
The origin story of the N95 mask - wallflower
https://www.fastcompany.com/90479846/the-untold-origin-story-of-the-n95-mask
======
devy
Other than invented face mask, Dr. Lien-teh Wu was the first medical student
of Chinese descent to study at the University of Cambridge and graduated top
class. Later Dr. Wu had also studied at Pasteur Institute, the world's
renowned institute on infectious disease. After successfully led the
containment effort for Manchurian Pneumonic Plague of 1910–1911, he co-founded
Chinese Medical Association. He was also widely considered the pioneer of
public health and the founding father of modern medicine in China.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_Lien-
teh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_Lien-teh)

~~~
whatshisface
Didn't the plague doctors with the bird masks predate that?

------
stareatgoats
> Wu explains to the French doctor his theory that plague is pneumonic and
> airborne (...) And the French guy humiliates him . . . and in very racist
> terms says, ‘What can we expect from a Chinaman?’ And to prove this point,
> [the French doctor] goes and attends the sick in a plague hospital without
> wearing Wu’s mask, and he dies in two days with plague.

Maybe we're like this French doctor, and that this is still the reason why we
don't wear masks in the west? A widespread practice in several East Asian
countries - but what do they know?

~~~
rswail
The reason we don't is because we weren't dramatically affected by SARS. SARS
in the early '00s was primarily a problem in Asia.

Japanese people also have an etiquette of wearing a mask when ill to avoid
spreading disease.

Both of these habits are widespread in Asia because of this.

~~~
skocznymroczny
Also in many Asian cities masks are worn due to air pollution.

~~~
JCharante
and even in clean areas some people still wear them because they help keep
your face warm when it's cold.

~~~
Markoff
or it's just common courtesy trying to not infect others with your illness
like in Japan

------
netwanderer3
One major weakness of the current N95 masks is that sometimes it doesn't seal
very well to the contours of people's faces. When this happens, it doesn't
work as well because particles can still travel into the airway via open space
gaps.

I personally have not seen this implemented, but one possible solution I
believe may work is to apply a thin layer of sticky hydrogen tape right along
the edges of the mask so it would act like an adhesive that helps seal the
open space gaps as it can fit with the unique shape and contour of each
person's face.

Medical hydrogen tape is the same material that we often see being used in
those sticky pads that they put on a person's body during an electrocardiogram
(EKG) test. It's also the same adhesive that used by those electro pads in
TENS pain-relief machines. This sticky adhesive material is safe for human
skins and can last multiple uses.

It would be great if someone could add a feature in which you can insert a
removable HEPA filter so it can be swapped in and out when needed.

~~~
mauvehaus
The problem of facial sealing is well-solved in the industrial space. People
who routinely need respiratory protection for stuff other than particulates
use a half-face (or full face) respirator [0] that has a body made of some
flexible material that seals to the face far better than an N95 mask.

You can get particulate cartridges in the N or P-flavored type, which I use
for sanding. It's also usually possible to get a particulate pre-filter on top
of e.g. an organic vapor cartridge.

Respirators also come in sizes and need to be fit-tested. The quick and dirty
method is to take off the cartridges, seal the holes they mount to and breathe
in. If you feel your ears popping, it fits-ish (EDITED TO ADD: I am not an
industrial hygienist, and I'm principally worried about wood dust not organic
vapors or acid vapors or anything _really_ bad. Don't take industrial hygiene
advice from some random on the internet!). A proper fit test involves somebody
puffing something around the mask while you breathe, talk, and possibly a few
other things.

As it happens, for a proper seal, you also need to be clean-shaven. As I'm
principally protecting myself from wood dust, I don't bother. If I'm using
something noxious (like paint stripper), I'll shave and put on the correct
cartridges.

Whether or not this is a solution to the current medical problem is beyond my
expertise. There may be an advantage to regularly disposing of your N95 mask
to prevent accidental contamination or something.

[0] [https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/company-
us/all-3m-products/~/All...](https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/company-
us/all-3m-products/~/All-3M-Products/Safety/Personal-Safety/Personal-
Protective-Equipment/Reusable-Respirators/Half-Facepiece-
Respirators/?N=5002385+8709322+8711017+8711405+8720539+8720550+8720785+3294857497&rt=r3)

~~~
donavanm
Im a fan of the pink p95 & p100 disposables with nuisance level organic
filtering. I want to say 2097? I used them for small painting, welding, and
brazing jobs. Work a treat with organic solvents & weak acid vapors and IIRC
they werent much more than the regular N & P series. The carts were nice with
theprefilters but then I just have more things to keep in stock.

~~~
spacehunt
2097/2297 are nice, 7093 is a bit better as the plastic casing provides a bit
of protection against the rain.

60926 is anecdotally proven to work in environments highly polluted with oily
crystals for at least a few hours.

------
axaxs
You know, while I like stories like these, I find them equally frustrating
because there doesn't seem to be any sources. Just Google the ignorant French
doctor's name, for example.

It reminds me of my college psychology class. Our teacher would teach us from
a book, then tell us the book was wrong and India had such discoveries prior.
Cool to know, but now who knows the truth anymore.

~~~
wonnage
I got sent down a rabbithole of searching by this article too, apparently the
doctor wrote an autobiography (in English!) in 1959 that was republished as
recently as 2014, but apparently the only way to get ahold of it here is to
have it shipped from Malaysia. Or some college libraries, which are
unfortunately closed right now due to COVID.

I think we forget that the vast majority (i.e, pre-2005-ish) of human
knowledge still exists in the old physical world of print and libraries.
Unless you're exceedingly lucky (or it was recently reprinted), its basically
impossible to get your hands on a digital version of an old book. Your best
hope is that Google Books (which seems mostly abandoned) scanned it and will
let you read a few pages.

~~~
yesenadam
>Unless you're exceedingly lucky (or it was recently reprinted), its basically
impossible to get your hands on a digital version of an old book.

I read a lot of old books - early 20th C, 19th, 18th, 17th C, and medieval and
ancient. Archive.org has most of what I search for - nice scans, in multiple
formats, free. Also you can often borrow mid-late 20th C stuff online from
there for a few weeks if not they're not downloadable outright. Libgen has a
lot of stuff from early-mid 20th C and before. If those fail, I order it
online, usually a few dollars. We're so spoilt!

------
yuanchanga
This is such a dumb article.

It focuses on just the one piece of PPE that has gotten an undeserved amount
of attention in the coronavirus crisis, when it's not the only tool in the
arsenal of healthcare workers (compared with normal surgical masks, face
shields, papr devices, etc).

And it is not necessarily the best tool for the general populace.
(hypothetically (ballpark numbers from some stuff i remember reading) If a
normal surgical mask can be replaced twice as often and is easier to breath
through while only sacrificing 30% of protection, etc, what is recommended for
the general public? Even the N95 only protects against... 95% of particulates
of the specified size, why not wear a P100 filter on a gas mask?).

From a macro and epidemiological standpoint, what is the optimal guidance on
the level of PPE for the general public to wear for the greatest net effect?
Is what I consider the most interesting and relevant question.

There is also an unchecked assumption in this article that the N95 is "most
important design object of our time".

It also fails to explain that N95 is a standard of protection rather than a
certain object, it fails to explain the meaning of the standard.

(Which is) N = Not oil resistant 95 = Removes 95% of all particles that are at
least 0.3 microns in diameter

It merges the development paths of protective masks against particulates,
which is the true purpose of N95 masks, and protective equipment for
healthcare. To me, I think N95 happened to be a standard similar enough to the
requirements of healthcare, so they simply adopted it. Rather than the false
narrative the article paints of the N95 mask being developed FOR medicine.

I would have been interested to read about the additional requirements a FDA
defined "surgical N95" must meet (additional fluid resistance), or how the N95
plays into the entire suite of relevant protective equipment in this crisis
(When doctors use a normal surgical mask, N95, PAPR, face shield, or goggles).

edit: clickbait article that doesn't give any information beyond what 5
minutes googling would use.

edit2: would have been interesting to read about how people are making face
masks and other protective equipment or experiments in sanitizing and reusing
one time use face masks.

------
forgingahead
The mask denialism in the comments is incredible to see.

Let's all agree (without polemics): masks can be helpful, so we should
encourage everyone to wear them, unless there is a shortage, in which case
priority should be given to healthcare workers/elderlies/front-line staff/etc.

~~~
Joeri
From what I understand the WHO guidance around masks has to do with the
shortages on one hand and human behavior on the other hand. People who wear
masks behave in a higher risk way, and because the safety benefit from the
mask by itself is quite low (without medical training you are likely to use it
wrong), statistically it is better to recommend people to not wear masks so
they will behave more safely.

It’s a bit like gun ownership: intuitively it makes you safer, but
statistically it makes you less safe because of behavioral and opportunity
changes.

~~~
bkor
According to the Corona expert in South Korea, masks help a great deal. His
assumption on why the WHO only recommends masks in Asia and not anywhere else
is due to the limited amount of supply anywhere but in Asia. In Asia people
like already own masks. Anywhere else people would first need to stock up.
Leading to shortages. As such, it's better not to recommend them so medical
professionals are prioritized.

It's also interesting that in in Europe/US they focus on a person not getting
a disease. In Asia they often wear a masks if the person isn't feeling well.
Meaning, the mask is to prevent the person who is wearing it from infecting
others. This bit is often glossed over.

The video is available at
[https://youtu.be/gAk7aX5hksU](https://youtu.be/gAk7aX5hksU). I don't know
exactly where they discussed the masks. The entire video is great, so suggest
to watch the whole thing.

Note: It also talks about spreading by touching your nose and then someone or
some surface.

~~~
Dahoon
>In Asia people like already own masks.

A mask is a biohazard and should be one-use or sterilised and removed with
gloves. If you do that then yes a mask is a help. If not you are playing
Russian roulette with a Corona bomb on your face. It is amazing how much
energy users on HN use on talking and discussing mask use and still don't
understand why a mask used wrongly is worse than no mask. Walking around town
collecting germs and bringing them home with you is the mindset you need to be
in if masks should be a good idea and safe.

~~~
spacehunt
Who says we don't understand?

I get that not everyone has been through both SARS and the wanton deployment
of tear gas, but it's just _common sense_ for us to dump everything in the
wash and have a thorough shower as soon as we get home.

We waste energy on you deniers because we don't want you to become a walking
biohazard yourself and infect everyone else.

------
fasteddie31003
I am a strong believer in the universal mask protocol for controlling
COVID-19. I've created
[https://www.maskssavelives.org/](https://www.maskssavelives.org/) to help
spread the message.

~~~
gombosg
It's OK that your 'belief' contradicts official WHO guidance but that 'MASKS-
NO MASKS' graph went a bit too far as a misstatement (i.e. "presenting facts
in an alternative way").

Let me paste the official advice here for educating readers:
[https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-
coronavirus-2...](https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-
coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks)

> If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a
> person with suspected 2019-nCoV infection. > Wear a mask if you are coughing
> or sneezing. > Masks are effective only when used in combination with
> frequent hand-cleaning with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water. > If
> you wear a mask, then you must know how to use it and dispose of it
> properly.

The kind of misinforming you are doing is dangerous in these times, especially
that the official WHO standpoint is that wearing masks in a wrong way (using
it multiple times, touching or taking off in a wrong way) is worse than not
wearing them at all during already decreased social encounters (i.e. already
staying at home, and going out at most for groceries).

Or are you stating that the WHO is lying?

Those Asian cultures have a different epidemic curve not due to mask wearing,
but because a totally different social structure, prior experience concerning
epidemics, preparedness, attitude towards authority & emergency measures and
other factors. So it's a fallacy of cherry picking to say that it's 'because
they wear masks and all our authorities are wrong'.

~~~
wwweston
Here's what makes sense to me:

* The single most effective intervention we have right now is staying home and avoiding every unnecessary contact, as authorities recommend.

* Worn carefully, several kinds of masks probably have a range of marginal positive effects.

* BUT recommending them runs the risk of (a) people over-relying on them and not following isolation protocols (b) people wearing them incorrectly for a mix of less effective benefits and added risks (c) contributing to a run on masks which constrains supply for medical workers where the benefits are more critical.

If this is all true, it can simultaneously be the case that official
guidelines against masks are reasonable recommendations and that it's also a
reasonable recommendation to wear masks (on top of other more important
precautions).

I'm sure that masks are not the sole factor in gentler curves in those
countries. They do seem to be a common factor.

~~~
gombosg
I totally agree and it's likely that the public will be much better equipped
after this pandemic ends. So all of us will have a box of disposable masks at
home, and will be educated about when and how to wear them properly.

Right now, the average person probably only has 1 or at most a few masks, they
don't dispose of them after use and probably wear (put on/off) them in a wrong
way.

~~~
oefrha
You know, you could have learned how to put on a mask properly within the time
period you spent arguing here. It’s not fucking rocket science.

~~~
JCharante
I was recently on a flight where a person on my row had difficulties taking
her seatbelt off. After what seemed like two minutes the flight attendant
assisted her. I'll even admit that it sometimes takes me a second to do it
correctly when I try to only take it off with one hand. Despite this we still
recommend that people use their seatbelts. In addition to this we play videos
that instruct people on the usage of seatbelts. Imagine if we argued against
recommending seatbelts because of the lack of education on using them despite
never having attempted to explain how to use them.

~~~
verroq
Don't they also teach you how to put on that oxygen mask on the airplane?

------
richajak
His analysis documented on this book

A treatise on pneumonic plague, by Wu Lien-Teh
[https://wellcomelibrary.org/item/b19164415#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0...](https://wellcomelibrary.org/item/b19164415#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&z=-0.6558%2C-0.0892%2C2.03%2C1.4933)

His mask sounds simpler than N95 masks, only replaced by the newer design
during SARS period in 2013. By the way, anyone has the original design of Dr
Wu's mask? Can we mass produce this design for everyone? We need it

~~~
jdjriekfkf
The secret ingredient in N95 masks (and surgical) is a very fancy modern
material: melt-blown non-woven polypropylene.

This is what makes a paper thin surgical mask way better than a thick cotton
one.

~~~
richajak
Totally agree, that's said most people cannot get surgical masks anymore, not
to mention N95 masks. If we can learn the lesson from outbreak happened before
modern tech invented, world would be a better place. We cannot produce or
easily buy nanotech material used for N95 masks. However we can use whatever
materials avail in our house easily. If need extra protection, add 2 layers of
tissue between mask and face. Do not touch mask when you are outside. Stay
away at least 2m from any human being. Do not touch anything outside.
Immediately take shower and disinfect youself with 80p alcohol at home. :)
hopefully most of us will not get infected, I do not want scenario in movie
like Contagion or World War Z to happen for human race.

------
radarsat1
Does anyone know if there's any truth to ideas that certain metals like copper
are "antibacterial"?

I am worried because I have seen stories (e.g. [1]) that claim that masks
incorporating copper can be effective against the virus (never mind that
"antibacterial" apparently also means it can fight viruses, which makes no
sense). Basically, I am seeing an increase in people selling "masks" that are
not approved and that has me worried. I would like some information about
whether there is any science, for or against, to the idea that particular
materials, especially metals, have any kind of "special" effect against
bacteria and viruses.

[1] [https://www.efe.com/efe/america/sociedad/mascarillas-de-
cobr...](https://www.efe.com/efe/america/sociedad/mascarillas-de-cobre-made-
in-chile-para-reducir-el-contagio-del-coronavirus/20000013-4189798) (spanish)

~~~
ardit33
Don't be lazy. Just Google search SARS-CoV-2 on surfaces and you will see that
Coronavirus lasts about 4hrs in Copper, while it can stay one day in Cardboard
and several days in Stainless Steel and Plastics.

So, yes, there is something special about copper. But copper is not a virus
killer (i.e. kills them at contact), it justs seems that viruses don't survive
that long in copper. This has been known since ancient times (where Copper
pantry and utensils was preferred over Steel).

The New England Journal of Medicine. The scientists found that severe acute
respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was detectable in aerosols for
up to three hours, up to four hours on copper, up to 24 hours on cardboard and
up to two to three days on plastic and stainless steel.

[https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/new-
coronaviru...](https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/new-coronavirus-
stable-hours-surfaces)

~~~
madengr
The anti-microbial effect of copper has been known for decades, which is why
it fathoms next that fixtures in hospitals are still made from steel.

~~~
dingaling
It's simply that copper is too expensive to use on an extensive scale such as
hospital fittings.

Copper costs about twice as much as stainless steel per tonne and that is with
current demand levels. Squeezing supply would raise that significantly.

~~~
nradov
Annual worldwide copper production is 18M tonnes and increasing. Most of it is
used in plumbing and wiring. Taking a little bit for hospital hardware
wouldn't impact demand much, and the extra cost would be a rounding error
compared to all of the other equipment that goes into a modern healthcare
facility.

------
thisrod
> By the late 1870s, scientists learned about bacteria.

Bacteria had been discovered in the 17th Century, the moment the microscope
was invented. I think by Robert Hooke, but I could have misremembered that.

What was new in the 1870s was the germ theory of disease.

------
Hgreenfield
Not a single mention of the disastrous pollution caused by the disposal of
millions of non-biodegradable single-use masks into landfills. Yes, they are a
big innovation. Yes, the tech is saving lives. But come on, this is 2020, not
one mention of pollution?

