We are now removing the subjective feedback and only talking objectively:
1) Does the mask pass the claimed PFE (particulate filtration efficiency) standard that it claims to pass?
2) Does the mask pass the claimed breathability (as stated in the standard they are claiming, ie N95, KN95, surgical)?
3) Does the mask meet other parts of the standard?
KN95, N95, KF94, Surgical, FFP2 and others all have hundreds of pages of standards that they have to meet. Most people don't know what these are but we make masks so I've read all of the standards.
Most masks or respirators fail in #3 and we are working on being specific as to why those are failing but we have about 400 masks posted and the notations are being transposed as I write.
If someone doesn't label the mask correctly...are they even reading the standard?
The gb2626-2019 standard is 57 pages and in it you have to do a lot of very technical testing. One test requires several days of testing in a lab and is very expensive, but it's designed to make sure the mask performs under actual use (called the loading test).
If the manufacture isn't willing to put some simple words on a mask, do you think they did this complicated several-day test? Probably not.
IMO it's the brown M&M or canary in the coal mine test.
It seems like the "M series" designation is mostly a branding effort to make their masks stand out from the competition, and less about specific technical improvements.
I did look to see if you had a video on this mask but there doesn't seem to be one, would love to hear your take on this unusual designation.
And regarding the Boncare (et al) masks, I suspect the omission is at least partially motivated by style; it makes the mask less conspicuous for mainstream use. The labeling on most (passing) masks tends to be rather obtrusive.
0: https://lutema.com/collections/made-in-usa-masks/products/ad...
The pass/fail column can be considered more of a "is this manufacturer lying?" field. Perhaps it needs another value if it doesn't claim any standards.
Otherwise, everyone would just mark their mask however the hell they wanted, benefit in the market, and as long as they passed the MN95 standard, they’d get a passing mark on their “N95” masks.
I don't think what's described in the methodology actually lines up with the result pages. In particular the methodology pop-up has sections about construction and smell, but I don't think I see them anywhere in the text of a particular mask review, i.e. it doesn't look like they're actually a part of what goes into a pass/fail score. Likewise there is a "Standard" field in the review that is pass/fail, but it's not explained in the methodology (I think this is basically a catch-all for "marketing fraud" where a manufacturer says something about their product that is just false?).
Nor is it described in the methodology what the pass/fail cutoff is.
But the sheer number of masks is definitely impressive.