UK News

COVID-19: Which High Street’s Best and Worst Face Masks Revealed Like? says some have ‘alarming flaws’ | UK News

Some reusable masks found on the high street have “alarming flaws” in their effectiveness, with a popular mask blocking only a third of potentially harmful particles, which consumer group? said.

Masks from a range of popular brands have been tested by the consumer watchdog to see how well they filter out particles, how breathable they are, and if they become less effective after washing.

The worst product, a three-pack of Adidas masks sold for £ 17, only filtered out a third of the particles in testing.

Meanwhile, the Vita Shield face covering (£ 9.99 for three) filtered out 60% of the particles on first use, but that dropped to 38% after five washes.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

The science behind face masks

Adidas said his mask was designed at the start of the pandemic, before there were performance criteria set for face coverings, and she had tested her product for comfort and breathability.

The Vita Group said accredited external testing facilities found filtration levels of over 90% for its mask.

The best performing face covering – the Airpop Pocket – has managed to block over 99% of potentially harmful particles, making it just as effective as a disposable mask.

The liner, sold for £ 24.99 for a pack of four, is made from materials similar to disposable masks but is ‘semi-reusable’ – meaning it can only be washed and reused for a certain number. of times before being thrown.

Other masks that performed well were those from Superdrug (£ 4.99 for three), The Big Silk (£ 16.90 for one) and Marks and Spencer (£ 9.50 for five), achieving excellent results for filtration, breathability and comfort.

The Marks and Spencer mask was among those that worked well
The Marks and Spencer mask was among those that worked well

Some face masks did not have filtration levels as high as they indicated on the packaging during the test …

More information about this article Read More
This notice was published: 2021-05-18 23:07:00