Coronavirus Technology Solutions
July 6, 2020
Dony
is a Large Vietnamese
Mask Producer
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
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:
"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.
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.
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
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:
★★★★★
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: ★★★☆☆
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: ★★★★☆
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: ★★★★☆
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.
_____________________________________
“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.
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. |