Elastic securing strap
Disposable
Handy pack of 10 masks
The Paint Partner pack of 10 dust masks are each equipped with a securing elastic strap. Large covering, worn over the nose and mouth. Lightweight fabric with an aluminium strip.
Available for VIC/ACT/SA/NSW/QLD: can be either purchased online for drive & collect or click and collect or + postage for shipping.
I couldn't find any in Victoria Point Qld
Curious, how do these relate to the surgical marks and the KN95?
I would imagine they would be much better than the surgical masks but how about compared to the KN95?
Surgical masks would be much better. These are of questionable value in comparison. They're better than nothing, but they're just intended as dust masks. They're good for wearing when you're dealing with potting mix, sanding, etc. They only have one elastic strap. They're the most basic kind of mask in hardware stores and definitely not intended for protection against viruses.
They are not up to the standard of KN95, N95 or P2 masks, which are best for protecting the wearer (best used by those dealing with infected people). Surgical masks are good for protecting both the wearer, and protecting others from the wearer. Three-layer cloth masks are nearly as good as surgical masks, but have the advantage of being reusable.
Can you elaborate how surgical masks are better? Surgical masks don’t filter out virus
Spot on!!
See @limafoxtrot's post below. A recent widely reported study of masks found the following effectiveness levels in filtering the particles that seem to carry this coronavirus.
@Morven: Filtering is not the real point of masks, they work by stopping your spits and dropplet from flying out. These will work fine.
@demiurge: That's exactly what was tested in the study quoted below by @limafoxtrot. Like I said, a dust mask is better than nothing. However, it doesn't work nearly as well as a mask designed for the job. If you read the study or news stories about it, they found that the worst masks even split up the "spit and droplets" into smaller particles which then went through the mask. Remember we're talking microscopic stuff here, not visible vapour.
So to say this test was a good case file for masks (mostly surgical or cloth like what everyone is wearing) for protecting the wearer is not a good argument.
@vash5: @vash5 - "The test was designed for dust particle NOT viral particles"
Sorry, your statement is incorrect. The objective of the study (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/153567601001500…) was to determine how efficiently face masks prevent respiratory exposure to potentially harmful aerosols, including pathogenic organisms (not just dust). Furthermore, the actual test was conducted using aerosolised normal saline (droplets), not dust particles.
Surgical masks are not wonderful for filtering out aerosolised particles, but they are certainly better than a dust mask. The current official guidance in s Australia is that the majority of SARS-CoV-2 spread is via droplets rather than aerosol, and a surgical mask provides reasonable protection again droplets.
"Respiratory protective equipment is worn on the face, covers at least the nose and mouth, and is used to reduce the wearer’s risk of inhaling hazardous airborne particles (including dust particles and infectious agents), gases, or vapours. There are a range of PPE available that provide facial and respiratory protection, and this includes either a surgical mask or a respirator (P2/N95 mask), with or without eye protection.
Note: The virus that causes COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) is transmitted between people through close contact via droplets. The virus does not appear to be readily transmissible via small, airborne particles under non-aerosolising conditions." Respiratory Protection in Healthcare, Aug 202, Clinical Excellence Commission, NSW Government (http://cec.health.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/597…)
There is no dispute that a N95 facemask/respirator offer better protection against respiratory pathogens than a surgical mask.
@demiurge: Agree but ppl seem to think they have some sort of protection wearing these things based on the study that has been linked… but hey, why bother reading the fine print and noticing the flaws in the study and it was designed to test in dusty environment.
I use them and they are just fine. Surgical masks will not give you any better protection then these.
Think about it like this.. if yours wearing any mask and can smell someone else wearing perfume then your not protected from airborne viruses/bacterial.
Face mask reduce spread of droplets, they don't protect the wearer. Be it Kn95, n95, P2 or fabric. Outcome is the same.
If you want proper protection, you need a respirator with perfect seal and n95 filter. Think breaking bad and what they wear when cooking.
The advantage of these is that it's easier to push your glasses forwards and rest of the mask to reduce for on the glass. Thant and your not being ripped off.
It would be great if you could post evidence to back up your statements?
Otherwise - from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/153567601001500… - a study looking at the effect of protecting the wearer from aerosolised particles (yes, there is debate about whether SARS-CoV-2 is primarily droplet vs aerosol spread, but there is an increasing weight of evidence leaning to the latter), using a surgical mask, a bandana, and a dusk mask; a P2/N95 mask was used as a control.
The filtration efficiencies were as follows:
- P2/N95 mask = 89.6%
- surgical mask = 33.3%
- bandana = 11.3%
- dust mask = 6.1%
From this:
- surgical masks do offer some protection to the wearer, but not nearly as much as a N95 mask
- dust masks also offer some protection to the wearer, but much less than a surgical mask, and not even as much as a bandana.
Thanks for sharing but here is exactly what I was saying..
Section: Method
The mean aerosol concentration of a moderate dust storm is 0.040 mg/L, and the particle size is less than or equal to 2.5 ƫm (Chan, 2002; Selinus, 2005).
Therefore, the test plenum target aerosol concentration was 0.40 mg/L and the target particle size was 1.0 to 2.5 ƫm. Although this particle size range is larger than the actual geometric diameter of viral particles (approximately 0.02 to 0.2 ƫm), it should be noted that droplet nuclei generated during a sneeze range in size from 0.5 to 12 ƫm and contain many viral particles (3M Technical Data Bulletin #174, 2004).
The scope of the test was limited to the particle size and did not and was not tested for viral particles.
Aside from that….
During the test:
The mass median aerodynamic diameter particle size was 1.6 ƫm. Not even close to viral particle size!!
The N95 Mask used is a respirator, NOT a face mask. So we are not exactly comparing apples to apples.
The reference sample concentration fluctuated wildly between 3x ID tests and did not take into consideration saturation level.
Aside from the Respirator, the efficiency % also wildly fluctuated which brings to question the testing methodology with ± 20% in one instance (surgical face mask). All three tests should be floating around a similar efficiency out if done correctly.
@vash5: I'm afraid I'm not following your logic.
You seem to be basing your argument on the belief that you need to filter out the actual virus (0.02 - 0.2um), rather than aerosolised droplets (<10um, probably aroud 5um - https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2020…). This is not the case. As you quoted from the article, mean droplet size from a sneeze ranged from 0.5 to 12um - that's what we want to keep out of our airways, and that's what the study looked at. Virus is only viable inside the droplet - upon desiccation, it is rapidly inactivated (also from https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2020…).
I don't understand your statement that the N95 mask used was a respirator and not a facemask. Can you please explain the difference between a N95 "respirator", and a N95 "facemask", and how it is relevant here?
Furthermore, medical grade N95 and surgical masks have a water repellant outer layer, precisely to protect against droplets - which dust masks certainly do not have.
So once again, I am not convinced that you have presented any proof that a surgical masks is no better than a dust mask for protecting the individual. To assert so based on what you think, rather than clear evidence, is fine if you keep that to yourself, but broadcasting it on a public forum is a public health concern.
If none of the above has convinced you, at 11c per unit for a dustmask, if what you are saying is correct, why aren't health services purchasing dust masks for their healthcare workers to use instead of the much more expensive surgical masks?
@vash5 Please give yourself an upper cut.
Please take the time to read the provided information/study before posting comments and embarrassing yourself.
Does anyone find this type of mask works for anything except paint splatter?
I tried them years ago for home DIY work, and could never get them to seal and was still breathing in sawdust.
They were almost useless, as most of the air seems to go around the edges, not through the paper.
No better than wearing a surgical masks. See my above long comment as to why.
Because they're so inflexible, they really only fit one face properly - the person that designed them.
Also works to avoid $200 fine in Victoria
Has anyone found any bunnings that have stock of these. Can't seem to find anything in Western Sydney.
Get one of these from Bunnings. They may be hard to find, but worth it.
https://www.bunnings.co.nz/3m-performance-reusable-paint-pro…
![[VIC, ACT, SA, NSW, QLD] Paint Partner Dust Masks - 10 Pack $1.10 @ Bunnings (Drive & Collect/Click&Collect/+Shipping)](https://files.ozbargain.com.au/n/90/558090.jpg?h=37336ea6)
Isn't this normal price?
Also, these are super uncomfortable.