Started By
Message
re: My condolences to anyone adversely affected by the pandemic
Posted on 7/9/20 at 5:26 pm to Craig86
Posted on 7/9/20 at 5:26 pm to Craig86
LINK
There is the link that has the study showing how they measured the particles and how effective mask are at stopping them.
Key points:
One important detail: the particle counter they used measured particles as small as 0.007 microns. That’s over 10 times smaller than the coronavirus particle diameter. We’re talking about truly tiny particles here!
They tested a whole range of masks, and here’s what they found:
Even poorly performing masks captured over 90% of viruses. The researchers chose two N95 masks that scored poorly in an earlier study, yet even these poor-performers still blocked 94% of particles under the heaviest air flow rate.
Several 3M masks were able to capture over 99% of tiny 0.01 micron particles (10 times smaller than the coronavirus), even while on people’s face. What’s more, surgical masks were surprisingly effective, capturing 63% of the tiny virus-sized particles.
There is the link that has the study showing how they measured the particles and how effective mask are at stopping them.
Key points:
One important detail: the particle counter they used measured particles as small as 0.007 microns. That’s over 10 times smaller than the coronavirus particle diameter. We’re talking about truly tiny particles here!
They tested a whole range of masks, and here’s what they found:
Even poorly performing masks captured over 90% of viruses. The researchers chose two N95 masks that scored poorly in an earlier study, yet even these poor-performers still blocked 94% of particles under the heaviest air flow rate.
Several 3M masks were able to capture over 99% of tiny 0.01 micron particles (10 times smaller than the coronavirus), even while on people’s face. What’s more, surgical masks were surprisingly effective, capturing 63% of the tiny virus-sized particles.
0
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News