Talk:N95 respirator

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PaulaUPRC (article contribs).

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the melt blowing technology used to create N95 respirators had previously been used to make bra cups and premade ribbon bows? Source: [1]

• Reviewed: Leah Lowenstein
• Comment: Much of the text is closely paraphrased from public domain U.S. government sources, which is within policy, but this text doesn't count towards the 1,500 character limit. However, there is more than 1,500 characters of original text, mainly in the lead and the history section. See DYK rule 2b.

Created by John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk), Victorgrigas (talk), and Fuzheado (talk). Nominated by John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) at 01:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Good to go. KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

What were N95 respirators originally designed for?

This article says that N95 respirators were originally designed for ... but there is no authority for that. I think the original purpose of the masks is important and an authority for that is important. Sam Tomato (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The source is the California Department of Consumer Affairs. You don't think that citation is valid? MartinezMD (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

KN95 vs N95

OK So my experience

Bought these at my local electronics store (Needham, MA) 10 @ $5.00 each on May 25, 2020

Some details (Comparison)

These masks have similar superior properties as N95, but they go by different names based on where they are certified. The WHO (World Health Organizations) considers N95 equivalent to KN95 and other similar masks. (WHO Article 1. WHO Article 2.)

I'm sure there is no wikipedia article on KN95

So worth a mention in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.76.29 (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Page move

@HLHJ: Your justification for the page move was "per talk" but I see nothing here or at Talk:FFP mask. Which talk page were you refering to? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Horse Eye Jack. The merge template redirected to Talk:Mechanical filter respirator#Merge discussion. Since no-one else participated, this basically consists of my explaining why I think it's a good idea. Now that someone else has taken an interest, I'd be glad to discuss it in more detail. HLHJ (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I should probably have merged this talk page too... will wait now, or as you see fit. HLHJ (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I can see the logic in your argument but I think you should have given notice on all the relevent talk pages (especially after getting no responses at Talk:Mechanical filter respirator) and gotten an actual consensus rather than just a lack of objection before completing the merge. If I were you I would revert and post on the relevent talk pages but I'm not gonna bring the house crashing down on you if you don't. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I got busy and didn't say anything, but I think the merge might be premature. In principle it makes sense to have a single Filtering facepiece respirator article to avoid duplication. (Also the N95 mask title is a bit problematic, since N95 filters are used in elastomeric respirators as well, and also because nearly everything in this article equally applies to the other N-, R-, and P-series respirators. The current title is useful from a WP:COMMONNAME standpoint and is technically correct, but hides some of the nuance.)

However, in practice the N95 mask article is very U.S.-heavy, which is appropriate for an article about a U.S. standard but not for one with international scope. In order to be balanced it would need to be extensively rewritten to include standards and guidance from the EU and other jurisdictions. Also, the merge should have been done as a page move rather than a cut-and-paste, to reduce the number of redirects left behind with extensive history and talk pages. And yes, even though there was a merge banner, the discussion should have been on one of the talk pages for an article actually involved in the merge, instead of a third article. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I entirely agree that a move would have been better. Apologies. I did split parts of the FFP mask article to FFP standards, and included just the standard-specific material. I did not do this to the N95 mask article as all of it fit into either the merged FFR article or the Mechanical filter respirator article (with the exception of a list of patents which I dumped on Talk:Mechanical filter respirator until I figure out what to do with it). I could make a US-filter-standards article, too. I had every intention of rewriting the merged FFR article, though it would take a bit of time; it is mostly US&EU at the moment. Where should we go from here? HLHJ (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I take your point, Horse Eye Jack. I followed the instructions at Template:Merge (and WP:Merging), but a couple of extra posts to the talk page would not have been that hard to do. I guess I figured anyone watching the talk page would be watching the article anyway.

In the current state, the same informational content is available on Wikipedia as before my rearrange (with the exception of that patent list). Unmerging... I could re-instate the N95 mask article fairly easily. There would be nothing terrible about Wikipedia having both an "N95 mask" article and a "Filtering facepiece respirator" article (with heavily overlapping content) for a bit. Possibly I could change it into a US-filter-standards article and then move it to a new title. Unmerging the FFP would be a bit more bother because I changed and rearranged the content, but resurrecting the old version, so we had an article containing much content duplicating FFP standards would also not be a huge problem. I should have moved that rather than creating it de novo, too; I suppose I could fix this but I would have to figure out how. I'd also like to go over the articles on cloth mask and masks in the COVID-19 pandemic, which are getting a lot of reads and desperately need updating. I will have to leave this for now but will come back to see what you two say. HLHJ (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll worry about requesting the history merges. If you were about to add non-U.S. information to balance out this article, I think that's fine. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Again this is more preference rather than anything you did wrong, it was a bold move which you took appropriate steps to make. If this was a pre-merge disussion I would probally argue against it based on the second reason for avoiding merging given at WP:MERGEREASON ("The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles"). I don't necessarily agree that we need a page between respirator and a page like this. I'm also not super convinced that "filtering facepiece respirator" is the WP:COMMONNAME but thats kind of besides the point. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, it's not a WP:COMMONNAME issue since a N95 mask is just one type of filtering facepiece respirator, and different types are functionally equivalent but have different names depending on the country due to differing regulations. I think filtering facepiece respirator is the best title, and if the N95 mask article hadn't been created by others first, I probably would have created the article at that title instead. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I mean you would wouldnt you... Filtering facepiece respirator appears to be prefered by US government institutions but its less common internationally. I think a best case scenario has a main page at filtering facepiece respirator or an equivalent but maintains detailed pages about the different national/international standards. Its definitly too much for one page without being condensed. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

There was no consensus to redirect this article and the initiator dd not follow protocol and notify significant contributors. Patapsco913 (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to reply to these separate issues. Firstly it is an unwritten rule of Wikipedia that you don't do things in a way which causes needless conflict, disagreement, hostility or bad feelings. I clearly muffed this here, so whether I technically followed the merge protocol is moot. I haven't often merged articles, and I think this is my first controversial merge. I apologize for my incompetence and will try to fix, though I realize I am unlikely to succeed entirely. Particular apologies to those who would have wanted to be individually pinged and weren't. @Victorgrigas, Krýsuvík2020, XXzoonamiXX, J.D.718, MartinezMD, Stephan Leeds, Underneaththesun, Dongord, Tikmok, and Apokrif: for N95, and @Philip J, Jomsborg, Artoria2e5, 2a02:120b:2c79:e220:784c:aa6f:1347:a410, and Widefox: for FFP; I hope I haven't missed anyone who significantly engaged with the content, and that those who do not participate in this discussion feel free to ignore it.

I'd agree that "filtering facepiece respirator" (FFR) is not a common name. Commonly, people frankly don't distinguish between different types of FFPs and similar-looking dust masks. They often use the name of the local standard for these masks, ignoring the fact that this standard also applies to non-FFRs (or even the name of a non-local standard, I've heard people use "N95 mask" as an English-language translation of "FFP mask" in their native language). I picked "filtering facepiece respirator" because of the "precision" naming criterion, and "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources"[2]. There are some other precise terms, all more used in the technical literature than in common speech. I picked this one because it is reasonably short, clear, and unlikely to become obsolete, and "FFR" is a convenient abbreviation. If anyone has a better suggestion, I'd be very happy to hear it. I feel strongly that there should be a article with the scope "filtering facepiece respirators" or the scope "filtering-facepiece masks [including respirators and dust masks]". I do not feel strongly about what it is called.

I don't think, subject to correction, that the existence of the filtering facepiece respirator article is disputed (nor the fact that it needs work). The question is whether the N95 mask article should also exist. I see Patapsco913 has re-created it, as I suggested above; thank you, Patapsco913. I withdraw my suggestion of making it into an article on the US standards, as I now see NIOSH air filtration rating already exists and has that scope. I think that most of the information in the current N95 mask would fit better in the filtering facepiece respirator and mechanical filter respirator articles, which is why I merged it, but I'm happy to hear counterarguements. HLHJ (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I think these are largely the same items, right? As least de facto. I don't think we need two articles discussing what is essentially the same object, filling the same needs in society. I support merging them with whatever distinction is needed be made within the body of the same article. N95 is either a specific example or sub type of the FFR imho. MartinezMD (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

N95 is the de facto generic term for masks being used in the current pandemic. 31 foreign language wiki-projects have articles that use "N95" in their title. 10:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patapsco913 (talk • contribs)

• Oppose merge and undo it. Better before - so go back to redirect of Filtering facepiece respirator to Mechanical filter (respirator) or better target but not any specific standard. Also no reason based on article sizes, keeping this standard as a separate page. Not convinced a merge of this and all the other standards is needed, but open to a better proposal. {{main}} hatnotes to the broad topic (rather than a single standard) to another location such as respirator or Mechanical filter (respirator) from the standards looks useful right now, due to the synonymous use of the standard terms N95, FFP3 etc). Widefox; talk 12:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that N95 is in practice becoming a generic term for filtering-facepiece masks, including uncertified dust masks with a similar form factor. This presents difficulties for being both accurate and colloquial.

Separately, mechanical filter respirators (and N95 masks) include both filtering facepiece respirators and air-filtering elastomeric respirators. Both are made to the same standards. Would you support redirecting "elastomeric respirator" to "Mechanical filter (respirator)", Widefox? What would you suggest doing with NIOSH air filtration rating (parallels FFP standards)? How should it relate to N95 mask?

I agree that there is no merge reason based on article size; I only argue content overlap. We could have a dozen articles on N95 masks, N99 masks, N100 masks, P95 masks, P99 masks, FFP2 masks, FFP3 masks, P2 masks, KN95 masks, KF94 masks, DS2 masks, PFF2 masks, etc., but the content would overlap heavily. I currently advocate having articles on the separate standards, and one article on all filtering-facepiece (dome-style) masks. I also support Mechanical filter (respirator)'s summary comparison of all the standards (no-one has written much content on most of them): I would be OK with having it in a different article. I think separating the form factors and the multiplicity of similar national standards would minimize overlap, but perhaps there are better ways to do this. HLHJ (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

^That would work well and something I could easily support, especially given the multitude of standards currently and potentially into the future. MartinezMD (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

My point being a hatnote on N95 mask to the main article covers the common usage for a respirator. As pointed out, N95 is not the commonname, and is in fact not used at least in the UK, so would be a terrible merge target for any generic article or redirect. No merge needed. Widefox; talk 20:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, N95 is a U.S.-specific standard so of course it wouldn't be used in the UK. That's a major point I'm trying to make: "filtering facepiece respirator" is a different concept than "N95 mask", as the latter is a subset of the former. Articles with each title would have different scopes and different content. Using the most common name isn't the only aspect of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA; it needs to be precise as well.

Air-purifying respirators are classified both according to their physical form, and also their filtration method. You can imagine a table that has forms across the top (filtering facepiece, elastomeric, powered) and filters down the side (chemical, mechanical NIOSH-rated, mechanical EU-rated, mechanical China-rated, etc.). The idea is to try to have an article for each column and each row, and to try to avoid having a separate article for each individual cell. N95 mask may be the sole exception since it's so prominent and recognizable, but it would be more efficient to cover all the filtering facepiece respirators together. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, John P. Sadowski (NIOSH), all those physical forms could use N95 filters? HLHJ (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, no, powered air-purifying respirators use HE filters, which are functionally equivalent to P100 filters, but have a different name for some reason. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• oppose per Wildefox--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Same questions as of Widefox, then, Ozzie10aaaa : Would you support redirecting "elastomeric respirator" to "Mechanical filter (respirator)"? What would you suggest doing with NIOSH air filtration rating (parallels FFP standards)? How should it relate to N95 mask?

• having looked at the questions/answers given above (to Wildefox), I therefore change to neutral, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Patapsco913, your comments so far have been succinct and clear. What would you suggest as the best way to organize this content into articles? Elastomeric respirator, NIOSH air filtration rating, all the rest? HLHJ (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Patapsco913, Widefox, I want to understand what arrangement of content you are advocating. Do you think N95 mask should contain content on elastomeric N95 masks, for instance? What about the article on FPP masks? Are you opposed to having separate form-based articles on elastomeric masks and filtering-facepiece masks? I'd really like to settle this discussion. HLHJ (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Is the original move/merge request dead? What about undoing (per above?) I know when I see a bad one, but may not be able to add more for suggesting a good one (as I have no time right now). As a default I'd go with User:John P. Sadowski (NIOSH);s thoughts. Widefox; talk 00:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it's already been pretty much undone. FFP mask now redirects to FFP standards, which contains mostly the same material as I recall. Of course it's legitimate to counterrecommend one arrangement without recommending another, but we do need to arrange the info somehow.

Would you object to my making a separate filtering facepiece mask article, which I think John P. Sadowski supports? I was a bit hasty about merging the N95 and FFP articles to make one, but I think, subject to correction, that people objected to the bad merge. If no-one objects to the existence of a filtering facepiece mask article per se, I could make one from scratch, leaving the other articles with their more-specific content separate. That is, I won't remove content from the more-specific articles like N95 mask or merge any part of them with anything else without re-opening this discussion and getting consensus. User:John P. Sadowski (NIOSH), Widefox, Patapsco913, opinions? HLHJ (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we've reached the limits of what an unstructured discussion can accomplish. I'll put together a formal proposal in the next few days and we can get the !votes and settle this. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

John P. Sadowski (NIOSH), would you like help with the proposal? HLHJ (talk) 05:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@HLHJ: Sorry, I got sidetracked with another project. I'll put it on top of my to-do list. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 07:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Formal proposal

We've had a good WP:BRD cycle, but we've reached the limits of what an unstructured discussion can accomplish, so I'd like to lay out a reogranization proposal to get the !votes to settle this.

The proposal is to rename this article to Filtering facepiece respirator and rewrite it to include non-U.S. sources. User:HLHJ has volunteered to do the bulk of the rewriting, who has already made extensive contributions to other respirator articles.

People have pointed to WP:COMMONNAME as a reason for keeping the current article title. However, recognizability is only one of five WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, with precision being equally important. Also, the N95 standard is a U.S.-specific standard, and we should consider whether the best article organization is to cover all filtering facepiece respirators in a single article, given the similarity of the standards. The advantages for making the change are as follows:

• The N95 standard is one of nine U.S. standards (N/R/P × 95/99/100) used for filtering facepiece respirators that differ in the oil resistance and exact filtration efficiency. They are all used under similar circumstances and the same guidance mostly applies to all of them. It wouldn't make sense to have nine articles about each of the standards, since the differences can be explained fairly succinctly in a combined article.
• Similarly, filtering facepiece respirator standards tend to be fairly similar across jurisdictions. The technical differences tend to be subtle, such as the exact test particulate material used and the exact air flow velocity used in testing. There are correspondences of respirator standards that are generally considered to be functionally equivalent in practice, for example N95/FFP2/KN95 respirators. While separate articles for U.S., EU, Chinese, etc. might draw off of guidance from the separate jurisdictions, in practice they would overlap greatly, and again it would be more efficient to note any differences succinctly in a combined article.
• The title "N95 mask" is ambiguous in a different regard: N95 filters in a different form may be used for elastomeric respirators, which are not covered in this article. Currently, a hatnote explains this. (This is not the case in the EU, where filters for elastomeric respirators are named "P1/2/3" rather than "FFP1/2/3".)

In conclusion, I believe the best article organization would be to have a single article on Filtering facepiece respirator concentrating on the similarities between them. Details specific to each jurisdiction's standards should be in a series of articles that cover each set of filter standards as a whole (NIOSH air filtration rating, European Union air filtration rating, Chinese air filtration rating, etc.). John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose this should be called N95/P2 respirators per WP:MEDTITLE and WP:COMMONNAME--Investigatory (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)