Mask Supplier Guidance Program Focuses on $60 billion Opportunity

ASTM Standards will be a Good Start Toward Better Masks

ASTM Standards will Provide the Baseline

____________________________________________________________________________

 

Mask Supplier Guidance Program Focuses on $60 billion Opportunity

 

If six billion people began wearing tight fitting and efficient masks as many as one million lives could be saved in the next eight months. If after the pandemic subsides people wear these same types of masks to protect against air pollution, wildfires, and other air contaminants a very large numbers of deaths and illness can be prevented. The average person has two colds per year. If they just wore a courtesy mask while infectious more than 20 billion sick days could be avoided.

 

To accomplish this goal there needs to be an adequate supply of affordable masks.  Therefore reusable masks have to be the main type of masks utilized. The initiative will only be successful to the extent that people are willing to wear the masks for long periods. Comfort and attractiveness are also important to insure wear.  Comfortable, Attractive, Tight Fitting, Efficient and  Reusable are the benefits of CATER masks.

 

Suppliers of masks, media, and other components need to work toward a common goal of meeting as much of the market needs as possible. It will be difficult but not impossible to provide three billion masks at $30/mask in 2021. On the other hand providing two billion masks in 2023 will not be a problem when you consider that reusable masks require only 3% of the media required for disposable masks and that membranes and nanofibers as well as meltblowns can be utilized.

 

McIlvaine is helping suppliers meet this common goal with a three step approach.

1.      Provide CATER Mask Decisions with comprehensive news coverage and analysis

2.      Help suppliers communicate the advantages of their products and services

3.      Assist with strategic and market analysis and forecasts

 

CATER Mask Decisions is a free service. To register and receive multiple alerts per week Click here. To start using CATER Mask Decisions: Click here

 

For more information on a supplier guidance program contact Bob McIlvaine at 847 226 2391 or rmcilvaine@mcilvainecompany.com

 

ASTM Standards will be a Good Start Toward Better Masks

Sheila Kaplan writing in the NY Times observes “More than 100,000 varieties of face masks are currently for sale. They come in silk, cotton. and synthetics; with filters and without; over-the-head and over-the-ears. They have sparkles and sunflowers; friendly greetings and insults; cartoon characters and teeny reindeer.

“What they don’t have is a label that shows how well they block infectious particles, an omission that has frustrated public health officials during the coronavirus pandemic. Those experts note that there is a big range in the effectiveness of various designs, and some barely filter out particles at all.”

She follows with another quote “By having a standard in place you will be able to know what level of protection is being achieved and you’ll have a consistent way of evaluating these products,” said Maryann D’Alessandro, director of the NIOSH National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory.

Sheila interviewed Linsey Marr who we have quoted many times. “A working group of federal and industry officials has proposed one high and one low filtration requirement that manufacturers and distributors can adopt and list on their labels. The lower standard is a 20 percent filtration barrier and the higher is 50 percent.

Those numbers are more protective than they sound. The filtration efficiency percentages are based on a product’s efficiency at filtering particles measuring 0.3 microns, which, as the generally most penetrative particles, are standard for NIOSH tests.

“Twenty percent efficiency at 0.3 microns would translate to 50 percent efficiency at one- to two-micron particles, and 80 percent efficiency at blocking particles that are four to five microns or larger,” Dr. Marr said. “I think it will be useful.”

McIlvaine would add to this discussion by pointing out that the most recent evidence shows most particles are emitted during breathing and are sub-micron droplets which result from a splash mechanism in the lungs. Furthermore as pointed out by UCSD and McIlvaine a droplet initially captured by the mask will evaporate or split. The result is smaller droplets or salts which are sub-micron in diameter

Shiela writes “Manufacturers who want to note that they meet the ASTM standard must first have their products tested by an accredited laboratory. They should also be able to show that their masks provide a reasonable fit to the population at large”

 

McIlvaine believe this requirement for testing by an accredited laboratory is a great step forward.  It opens the door for companies with 95% efficient masks to contrast their performance to the labeled products.  However leakage around a mask can be 50%. The requirement to self-test and provide evidence of a reasonable fit is equivalent to a statement that the mask does remove some particles.

 

McIlvaine recommends that readers access the CATER intelligence system and see how companies such as Vogmask are approaching the fit testing. First they are making it a top priority. Vogmask has five mask sizes to fit the various shape sizes. Many suppliers have two or less. Furthermore fit testing has been done by highly reputable institutions where measurements are taken of multiple subjects in various different modes (walking, bending, talking etc.). Vogmask is quick to point out that this testing was not to receive accreditation but only to establish relevant information

 

It is the goal in CATER Mask  Decisions to provide clarity relative to the performance of various masks.  Mask rating is already being done by many publishers.  If they have more credible resources such as CATER Mask Decisions  they can better advise their viewers. The same is true for nonprofit associations and governments.

 

The NY Times article is creating quite a bit of interest and can be viewed at How Effective Is the Mask You’re Wearing? You May Know Soon - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

 

ASTM Standards will Provide the Baseline

 

The ASTM standards with 20% and 50% ratings will be a great starting point for buyers. It will show how efficiency is calculated and make people aware that the fit is equally important.  However just because a car meets minimum safety standards doesn’t mean the buyer is not interested in maximum safety.

The buyer will want to find the most Comfortable, Attractive, Tight Fitting and Efficient mask possible.  Cost will be an issue so the Reusable mask life will be of high interest.

In CATER Mask Decisions readers will be able to view the evidence and various different ways of rating masks. This effort is supplemental to the various standards and rating systems employed by governments and associations.

 

The leakage assessment in the draft of the ASTM standards is brief.

 

5.4 Leakage Assessment

5.4.1 The leakage assessment shall be reported by the manufacturer through a product design analysis self-declaration. 

5.4.2 The required self-declaration shall report that the product minimizes leakage around the edges or other areas of the product based upon an analysis of the product design. This statement can be included on any self-declaration required as part of Guide F3050, under Section 12 of this specification.   

5.4.2.1 The manufacturer is permitted to conduct quantitative testing to supplement its product design analysis self-declaration. When used, the leakage ratio shall be evaluated using Test Method F3407, with the modifications specified in 8.3.

5.4.3 Where barrier face coverings are reusable and intended for laundering or cleaning, the product design analysis shall be applied to barrier face coverings both in a new condition and after the maximum of laundering or cleaning cycles as specified by the manufacturer according to the manufacturer care instructions.

 

This language alerts decision makers to the importance of fit but as shown in the previous paragraphs there is a great deal of testing which needs to be done to quantify the leak risk.

 

The standard also sets up two performance categories at 20% and 50%.

 

 

 

The following examples were calculated based on available information for various types of masks. The net efficiency equals the media efficiency less leaks.

 

The 20% leakage is possibly representative if there are limited mask sizes available and great care is not taken in the mask design. Without comprehensive fit tests it is logical to assign a number such as this.

As a result the ASTM 20 would have a net efficiency of only 16% vs 91% for the CATER 95.

 

Net efficiency is only important if the mask is worn continuously. The use of masks is greatly impacted by the breathing resistance. By subtracting the breathing resistance from the net efficiency, a basic performance rating is created.

The actual resistance may be less than 15 mm but that is what is specified as the maximum in the standards. This rating approach is not intended be used to set minimums but just as another way to view performance and the balance between efficiency and comfort.

 

There is also the impact of both transmitter and recipient wearing masks.  If a person wearing a CATER 95 mask transmits all virus to the recipient also in the CATER 95 only 9% of the load reaches the recipient who in turn removes 91% or another 8% making the combined efficiency 99%.  The transmitter in an ASTM 20 mask will allow 86% to reach the recipient. The recipient  will only take out another 13% for a combined total of 29%. So in one case only 1% of the virus is being inhaled and in the other it is 71%. So one way to look at it is that the risk is 71 times as great if everyone wears an ASTM 20 vs CATER 95.