, the nose bridge isn't too high and can be adjusted to suit you. However, the two sides of the face don't fit very well.

Air permeability: ★★★★☆ 
Surface degree: ★★☆☆☆ 
Ear band comfort: ★★★★☆ 
Material comfort: ★★★★☆  
Performance: ★★★★★  (VFE ≧ 99% / BFE ≧ 99% / PFE ≧ 99% / PM2.5)

Masks-for-All for COVID-19 not Based on Sound Data

Here are comments made on April 1 when efficient masks were not available for public use.  The comments of two experts are still relevant in comparing mask performance. We are contacting them to obtain their views relative to use of masks by the public assuming that there is no limit on supply.

Dr. Brosseau is a national expert on respiratory protection and infectious diseases and professor (retired), University of Illinois at Chicago.

Dr. Sietsema is also an expert on respiratory protection and an assistant professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

_____________________________________

“In response to the stream of misinformation and misunderstanding about the nature and role of masks and respirators as source control or personal protective equipment (PPE), we critically review the topic to inform ongoing COVID-19 decision-making that relies on science-based data and professional expertise.

As noted in a previous commentary, the limited data we have for COVID-19 strongly support the possibility that SARS-CoV-2—the virus that causes COVID-19—is transmitted by inhalation of both droplets and aerosols near the source. It is also likely that people who are pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic throughout the duration of their infection are spreading the disease in this way.

Our review of relevant studies indicates that cloth masks will be ineffective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whether worn as source control or as PPE. 

Surgical masks likely have some utility as source control (meaning the wearer limits virus dispersal to another person) from a symptomatic patient in a healthcare setting to stop the spread of large cough particles and limit the lateral dispersion of cough particles. They may also have very limited utility as source control or PPE in households.

Respirators, though, are the only option that can ensure protection for frontline workers dealing with COVID-19 cases, once all of the strategies for optimizing respirator supply have been implemented.

We do not know whether respirators are an effective intervention as source control for the public. A non-fit-tested respirator may not offer any better protection than a surgical mask. Respirators work as PPE only when they are the right size and have been fit-tested to demonstrate they achieve an adequate protection factor. In a time when respirator supplies are limited, we should be saving them for frontline workers to prevent infection and remain in their jobs.

These recommendations are based on a review of available literature and informed by professional expertise and consultation. We outline our review criteria, summarize the literature that best addresses these criteria, and describe some activities the public can do to help "flatten the curve" and to protect frontline workers and the general public.

The best evidence of mask and respirator performance starts with testing filter efficiency and then evaluating fit (facepiece leakage). Filter efficiency must be measured first. If the filter is inefficient, then fit will be a measure of filter efficiency only and not what is being leaked around the facepiece.

Masks and respirators work by collecting particles through several physical mechanisms, including diffusion (small particles) and interception and impaction (large particles). N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) are constructed from electret filter material, with electrostatic attraction for additional collection of all particle sizes.

Every filter has a particle size range that it collects inefficiently. Above and below this range, particles will be collected with greater efficiency. For fibrous non-electret filters, this size is about 0.3 micrometers (µm); for electret filters, it ranges from 0.06 to 0.1 µm. When testing, we care most about the point of inefficiency. As flow increases, particles in this range will be collected less efficiently.

The best filter tests use worst-case conditions: high flow rates (80 to 90 liters per minute [L/min]) with particle sizes in the least efficiency range. This guarantees that filter efficiency will be high at typical, lower flow rates for all particle sizes. Respirator filter certification tests use 84 L/min, well above the typical 10 to 30 L/min breathing rates. The N95 designation means the filter exhibits at least 95% efficiency in the least efficient particle size range.

Studies should also use well-characterized inert particles (not biological, anthropogenic, or naturogenic ones) and instruments that quantify concentrations in narrow size categories, and they should include an N95 FFR or similar respirator as a positive control.

Fit should be a measure of how well the mask or respirator prevents leakage around the facepiece, as noted earlier. Panels of representative human subjects reveal more about fit than tests on a few individuals or mannequins.

Quantitative fit tests that measure concentrations inside and outside of the facepiece are more discriminating than qualitative ones that rely on taste or odor.

Following a recommendation that cloth masks be explored for use in healthcare settings during the next influenza pandemic, The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducted a study of the filter performance on clothing materials and articles, including commercial cloth masks marketed for air pollution and allergens, sweatshirts, t-shirts, and scarfs.

Filter efficiency was measured across a wide range of small particle sizes (0.02 to 1 µm) at 33 and 99 L/min. N95 respirators had efficiencies greater than 95% (as expected). For the entire range of particles tested, t-shirts had 10% efficiency, scarves 10% to 20%, cloth masks 10% to 30%, sweatshirts 20% to 40%, and towels 40%. All of the cloth masks and materials had near zero efficiency at 0.3 µm, a particle size that easily penetrates into the lungs.

Another study evaluated 44 masks, respirators, and other materials with similar methods and small aerosols (0.08 and 0.22 µm). N95 FFR filter efficiency was greater than 95%. Medical masks exhibited 55% efficiency, general masks 38% and handkerchiefs 2% (one layer) to 13% (four layers).

These studies demonstrate that cloth or homemade masks will have very low filter efficiency (2% to 38%). Medical masks are made from a wide range of materials, and studies have found a wide range of filter efficiency (2% to 98%), with most exhibiting 30% to 50% efficiency.

We reviewed other filter efficiency studies of makeshift cloth masks made with various materials. Limitations included challenge aerosols that were poorly characterized or too large or flow rates that were too low.

Regulators have not developed guidelines for cloth or surgical mask fit. N95 FFRs must achieve a fit factor (outside divided by inside concentration) of at least 100, which means that the facepiece must lower the outside concentration by 99%, according to the OSHA respiratory protection standard. When fit is measured on a mask with inefficient filters, it is really a measure of the collection of particles by the filter plus how well the mask prevents particles from leaking around the facepiece.

Several studies have measured the fit of masks made of cloth and other homemade materials. We have not used their results to evaluate mask performance, because none measured filter efficiency or included respirators as positive controls.

One study of surgical masks showing relatively high efficiencies of 70% to 95% using NIOSH test methods measured total mask efficiencies (filter plus facepiece) of 67% to 90%. These results illustrate that surgical masks, even with relatively efficient filters, do not fit well against the face.

In sum, cloth masks exhibit very low filter efficiency. Thus, even masks that fit well against the face will not prevent inhalation of small particles by the wearer or emission of small particles from the wearer.

One study of surgical mask fit described above suggests that poor fit can be somewhat offset by good filter collection but will not approach the level of protection offered by a respirator. The problem is, however, that many surgical masks have very poor filter performance. Surgical masks are not evaluated using worst-case filter tests, so there is no way to know which ones offer better filter efficiency.

A randomized trial comparing the effect of medical and cloth masks on healthcare worker illness found that those wearing cloth masks were 13 times more likely to experience influenza-like illness than those wearing medical masks.

In sum, very poor filter and fit performance of cloth masks described earlier and very low effectiveness for cloth masks in healthcare settings lead us conclude that cloth masks offer no protection for healthcare workers inhaling infectious particles near an infected or confirmed patient.

In sum, this study, the meta-analyses, randomized controlled trial described above, and laboratory data showing high filter efficiency and high achievable fit factors lead us to conclude that N95 FFRs offer superior protection from inhalable infectious aerosols likely to be encountered when caring for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients.

The precautionary principle supports higher levels of respiratory protection, such as powered air-purifying respirators, for aerosol-generating procedures such as intubation, bronchoscopy, and acquiring respiratory specimens.

While this is not an exhaustive review of masks and respirators as source control and PPE, we made our best effort to locate and review the most relevant studies of laboratory and real-world performance to inform our recommendations. Results from laboratory studies of filter and fit performance inform and support the findings in real-world settings

 

Argument Against Masks is That They Cannot be Efficient Enough

The article linked below is an argument for not requiring anyone to wear masks. The basis is that the minimum infectious dose is as low as one viral particle. Since even the most efficient mask will not be 100% efficient, we should not depend on masks. Using our golf match analogy the argument is that COVID has the capability of a minus 3 handicap pro and we can only pit him against a high handicap amateur.

The McIlvaine contention that everyone  should wear an efficient mask is disputed from both extremes.  One is that an inefficient cloth mask is all you need. The other extreme is that no mask can be efficient enough to be effective.

https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covide-19-social-policy

 

Why N95 Masks do Remove Virus

The size-based argument against N95 assumes mask filtering works something like water flowing through a net — particles in the water smaller than the net opening pass through, while larger items don’t.

But the physics involved don’t work like that at all.

The COVID-19 particle is indeed around 0.1 microns in size, but it is always bonded to something larger.

“There is never a naked virus floating in the air or released by people,” said Linsey Marr, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech who specializes in airborne transmission of viruses.

The virus attaches to water droplets or aerosols (i.e. really small droplets) that are generated by breathing, talking, coughing, etc. These consist of water, mucus protein and other biological material and are all larger than 1 micron.

“Breathing and talking generate particles around 1 micron in size, which will be collected by N95 respirator filters with very high efficiency,” said Lisa Brosseau, a retired professor of environmental and occupational health sciences who spent her career researching respiratory protection.

Health care precautions for COVID-19 are built around stopping the droplets, since “there’s not a lot of evidence for aerosol spread of COVID-19,” said Patrick Remington, a former CDC epidemiologist and director of the Preventive Medicine Residency Program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

N95 have the worst filtration efficiency for particles around 0.3,” Marr said. “If you’re smaller than that those are actually collected even better. It’s counterintuitive because masks do not work like sieving out larger particles. It’s not like pasta in a colander, and small ones don’t get through.”

N95 masks actually have that name because they are 95% efficient at stopping particles in their least efficient particle size range — in this case those around 0.3 microns.