Talk:Mechanical filter (respirator)/Archive 1

Merge discussion

OBE

Procedural close to eliminate any confusion. There are ongoing discussions at Talk:N95 mask. -2pou (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The various different standards are pretty paralel, and stuff about how exhalation valves work and what purposes the masks are used for are applicable worldwide, regardless of the local name of the applicable national standard. I suggest merging all the filtering facepiece respirator info to one filtering facepiece respirator article, and linking to this Mechanical filter respirator article for the parallel national standards (the same standards apply to elastomeric filter cartridge filters and PAPRs, so they are not specific to filtering facepiece respirators). HLHJ (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no comment after a dozen days; I'm going to do it. HLHJ (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HLHJ: For future reference, you should have moved N95 mask to the new title rather than doing a copy-paste move. This would have reduced the number of redirects with extensive edit histories and talk pages, which is undesirable. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, John P. Sadowski (NIOSH). That was foolish of me. If I hadn't been merging two articles I certainly would have done it that way, but I didn't think. Is there any way to retroactively get the same effect, without making a complete mess of the edit histories? HLHJ (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for history merge, you need to request an administrator to do it. But keep an eye on the discussion at Talk:N95 mask before making a request, to see what the outcome of that discussion is. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leftover content

I'm not sure where, if anywhere, this patent list from the merged N95 article should go:

== Selected patents ==
US patent 3333585, Robert J Barghini, Walter M Westberg, Patrick H Carey Jr, "Cold weather face mask", published 1967-08-01, issued 1967-08-01, assigned to 3M Co

US patent 3971373A, David L. Braun, "Particle-loaded microfiber sheet product and respirators made therefrom", published 1976-07-27, issued 1976-07-27, assigned to 3M Co

US patent 4215682A, Donald A. Kubik & Charles I. Davis, "Melt-blown fibrous electrets", published 1980-08-05, issued 1980-08-05, assigned to 3M Co

US patent 4536440A, Harvey J. Berg, "Molded fibrous filtration products", published 1985-08-20, issued 1985-08-20, assigned to 3M Co

US patent 4807619, James F. Dyrud, Harvey J. Berg, Alice C. Murray, "Resilient shape-retaining fibrous filtration face mask", published 1989-02-28, issued 1989-02-28, assigned to 3M Co

US patent 4850347, Martin R. Skov, "Face mask", published 1989-07-25, issued 1989-07-25, assigned to Moldex Metric Inc

US patent 4856509, Jerome H. Lemelson, "Face mask and method", published 1989-08-15, issued 1989-08-15

US patent 5307796A, Joseph P. Kronzer, Roger J. Stumo, James F. Dyrud, Harvey J. Berg, "Methods of forming fibrous filtration face masks", published 1994-05-03, issued 1994-05-03, assigned to 3M Co

Ideas welcome. HLHJ (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:N95 mask which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fractional collection efficiency

While that graph is very nice and intuitively understandable, the reduction to 0.5 at about 0.3 microns is a bit misleading, as typical respirators like N95 or FFP2 do only drop to 0.95 or 0.94 and higher quality ones like N99 or FFP3 only drop to 0.99. I would suggest changing the scale on the graph into 0.9 to 1.0, so the drop would end up at about 0.95 like it's the case with N95 respirators. 2A02:8071:283:1780:4923:D756:6E77:A498 (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)== Move discussion in progress ==[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:N95 mask which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fractional collection efficiency

While that graph is very nice and intuitively understandable, the reduction to 0.5 at about 0.3 microns is a bit misleading, as typical respirators like N95 or FFP2 do only drop to 0.95 or 0.94 and higher quality ones like N99 or FFP3 only drop to 0.99. I would suggest changing the scale on the graph into 0.9 to 1.0, so the drop would end up at about 0.95 like it's the case with N95 respirators. 2A02:8071:283:1780:4923:D756:6E77:A498 (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Shortcomings' section has been removed for now

If you want to add that section back, you are probably going to need better citations, and preferably from papers talking about pressure drop or dead space from the filter material itself.⸺RandomStaplers 04:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]