Talk:N95 respirator/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PaulaUPRC. Peer reviewers: Kamila.tavarez, Alanis Rubi Rosario.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the melt blowing technology used to create N95 respirators had previously been used to make bra cups and premade ribbon bows? Source: [1]

• Reviewed: Leah Lowenstein
• Comment: Much of the text is closely paraphrased from public domain U.S. government sources, which is within policy, but this text doesn't count towards the 1,500 character limit. However, there is more than 1,500 characters of original text, mainly in the lead and the history section. See DYK rule 2b.

Created by John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk), Victorgrigas (talk), and Fuzheado (talk). Nominated by John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) at 01:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Good to go. KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

What were N95 respirators originally designed for?

This article says that N95 respirators were originally designed for ... but there is no authority for that. I think the original purpose of the masks is important and an authority for that is important. Sam Tomato (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The source is the California Department of Consumer Affairs. You don't think that citation is valid? MartinezMD (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

KN95 vs N95

OK So my experience

Bought these at my local electronics store (Needham, MA) 10 @ $5.00 each on May 25, 2020

Some details (Comparison)

These masks have similar superior properties as N95, but they go by different names based on where they are certified. The WHO (World Health Organizations) considers N95 equivalent to KN95 and other similar masks. (WHO Article 1. WHO Article 2.)

I'm sure there is no wikipedia article on KN95

So worth a mention in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.76.29 (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Page move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@HLHJ: Your justification for the page move was "per talk" but I see nothing here or at Talk:FFP mask. Which talk page were you refering to? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Horse Eye Jack. The merge template redirected to Talk:Mechanical filter respirator#Merge discussion. Since no-one else participated, this basically consists of my explaining why I think it's a good idea. Now that someone else has taken an interest, I'd be glad to discuss it in more detail. HLHJ (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I should probably have merged this talk page too... will wait now, or as you see fit. HLHJ (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I can see the logic in your argument but I think you should have given notice on all the relevent talk pages (especially after getting no responses at Talk:Mechanical filter respirator) and gotten an actual consensus rather than just a lack of objection before completing the merge. If I were you I would revert and post on the relevent talk pages but I'm not gonna bring the house crashing down on you if you don't. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I got busy and didn't say anything, but I think the merge might be premature. In principle it makes sense to have a single Filtering facepiece respirator article to avoid duplication. (Also the N95 mask title is a bit problematic, since N95 filters are used in elastomeric respirators as well, and also because nearly everything in this article equally applies to the other N-, R-, and P-series respirators. The current title is useful from a WP:COMMONNAME standpoint and is technically correct, but hides some of the nuance.)

However, in practice the N95 mask article is very U.S.-heavy, which is appropriate for an article about a U.S. standard but not for one with international scope. In order to be balanced it would need to be extensively rewritten to include standards and guidance from the EU and other jurisdictions. Also, the merge should have been done as a page move rather than a cut-and-paste, to reduce the number of redirects left behind with extensive history and talk pages. And yes, even though there was a merge banner, the discussion should have been on one of the talk pages for an article actually involved in the merge, instead of a third article. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I entirely agree that a move would have been better. Apologies. I did split parts of the FFP mask article to FFP standards, and included just the standard-specific material. I did not do this to the N95 mask article as all of it fit into either the merged FFR article or the Mechanical filter respirator article (with the exception of a list of patents which I dumped on Talk:Mechanical filter respirator until I figure out what to do with it). I could make a US-filter-standards article, too. I had every intention of rewriting the merged FFR article, though it would take a bit of time; it is mostly US&EU at the moment. Where should we go from here? HLHJ (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I take your point, Horse Eye Jack. I followed the instructions at Template:Merge (and WP:Merging), but a couple of extra posts to the talk page would not have been that hard to do. I guess I figured anyone watching the talk page would be watching the article anyway.

In the current state, the same informational content is available on Wikipedia as before my rearrange (with the exception of that patent list). Unmerging... I could re-instate the N95 mask article fairly easily. There would be nothing terrible about Wikipedia having both an "N95 mask" article and a "Filtering facepiece respirator" article (with heavily overlapping content) for a bit. Possibly I could change it into a US-filter-standards article and then move it to a new title. Unmerging the FFP would be a bit more bother because I changed and rearranged the content, but resurrecting the old version, so we had an article containing much content duplicating FFP standards would also not be a huge problem. I should have moved that rather than creating it de novo, too; I suppose I could fix this but I would have to figure out how. I'd also like to go over the articles on cloth mask and masks in the COVID-19 pandemic, which are getting a lot of reads and desperately need updating. I will have to leave this for now but will come back to see what you two say. HLHJ (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll worry about requesting the history merges. If you were about to add non-U.S. information to balance out this article, I think that's fine. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Again this is more preference rather than anything you did wrong, it was a bold move which you took appropriate steps to make. If this was a pre-merge disussion I would probally argue against it based on the second reason for avoiding merging given at WP:MERGEREASON ("The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles"). I don't necessarily agree that we need a page between respirator and a page like this. I'm also not super convinced that "filtering facepiece respirator" is the WP:COMMONNAME but thats kind of besides the point. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, it's not a WP:COMMONNAME issue since a N95 mask is just one type of filtering facepiece respirator, and different types are functionally equivalent but have different names depending on the country due to differing regulations. I think filtering facepiece respirator is the best title, and if the N95 mask article hadn't been created by others first, I probably would have created the article at that title instead. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I mean you would wouldnt you... Filtering facepiece respirator appears to be prefered by US government institutions but its less common internationally. I think a best case scenario has a main page at filtering facepiece respirator or an equivalent but maintains detailed pages about the different national/international standards. Its definitly too much for one page without being condensed. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

There was no consensus to redirect this article and the initiator dd not follow protocol and notify significant contributors. Patapsco913 (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to reply to these separate issues. Firstly it is an unwritten rule of Wikipedia that you don't do things in a way which causes needless conflict, disagreement, hostility or bad feelings. I clearly muffed this here, so whether I technically followed the merge protocol is moot. I haven't often merged articles, and I think this is my first controversial merge. I apologize for my incompetence and will try to fix, though I realize I am unlikely to succeed entirely. Particular apologies to those who would have wanted to be individually pinged and weren't. @Victorgrigas, Krýsuvík2020, XXzoonamiXX, J.D.718, MartinezMD, Stephan Leeds, Underneaththesun, Dongord, Tikmok, and Apokrif: for N95, and @Philip J, Jomsborg, Artoria2e5, 2a02:120b:2c79:e220:784c:aa6f:1347:a410, and Widefox: for FFP; I hope I haven't missed anyone who significantly engaged with the content, and that those who do not participate in this discussion feel free to ignore it.

I'd agree that "filtering facepiece respirator" (FFR) is not a common name. Commonly, people frankly don't distinguish between different types of FFPs and similar-looking dust masks. They often use the name of the local standard for these masks, ignoring the fact that this standard also applies to non-FFRs (or even the name of a non-local standard, I've heard people use "N95 mask" as an English-language translation of "FFP mask" in their native language). I picked "filtering facepiece respirator" because of the "precision" naming criterion, and "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources"[2]. There are some other precise terms, all more used in the technical literature than in common speech. I picked this one because it is reasonably short, clear, and unlikely to become obsolete, and "FFR" is a convenient abbreviation. If anyone has a better suggestion, I'd be very happy to hear it. I feel strongly that there should be a article with the scope "filtering facepiece respirators" or the scope "filtering-facepiece masks [including respirators and dust masks]". I do not feel strongly about what it is called.

I don't think, subject to correction, that the existence of the filtering facepiece respirator article is disputed (nor the fact that it needs work). The question is whether the N95 mask article should also exist. I see Patapsco913 has re-created it, as I suggested above; thank you, Patapsco913. I withdraw my suggestion of making it into an article on the US standards, as I now see NIOSH air filtration rating already exists and has that scope. I think that most of the information in the current N95 mask would fit better in the filtering facepiece respirator and mechanical filter respirator articles, which is why I merged it, but I'm happy to hear counterarguements. HLHJ (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I think these are largely the same items, right? As least de facto. I don't think we need two articles discussing what is essentially the same object, filling the same needs in society. I support merging them with whatever distinction is needed be made within the body of the same article. N95 is either a specific example or sub type of the FFR imho. MartinezMD (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

N95 is the de facto generic term for masks being used in the current pandemic. 31 foreign language wiki-projects have articles that use "N95" in their title. 10:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patapsco913 (talk • contribs)

• Oppose merge and undo it. Better before - so go back to redirect of Filtering facepiece respirator to Mechanical filter (respirator) or better target but not any specific standard. Also no reason based on article sizes, keeping this standard as a separate page. Not convinced a merge of this and all the other standards is needed, but open to a better proposal. {{main}} hatnotes to the broad topic (rather than a single standard) to another location such as respirator or Mechanical filter (respirator) from the standards looks useful right now, due to the synonymous use of the standard terms N95, FFP3 etc). Widefox; talk 12:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that N95 is in practice becoming a generic term for filtering-facepiece masks, including uncertified dust masks with a similar form factor. This presents difficulties for being both accurate and colloquial.

Separately, mechanical filter respirators (and N95 masks) include both filtering facepiece respirators and air-filtering elastomeric respirators. Both are made to the same standards. Would you support redirecting "elastomeric respirator" to "Mechanical filter (respirator)", Widefox? What would you suggest doing with NIOSH air filtration rating (parallels FFP standards)? How should it relate to N95 mask?

I agree that there is no merge reason based on article size; I only argue content overlap. We could have a dozen articles on N95 masks, N99 masks, N100 masks, P95 masks, P99 masks, FFP2 masks, FFP3 masks, P2 masks, KN95 masks, KF94 masks, DS2 masks, PFF2 masks, etc., but the content would overlap heavily. I currently advocate having articles on the separate standards, and one article on all filtering-facepiece (dome-style) masks. I also support Mechanical filter (respirator)'s summary comparison of all the standards (no-one has written much content on most of them): I would be OK with having it in a different article. I think separating the form factors and the multiplicity of similar national standards would minimize overlap, but perhaps there are better ways to do this. HLHJ (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

^That would work well and something I could easily support, especially given the multitude of standards currently and potentially into the future. MartinezMD (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

My point being a hatnote on N95 mask to the main article covers the common usage for a respirator. As pointed out, N95 is not the commonname, and is in fact not used at least in the UK, so would be a terrible merge target for any generic article or redirect. No merge needed. Widefox; talk 20:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, N95 is a U.S.-specific standard so of course it wouldn't be used in the UK. That's a major point I'm trying to make: "filtering facepiece respirator" is a different concept than "N95 mask", as the latter is a subset of the former. Articles with each title would have different scopes and different content. Using the most common name isn't the only aspect of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA; it needs to be precise as well.

Air-purifying respirators are classified both according to their physical form, and also their filtration method. You can imagine a table that has forms across the top (filtering facepiece, elastomeric, powered) and filters down the side (chemical, mechanical NIOSH-rated, mechanical EU-rated, mechanical China-rated, etc.). The idea is to try to have an article for each column and each row, and to try to avoid having a separate article for each individual cell. N95 mask may be the sole exception since it's so prominent and recognizable, but it would be more efficient to cover all the filtering facepiece respirators together. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, John P. Sadowski (NIOSH), all those physical forms could use N95 filters? HLHJ (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, no, powered air-purifying respirators use HE filters, which are functionally equivalent to P100 filters, but have a different name for some reason. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• oppose per Wildefox--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Same questions as of Widefox, then, Ozzie10aaaa : Would you support redirecting "elastomeric respirator" to "Mechanical filter (respirator)"? What would you suggest doing with NIOSH air filtration rating (parallels FFP standards)? How should it relate to N95 mask?

• having looked at the questions/answers given above (to Wildefox), I therefore change to neutral, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Patapsco913, your comments so far have been succinct and clear. What would you suggest as the best way to organize this content into articles? Elastomeric respirator, NIOSH air filtration rating, all the rest? HLHJ (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Patapsco913, Widefox, I want to understand what arrangement of content you are advocating. Do you think N95 mask should contain content on elastomeric N95 masks, for instance? What about the article on FPP masks? Are you opposed to having separate form-based articles on elastomeric masks and filtering-facepiece masks? I'd really like to settle this discussion. HLHJ (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Is the original move/merge request dead? What about undoing (per above?) I know when I see a bad one, but may not be able to add more for suggesting a good one (as I have no time right now). As a default I'd go with User:John P. Sadowski (NIOSH);s thoughts. Widefox; talk 00:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it's already been pretty much undone. FFP mask now redirects to FFP standards, which contains mostly the same material as I recall. Of course it's legitimate to counterrecommend one arrangement without recommending another, but we do need to arrange the info somehow.

Would you object to my making a separate filtering facepiece mask article, which I think John P. Sadowski supports? I was a bit hasty about merging the N95 and FFP articles to make one, but I think, subject to correction, that people objected to the bad merge. If no-one objects to the existence of a filtering facepiece mask article per se, I could make one from scratch, leaving the other articles with their more-specific content separate. That is, I won't remove content from the more-specific articles like N95 mask or merge any part of them with anything else without re-opening this discussion and getting consensus. User:John P. Sadowski (NIOSH), Widefox, Patapsco913, opinions? HLHJ (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we've reached the limits of what an unstructured discussion can accomplish. I'll put together a formal proposal in the next few days and we can get the !votes and settle this. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

John P. Sadowski (NIOSH), would you like help with the proposal? HLHJ (talk) 05:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@HLHJ: Sorry, I got sidetracked with another project. I'll put it on top of my to-do list. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 07:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

John P. Sadowski (NIOSH), shoud we format this as a formal WP:RFC? HLHJ (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 13 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

N95 mask → Filtering facepiece respirator – We've had a good WP:BRD cycle, but we've reached the limits of what an unstructured discussion can accomplish, so I'd like to lay out a reogranization proposal to get the !votes to settle this.

The proposal is to rename this article to Filtering facepiece respirator and rewrite it to include non-U.S. sources. User:HLHJ has volunteered to do the bulk of the rewriting, who has already made extensive contributions to other respirator articles.

People have pointed to WP:COMMONNAME as a reason for keeping the current article title. However, recognizability is only one of five WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, with precision being equally important. Also, the N95 standard is a U.S.-specific standard, and we should consider whether the best article organization is to cover all filtering facepiece respirators in a single article, given the similarity of the standards. The advantages for making the change are as follows:

• The N95 standard is one of nine U.S. standards (N/R/P × 95/99/100) used for filtering facepiece respirators that differ in the oil resistance and exact filtration efficiency. They are all used under similar circumstances and the same guidance mostly applies to all of them. It wouldn't make sense to have nine articles about each of the standards, since the differences can be explained fairly succinctly in a combined article.
• Similarly, filtering facepiece respirator standards tend to be fairly similar across jurisdictions. The technical differences tend to be subtle, such as the exact test particulate material used and the exact air flow velocity used in testing. There are correspondences of respirator standards that are generally considered to be functionally equivalent in practice, for example N95/FFP2/KN95 respirators. While separate articles for U.S., EU, Chinese, etc. might draw off of guidance from the separate jurisdictions, in practice they would overlap greatly, and again it would be more efficient to note any differences succinctly in a combined article.
• The title "N95 mask" is ambiguous in a different regard: N95 filters in a different form may be used for elastomeric respirators, which are not covered in this article. Currently, a hatnote explains this. (This is not the case in the EU, where filters for elastomeric respirators are named "P1/2/3" rather than "FFP1/2/3".)

In conclusion, I believe the best article organization would be to have a single article on Filtering facepiece respirator concentrating on the similarities between them. Details specific to each jurisdiction's standards should be in a series of articles that cover each set of filter standards as a whole (NIOSH air filtration rating, European Union air filtration rating, Chinese air filtration rating, etc.). John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. SITH (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Reopened by request – click "show" for previous closure →
Not moved per consensus seen below. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Publishing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 21:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose this should be called N95/P2 respirators per WP:MEDTITLE and WP:COMMONNAME--Investigatory (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Investigatory, it seems Australians and New Zealanders indeed call it a P2/P3. And the US NIOSH calls it an N95/N99/N100. But in Europe the common name is FPP. In Europe, P1/P2/P3 is used for filters in elastomeric respirators, but not for filtering-facepiece respirators. See Mechanical filter (respirator)#Filtration standards for more regional terms. HLHJ (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
    • By that logic, we would need to name the article N95, FFP2, P2, KN95, KF94, PFF2, and DS2 respirators, and it would probably still be missing a few. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I'm not familiar enough with this subject, but if what the nom said is correct, that creating an article on each region version (N95, P1, FFP1, KN95) and also on each set of a region (so 9 US articles) will be a major overlap, which seems entirely probable, then all data should be in one article. That article should be separated by regional sections and a detailed list of all versions in a region. It obviously should have not have a specific title such as "N95 mask" and should use a non-specific one. If, after the article creation is done and it turns out that the content doesn't overlap, the articles can always be split into regional sub-articles ("Filtering facepiece respirator in the United States"). Gonnym (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Surely the filtering facepiece respirator article and this one are both independently notable. I think that the former should be expanded as a WP:BROADCONCEPT article rather than this article be discarded, that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This article can maintain the US-centric view and solely be about N95 masks, which had a lot of media attention and controversy, especially during the pandemic._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose move, but splitting out a new article to cover several additional variants and international versions is fine. As stated by Zxcvbnm, N95 is absolutely independently notable in and of itself. For example, pieces have been published covering the specific origin of N95 at Fast Company ([3]) and NPR ([4] - NPR even using clips this story separately as a feature in other shows [5]). N95 mask would serve fine as a WP:SPINOFF from the larger article in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. -2pou (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • This shows the pitfalls of relying on popular media for health information. N95 masks don't have separate origins from other filtering facepiece respirators, as they're made of the same material. The "N95" system didn't even exist until 1995; there was a different system in the U.S. before then [6]. The writers of these popular articles are being sloppy; this is why they're not considered reliable sources for this topic.

Having separate articles for respirators approved under U.S. versus EU standards is the same as having different articles for Gasoline and Petrol; they have different regulations and names in different countries, but they're still essentially the same thing. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose – not recognizable. I've heard a lot of people talk about N95 masks, but I've never heard anyone talk about filtering facepiece respirators. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - N95 respirators are not functionally equivalent to KN95s. N95 respirators use a over-the-head elastic to ensure a proper seal, while KN95s can use ear loop elastics, which may not result in a proper seal. If SARS-CoV-2 aerosols can get in through the sides of the respirator, the main material of the mask is not as important. KN95s are less protective than N95s. The article title should be "N95 respirator", not "N95 mask", since the WHO and Health Canada distinguish between "respirators" and "masks", where "respirators" indicate a higher standard of protection. For Health Canada, failed KN95s cannot be sold as "respirators", only "face masks". --TechnophilicHippie (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Good point about the KN95 respirators, it should be added to the article. Sources describe N95 and K95 respirators as "similar" [7] [8]. I agree that N95 mask isn't a great title, since it's a colloquial usage (though since N95 is a U.S.-specific standard, usage outside the U.S. isn't entirely relevant). N95 respirator is also problematic; it's an incorrect usage since N95 is a standard for filters, not entire respirators; and it's imprecise since elastomeric respirators can have removable N95 filters, but these aren't covered in this article. I think N95 filtering facepiece respirator would be a better name for this article as it stands, but we can discuss that later if this RM fails. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    • "N95 respirator" is a common term used by the WHO, and even the U.S. CDC article you linked. According to 3M, "Masks often fit loosely, leaving gaps between the mask and your face. Fit test requirements do not apply as masks are not designed to reduce wearer exposure to airborne particulates. N95 respirators are designed to fit tightly, creating a seal between your face and the respirator. Requires fit testing and user seal checks." Elastomeric respirators can/should be discussed in the article as well, but "N95 respirator" is a common enough term, and there is a distinction between a mask and a respirator. I'm sure 3M understands there are elastomeric respirators, but they are using "N95 respirator" to mean the disposable kind. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
      • @TechnophilicHippie, I agree with you that the current title is suboptimal and needs to change. It sounds like you know more about the N95/KN95 differences than most. Obviously, the point of fit-testing an N95 respirator is because even with the over-the-head elastic band, the average size/shape doesn't work for every person. You can have a perfectly good N95 respirator that does not protect a person (e.g., almost anyone with a full beard). You could also have a KN95 with ear loops that passes a fit test for a particular person. In that case, is the KN95 actually worse protection? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
        • It depends. Health Canada issues recall of some KN95 masks made in China: "The recalled masks are made to the Chinese standard, KN95, which is also supposed to filter out more than 95 per cent of particulates. But NIOSH tests found that some masks filtered out as little as one per cent." In the recall PDF, applying to the KN95s that failed the NIOSH test, it says to "Stop Sale of KN95 respirators and Relabel current stock of respirators as face masks (not respirators) that can be distributed to healthcare and non-healthcare settings, where a 95% filtration is not needed". TechnophilicHippie (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
          • From what I remember of the news reports, though, that was a case of fake KN95s, not of ones that meet the KN95 standard. Fraudulently labeled products probably shouldn't be counted against the standard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
            • N95 respirators by definition are NIOSH-certified, so a "respirator" labelled as an "N95" is fake if it wasn't actually tested and certified by NIOSH, which is a part of the U.S. CDC. However, for KN95s, it is unclear if there is even a certification agency, or if companies self-declare their products as KN95 without independent testing. There isn't the same concept of a "fake" for a KN95 as with an N95, without a certification agency. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• oppose per TechnophilicHippie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Paine, we were still talking here. I asked an editor a question earlier today, and a couple hours later, you came around and put a big "don't talk about this any more" box around the discussion. Active discussions about page moves shouldn't be cut off just because they've been open for 7.8 days. Would you please self-revert for now and then wait until people are done talking? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for closing before you were finished discussing the level of protection of the KN95 mask with TechnophilicHippie, WhatamIdoing. Of course I don't mind reopening. How long do you think you will need before this RM can be reclosed under its fairly strong consensus to not move this article to the proposed title? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 03:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Who knows? We might even manage to come up with a better proposal that everyone supports. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact that this is still open prevents me from moving the article from “N95 mask” to “N95 respirator”. Can we close this soon so that the wrong name doesn’t keep existing? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

After all this, I think it would be a good idea to open another new requested move for that new title change to N95 respirator (unless of course a consensus to move it there emerges in this move request). P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 21:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's okay to close this requested move, as there's clearly consensus against it. I still believe that N95 filtering facepiece respirator is the best name for this article as it stands, as N95 respirator is imprecise since elastomeric respirators with removable N95 filters aren't and shouldn't be covered in this article. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought this requested moved was closed already, it is past the vote expiration date, and there is no further discussion. Why is it still open? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 05:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Relisted to allow further discussion per Paine's re-opening. Collapsing. SITH (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why "N95 mask" needs to be moved to "N95 respirator" urgently

• The U.S. CDC and Health Canada make a distinction between products sold as "respirators" versus "masks" to prevent people from getting scammed and mistakenly buying something that they believe will offer sufficient filtration against COVID-19. Health officials are relying on consumers understanding the difference between a "respirator" and a "mask", but these consumers may look up the distinction on Wikipedia and see that this article suggests there can be a N95 "mask" that offers 95% filtration. The respirator-versus-mask distinction cannot be added to the article while the article itself is called "N95 mask".
• Whether "N95 respirator" is the perfect final name can be discussed, but I hope that we can agree that the name "N95 mask" is harmful to public understanding and public health.
• Public misunderstanding of health authorities' distinction between respirators and masks also contributed to the public perception that health officials lied when they said that masks don't guarantee protection from the virus. On social media, objectors pointed out evidence of N95 "mask" protection, not understanding that health authorities did not mean respirators, but rather surgical masks often worn in Asia are not designed to protect the wearer from contracting disease. Leaving the article as "N95 mask" may further add to public distrust and misunderstanding of health authorities' messaging.
• "N95 respirators" versus "N95 filtering facepiece respirator" is a semantic debate that won't have as much as a difference as not keeping the name as "N95 mask". I am actually fine with "N95 respirator, also known as N95 filtering facepiece respirator", but tried to get the article moved a few times quickly due to the urgency of the issue, while semantic debates dragged on in the Talk pages, and continued to block the move.

TechnophilicHippie (talk) 06:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

How much do they reduce transmission?

Do we have any published estimates of how much N95 usage reduces the likelihood of COVID (or other) infections, for the wearer and for others? I googled and couldn't find any clear answers, and don't see any on this page. -- 2A00:23C7:8913:6101:A064:14F7:3EE9:7748 (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't have a link, but I read a study where FFP2 respirators, which are quite similar to N95, protected some 97% of the staff on COVID wards in clinics from an infection.

With additional eye protection (face shield or safety goggles) the protection from infection was more like 100% (I believe N was too low to really claim 100% protection).

Of course, in clinics and especially COVID wards, they do fit testing on the masks with aerosols containing bitrex, so you can taste leaks.

And the respirators only protect as long as they are worn. Studies that didn't find evidence for reliable protection while the respirators were only worn at work but not at home, where there were children who went to schools without any protection measures, cannot ever provide any meaning. That's like crossing a lake full of hungry alligators and having a boat only for 1/3 of the way... 2A02:8071:283:1780:4923:D756:6E77:A498 (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Nuclear (accident or bomb) protection, for example by wearing 3M Aura mask?

Is there a wikipedia page about this?

--91.159.188.74 (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

"N95 Mask Filter" Invention Issue

I'll make this brief: First, there were multiple types of electret filers invented before Tsai's [9]. Second, N95 is a specification of 42 CFR part 84; put another way, if it passes a part 84 test, and is approved by NIOSH, it's an N95. This includes elastomerics, too, which makes this whole assertion problematic, IMO. I'm going to mark this as dubious for now, and will remove it once I gain access to this paywalled source, [10] unless anyone has other thoughts.⸺RandomStaplers 04:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

And just to squash any assertions that "N95" is a generic term, it's federal law, and, while I still have to find a non-primary source for this, it's trademarked by the USHHS.⸺RandomStaplers 05:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

RCT discussion

• A copy of this question is located on Special:Permalink/1245414934. Proposals to this page in particular should be directed to this talk page.——Randomstapler's alt 21:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Special link update: Special:Permalink/1245608643——Randomstapler's alt 00:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
• N95 RCTs that may actually be 29 CFR 1910.134 RCTs? Special:Permalink/1246562155——Randomstapler's alt 20:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
• Text source integrity problems: Special:Permalink/1251618081⸺(Random)staplers 02:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)