What are the characteristics of FFp2 masks? And what are the differences with the other masks?
Starting from Christmas day 2021, in Italy, it will be mandatory to wear FFp2 masks every time you go to the cinema, theater, entertainment and similar venues (such as museums), to the stadium, to see an event sports, on means of transport (both long-distance and local public transport). Not only that: it will be mandatory to wear a mask – at least surgical – outdoors and in all closed places that do not require Ffp2: in workplaces, restaurants, bars, shops.
These decisions, taken with a decree passed to counter the increase in cases of contagion, also due to the spread of the new Omicron variant, bring the differences between the different masks – a decisive tool in the fight against the pandemic.
To make a point, let’s start with an image (see below, ed) compiled by the National Federation of the Orders of Chemists and Physicists from which we can see how masks that are not strictly for medical use protect outgoing rather than incoming – in short, they protect those around the wearer more than those who are wearing (the details below, ed).
First of all, they exist three macro-categories of masks:
personal protective equipment (PPE),
medical devices (DM);
community masks (those of cloth).
PPE includes the masks with the FFP abbreviations (where FF stands for Filtering Half Mask).
DMs include surgical masks.
Community masks include disposable or washable ones and can be bought or made at home with different materials: we can define them as a hygienic device.
The surgical masks
The surgical masks, regulated by the CE mark and by a standard, UNI EN 14683: 2019, have been designed to be used by doctors to protect patients when they are on the surgical table. This is why their primary function is not to protect the wearer, but to protect those around: in other words, to limit the spread of potentially infectious particles into the environment. blocking at least 95% of outbound viruses.
well to repeat: surgical masks were not born to protect the wearer from the inhalation of small air particles (aerosols): the power provided to the wearer especially against droplets (heavy droplets) of 20%.
They are useful for if everyone, in a certain environment, wears them.
The FFP2 and FFP3 masks
In order of filtering power we have first, for efficiency, the masks indicated to doctors or people in close contact with Covid-19 patients: FFP2 and FFP3 filtering half masks.
They must have the CE mark and the UNI EN 149 indication, which is the standard for technical performance that guarantees their requirements and characteristics.
FFP2 and FFP3 have a filtering efficiency 92% and 98% respectively. On entry, these masks filter out even the smallest virus particles (called aerosols).
This means that they protect not only those around the wearer, such as surgeries: the FFp2 and FFp3 also protect the wearer from particles in the air.
The decision to impose their use in certain contexts (we repeat them for convenience: cinemas, theaters, entertainment venues and similar such as museums, stadiums, sporting events, means of transport) indicates that the legislator intends to increase the level of individual protection, imposing to protect not only others but also oneself, in the face of a variant whose transmissibility (and, therefore, whose social impact) is particularly high.
FFp2 and FFp3 masks must be worn with a precise procedure.
Hands must be washed before removing the protective device from the wrapping; wear it by touching only the rubber bands, without ever touching the outside; make the upper wire adhere to the nose and cover the nose and mouth well; wash and sanitize hands every time we touch the mask.
Other less common types
An alternative to the surgical mask are the FFP1, which have a filtering efficiency of 72% in entry and exit. Finally, there are also masks in elastomers or technopolymers equipped with a replaceable filter P2 or P3 regulated by UNI EN 140 (half and quarter masks) and UNI EN 143 (dust filters). The filtering efficiency of these devices is similar to those of the FFP2 and FFP3, with the advantage of a better seal on the face but with greater discomfort due to the increase in weight.
Masks with valves
On any type of bezel, especially the FFPs, valves may have been fitted. They make it easier for the wearer to breathe, but they make the breath filter out: therefore they are not good for the sick and generally do not protect others – at the output they have a filtering power of only 20%.
*** These PPE and DM, when we buy them, should have the CE marks and the relative UNI standards imprinted which are a guarantee of resistance to liquid splashes, breathability, efficiency of bacterial filtration, cleaning from microbes.
Community masks
We come to the community masks, the cloth ones.
Their filtering power conditioned by the type of fabric and the number of layers, but indicatively we can consider that they are less effective than a surgical mask both at the entrance, but above all at the exit (therefore they are not good for the sick).
The ISS explains that they must be multilayered
and which can be packaged on their own. He has dedicated a FAQ to the topic on his site. Among the answers:
They are not subject to particular certifications. Neither medical devices nor personal protective equipment should be considered, but a hygienic measure. They must be made of multilayer materials which must not be toxic, allergenic or inflammable and which do not make breathing difficult. They must adhere to the face, covering from the chin to the nose.
Community masks can be washed if made with materials that resist washing at 60 degrees. The masks of commercial communities are disposable or can be washed if there are indications on the packaging that may also include the number of washes allowed without this diminishing their performance.
There is also an official reference document that establishes “reasonable” performances for the generic use made of them: the UNI / PdR 90 reference practices developed by UNI in collaboration with the Politecnico di Torino.
The materials of community masks, both commercial and self-produced, are the most varied. The only ones who have drawn up an efficiency ranking are the journalists of the New York Times
who summarized the tests released by the various laboratories that test atmospheric particles and that use high-tech equipment to measure the potential of any unconventional material that the public can handle.
Among all the tests done, some general evidence stands out: many tissues do a good job filtering the largest viral particles (droplets), they are not very effective for smaller droplets (aerosols).
In most cases, natural fibers perform better than synthetic and two layers are better than one.
Here are the results in detail:
Paper towel type cloths: someone
people use disposable paper cloths to make a face mask or use them as an inner layer in a fabric face mask. In the test the paper cloths (two-ply) filtered 96 percent of droplets and 33 percent of aerosols.
Cotton sewing fabric: a two-layer flannel and cotton mask was one of the best tested and rivaled the efficiency of a surgical mask. In general, high thread count cotton fabric does a great job.
Jeans and canvas: they filtered out over 90 percent of large particles and about a third of small particles.
T-Shirts: Cotton T-shirts are by far the most popular DIY mask fabric, but there is a lot of variability in the materials. A heavy shirt will probably do a better job than a light one. In the test, two layers of T-shirt curbed 77 percent of droplets and 15 percent of aerosols.
Scarves and bandanas: also in this case, the materials are very varied. Most cotton bandanas are made from very light cotton and, even when folded four times, they don’t offer much protection. Both performed poorly in tests.
December 24, 2021 (change December 24, 2021 | 16:03)
© Time.News