Are you sick of wearing your N95 mask and feeling hot and stuffy all the time?
Are you sick of suffering from acne flare-ups because you have to apply masks? And trying to find ways to make breathing easier while you have a N95 mask on? We have found a new brand of N95 that is not only NIOSH-accredited but also breathable and safe to use.
Over the course of the past few months, we have demonstrated NASK N95 to a number of medical experts, and the following is what they had to say about the product:
The brand NASK was launched not too long ago. The Nask N95 mask is conceived, developed, and researched in Hong Kong, where it is also manufactured. Its exclusive nanotechnology is what differentiates it from other N95 products on the market today.
Because of advancements in nanotechnology, NASK may now:
- Extremely thin and lightweight while retaining the ability to filter at extremely high levels
- The face is opposed while the material is soft, and it does not cause any painful bruises or deep facial marks.
- Nanofibers are bactericidal because they produce cell surface lysis, which ultimately results in the death of the bacteria cell.
- Highly permeable to air
Because of the aforementioned, people experience significantly more comfort even when wearing the product for extended periods of time.
The NASK in comparison to the 3M N95
The findings of a study that compared the NASK N95 against respirators manufactured by 3M, including the 1860 series, were recently published in the Journal of Hospital Infection.
The research was conducted with 104 participants, and the results showed that NASK N95 has a consistent and significantly higher usability than the respirators manufactured by 3M in eight different parameters.
NAMI has utilized electrospinning technology to successfully mix meltblown and spunbond fibres with nanofibres ranging in diameter from a few nanometers to a few hundred nanometers. This result cannot be achieved with conventional fabrication methods. Due to the small fibre diameter and high specific surface area of these masks, the nanofibre FFR is capable of effectively trapping microscopic particles by several mechanisms, such as Brownian diffusion. Consequently, the nanofibre FFR was thinner and more breathable than conventional N95 FFRs (as evidenced by the usability results), thereby increasing user comfort. This feature encourages users to maintain the nanofibre FFRs on their faces, which may result in increased user compliance.
In this investigation, the optimal 3M FFRs (in order) for the individuals were 3M 1870+, 3M1860S, and 3M1860. Model 1870+ and nanofibre FFR have a flat-fold design, while the 1860 series are cup-shaped. A sterophotogrammetry-based trial on 20 volunteers revealed that more persons passed the fit test when wearing flat-fold respirators as opposed to cup-shaped respirators. It has been established that flat-fold N95respirators give increased facial comfort without compromising protection.
According to studies, FFRs with added weight may impose an ergonomic load that results in heart stress and a decrease in work performance time. In this study, the nanofibre FFR was lighter than the 3M versions, which may have contributed to less heart stress and a longer work performance time for the nanofibre mask. A study on the in-vivo protective performance of surgical masks and N95 respirators revealed that nano-masks have superior water repellency and antibacterial properties compared to standard N95 and surgical masks. The coating of nano-functional particles to improve water repellency may account for a little higher bacterial filtration efficiency in nanofibre FFR compared to 3M versions (99.9 percent vs 99.0 percent ).
The nanofibre FFR has much greater air permeability (lower air resistance) than the N95 flat-fold variant, suggesting that it is more breathable. The three FFR variants are constructed from non-woven materials that perform specialized functionalities, including as filtration, and can operate as a bacterial barrier. Additionally, these fabrics are liquid repelling. Thus, the cumulative one-way transport capacity and total moisture management capability of the three FFR models are inadequate.