I’m not sure you’re right about the advantages of N95 masks over surgical masks. (Note: at present the question says ”… the prime advantage of surgical masks over N95 masks …” but I assume that’s just a slip.)
N95 masks have finer filters that keep out particles smaller than surgical masks’ filters do. If you tape a surgical mask to your face in a way that seals it perfectly, then while you may be doing a better job of keeping out the particles the mask can block you’re still not doing much for the smaller ones.
N95 masks are notoriously tricky to fit well, but so far as I know no one tapes those to their faces. Whatever the reasons for that, many of those reasons probably apply to surgical masks (but more so, because the benefit will be smaller, because however good the fit the surgical masks are still not keeping out all the smaller particles.) I don’t know those reasons, but I guess they include the following, all of which seem like they apply to surgical masks:
Taping a mask to your face is harder than it may sound. There isn’t that much available surface between nose and eyes to tape to.
Your face is flexible and moves around as you talk, blink, smile, etc. Tape can peel off. Especially if you have facial hair, wrinkles, damage from earlier mask-unpeelings, etc., rather than a perfect smooth surface to tape to.
Surgical masks are also flexible and often have folds extending to their edges, making it difficult to seal them effectively using tape.
They also have straps. It seems to me that any way of taping a mask on is going to leave a “tunnel” along the straps. You can tape the straps down but they’re inevitably going to move around in ways that tend to enlarge that tunnel.
Peeling tape off your face is painful and may do damage, especially if you are doing it repeatedly and especially if the tape is extra-sticky so as not to peel off while you’re wearing the mask.
The slow and awkward peeling-off process keeps the mask, whose outer surface might be covered in virus particles or whatever, close to your face for longer while you’re removing it.
None of this means that taping down a surgical mask won’t provide any benefit. My guess is that it does. But I suspect the benefit is small enough, and the pain and inconvenience large enough, that most people won’t consider it a good tradeoff.
As to whether that’s right in any given case, I don’t know. It would be interesting to have some actual numbers on this, but my guess is that no one’s done the studies.
I presume the comment about N95s not filtering smaller particles refers to the standard of filtering 95% of particles as small at 0.3 microns and viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 are much smaller than that. (0.1 micron) While I have no expertise as a virologist, it is widely explained that N95 masks stop smaller particles than 0.3 because of the way the particles move. That random movement makes it likely they will hit the fabric and stick. Additionally, an electrostatic charge attracts the smaller particles. In fact, the scientists say, the most difficult size particle for the masks to stop are those that are 0.3 microns. The masks actually do a better job of stopping microns smaller than that.
I think you could overcome most of those bullet points by using spirit gum instead of tape, tho I’m not sure how often you’d want to do that: even sticking an adhesive bandage to some patch of skin and changing it every day will do considerable damage after a relatively short time.
I’ve also come to understand that the N95 respirator is a much better filter than the paper masks could ever be, so adhering paper masks to the face might simply be nowhere near as useful as just having the right mask in the first place. My understanding is that most masks are simply just at keeping the user’s bio-bits out of the environment than they are at keeping the environment out of the user. That’s why the current recommendation is for the general public to use paper or cloth masks while reserving N95 respirators for healthcare personnel.
Sticking it to your face every day for your job might be a problem, but what if you’re only using it once a week to buy groceries? Maybe the better fit with no training is worth the skin damage in this case.
Right. Though the paper by Davies et al that Christian found suggests that at least some paper masks may not be so wretched at keeping out tiny particles.
N95 masks just need to filter 95% to get that certification. They don’t filter as much as FFP3 masks but only as much as FFP2 masks. They aren’t equipment that keeps out all the smaller particles.
Davis et al 2013 suggests ~90% filtration for surgical masks. I read somewhere in the literature that in cases where studies found similar effects for protection by surgical masks and N95 masks it’s likely because the N95 masks didn’t fit correctly.
Davies et al is encouraging as regards the benefits of surgical masks. Still, letting 10% in is a lot worse than letting 5% in, and the fact that the Wikipedia page about N95 masks says “Collection efficiency of surgical mask filters can range from less than 10% to nearly 90% for different manufacturers’ masks when measured using the test parameters for NIOSH certification” suggests that maybe Davies et al got lucky in which surgical masks they tested.
I’m not sure you’re right about the advantages of N95 masks over surgical masks. (Note: at present the question says ”… the prime advantage of surgical masks over N95 masks …” but I assume that’s just a slip.)
N95 masks have finer filters that keep out particles smaller than surgical masks’ filters do. If you tape a surgical mask to your face in a way that seals it perfectly, then while you may be doing a better job of keeping out the particles the mask can block you’re still not doing much for the smaller ones.
N95 masks are notoriously tricky to fit well, but so far as I know no one tapes those to their faces. Whatever the reasons for that, many of those reasons probably apply to surgical masks (but more so, because the benefit will be smaller, because however good the fit the surgical masks are still not keeping out all the smaller particles.) I don’t know those reasons, but I guess they include the following, all of which seem like they apply to surgical masks:
Taping a mask to your face is harder than it may sound. There isn’t that much available surface between nose and eyes to tape to.
Your face is flexible and moves around as you talk, blink, smile, etc. Tape can peel off. Especially if you have facial hair, wrinkles, damage from earlier mask-unpeelings, etc., rather than a perfect smooth surface to tape to.
Surgical masks are also flexible and often have folds extending to their edges, making it difficult to seal them effectively using tape.
They also have straps. It seems to me that any way of taping a mask on is going to leave a “tunnel” along the straps. You can tape the straps down but they’re inevitably going to move around in ways that tend to enlarge that tunnel.
Peeling tape off your face is painful and may do damage, especially if you are doing it repeatedly and especially if the tape is extra-sticky so as not to peel off while you’re wearing the mask.
The slow and awkward peeling-off process keeps the mask, whose outer surface might be covered in virus particles or whatever, close to your face for longer while you’re removing it.
None of this means that taping down a surgical mask won’t provide any benefit. My guess is that it does. But I suspect the benefit is small enough, and the pain and inconvenience large enough, that most people won’t consider it a good tradeoff.
As to whether that’s right in any given case, I don’t know. It would be interesting to have some actual numbers on this, but my guess is that no one’s done the studies.
I presume the comment about N95s not filtering smaller particles refers to the standard of filtering 95% of particles as small at 0.3 microns and viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 are much smaller than that. (0.1 micron) While I have no expertise as a virologist, it is widely explained that N95 masks stop smaller particles than 0.3 because of the way the particles move. That random movement makes it likely they will hit the fabric and stick. Additionally, an electrostatic charge attracts the smaller particles. In fact, the scientists say, the most difficult size particle for the masks to stop are those that are 0.3 microns. The masks actually do a better job of stopping microns smaller than that.
I think you could overcome most of those bullet points by using spirit gum instead of tape, tho I’m not sure how often you’d want to do that: even sticking an adhesive bandage to some patch of skin and changing it every day will do considerable damage after a relatively short time.
I’ve also come to understand that the N95 respirator is a much better filter than the paper masks could ever be, so adhering paper masks to the face might simply be nowhere near as useful as just having the right mask in the first place. My understanding is that most masks are simply just at keeping the user’s bio-bits out of the environment than they are at keeping the environment out of the user. That’s why the current recommendation is for the general public to use paper or cloth masks while reserving N95 respirators for healthcare personnel.
Sticking it to your face every day for your job might be a problem, but what if you’re only using it once a week to buy groceries? Maybe the better fit with no training is worth the skin damage in this case.
Right. Though the paper by Davies et al that Christian found suggests that at least some paper masks may not be so wretched at keeping out tiny particles.
N95 masks just need to filter 95% to get that certification. They don’t filter as much as FFP3 masks but only as much as FFP2 masks. They aren’t equipment that keeps out all the smaller particles.
Davis et al 2013 suggests ~90% filtration for surgical masks. I read somewhere in the literature that in cases where studies found similar effects for protection by surgical masks and N95 masks it’s likely because the N95 masks didn’t fit correctly.
Davies et al is encouraging as regards the benefits of surgical masks. Still, letting 10% in is a lot worse than letting 5% in, and the fact that the Wikipedia page about N95 masks says “Collection efficiency of surgical mask filters can range from less than 10% to nearly 90% for different manufacturers’ masks when measured using the test parameters for NIOSH certification” suggests that maybe Davies et al got lucky in which surgical masks they tested.