John, I think the point with masks like the Respro is to provide reasonable mitigation of particulates/VOCs along with higher airflow and less restricted breathing than you would typically get from the usual half-face respirators. I don't think anyone is claiming they are as effective as NIOSH/OSHA certified equipment, but then again those wouldn't be practical for the majority of bike commuters anyway. Afterall, the best protection is the one you'll actually wear. Ergonomics is a key.

Ultimately, a light-duty mask like the Respro, combined with your advice about reducing exposure (distance, shielding, etc.) is something everyone can easily get into and should go a long way towards minimizing the risk to an acceptable level.

I agree with that statement, except for the part about the half-face mask being hard to breath through. With only the two HEPA filters in the mask, there is a very large surface area that you breath through (the filter is folded inside the cartridge), so the inhalation resistance is less. It is not going through an activated charcoal cartridge (which is an option), but only filtering out the particles. I have never seen figures on how much (in inches of water) effort it takes for these masks, but that would not be too hard to determine (at tha sacrifice of a mask, however). So I'll stick with the NIOSH certified equipment (OSHA doesn't certify anything).

John

OMG, the commuting forum moves so quickly this got buried before I had a chance to respond. Anyway, I wanted to add that you would definitely want an activated carbon filter in addition to the HEPA. I think most of car emissions are actually gases--NOx, SOx, CO, CO2, hydrocarbons, etc.--which are nicely captured by activated carbon (except for CO2 and methane) but not so well by HEPA. Diesel exhaust is slightly different I believe; it has the usual array of gases but also very large hydrocarbon particulates, which an activated carbon filter should also capture effectively but may not depending on its design. So, it's usually good practice to pair it with a HEPA-type filter.

Now if you really want to be rigorous (NIOSH certification, etc), I think the average person may find the resulting respirator somewhat off-putting due to bulk, breathing resistance, and appearance. Of course these factors should mean nothing to someone who absolutely needs this level of filtration (multiple chemical allergy sufferers, for instance), but the greater majority may find satisfaction with a design that balances good filtration with ergonomics and aesthetics. For example, I just received my Respro Techno and I'm pretty satisfied with its performance so far. It's not giving me NIOSH-certified protection, but probably close and something that I can wear comfortably for extended periods and through which my voice can penetrate easily (another limitation of typical respirators).

Just wanted to say thanks to all the experts here for their input. I live in NYC and was thinking about getting some sort of mask/filter. I think I might just stick to riding on recreational paths as much as possible.

The dust and smog from Southeast Asian fires was overwhelming so we purchased these inexpensive masks sold just about everywhere in Asia.

While they were not perfect, they kept the larger particulate out of our lungs.

Wow.

Shoot LOL, yous guys got it easy.

There is a part of my route that goes through the following all within about a square mile:

An oil refinery, a water treatment facility, a chemical company, da Chicago River (Sanitary and Drainage canal), and a Waste Management facility.

CrossRiverWeb.jpg

If you get a wind from the south...AHHHHHH...the sweet aroma of petroleum, stagnet water, other people's $hit, other peoples garbage, with a dash of industrial emissions. Good eatin!

I've gotten used to it.

I used my half-face mask with the HEPA filter on it on Saturday, a week ago, for part of my ride. I climbed hills on my heavy recumbant, and had no problem with breathing through it. The way I have it configured, there is no activated charcoal, although I do have some alternate cartridges that I will use. When I finished the ride, it only took about a minute to rinse it out, wipe it down (without the cartridges), and hang it up to dry.

One thing to be aware of is that the water vapor in our breath will fairly quickly de-activate the activated charcoal in a mask without cartridges (or without the non-return valves in the respirator). This is one reason I think that the Respro, while pretty good at filtering, will not absorb chemicals for too long.

John

Good info. The Respro does have exhalation valves (so that exhaled breath is not forced back through the filter), but it's true that the filter life is very short (I believe 30 hours of use). Replacements cost about $12, so it's not entirely trivial and on par with respirator cartridges. Really then, it comes down to what level of protection you want and how much bulk you're willing to wear.

Sir Bikesalot,

In that case, the Respro would be on par with the other types of respirators. It was not evident in the advertising I saw that the Respro used exhalation valves to prevent contamination of the charcoal filters. The only reservation I have is that if it only has an exhaust valve, and not an intake valve which separates the inspiration from the filter, then the person's breath could still contaminate the activated charcoal with water vapor. Thanks for the updated information though.

John

This is a great informative thread for pollution mask.
I wonder what John will say about this new mask?
https://bicycledesign.blogspot.com/20...-cyclists.html

Chuwa,

This looks to be a particle mask only; it won't filter any gases. While it is great to be using a mask, the size of particles is important. This is because the very small particles are what is called "respirable," rather than "inhalable." Larger particles are trapped in the upper regions of the respiratory system. They don't get into the lungs. But the very small ones get all the way into the air sacs of the lungs.

The half-face mask that I have worn has a P-100 filter on it. That filter will filter particles down to 100 microns, which is quite small. Actually, it will also filter the much smaller nanoparticles too. I say this because diesel exhaust, and the wood smoke that some showed photos of above, contain very small particles which qualify as nanoparticles. To gain an understanding of nanoparticles, you can go to the NIOSH website:

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/nanotech/

There is also a very interesting discussion of nanoparticles at this site:

https://www.kqed.org/quest/television...n-a-nano-world

Most HEPA filters will also filter out nanoparticles. I think that this cycling mask would also, but I cannot say as that mask has not been tested.

There is one other aspect, and that has to do with fit. I was just fit-tested with the half-face mask I have been using, using a much better protocol for quantitative fit testing. My mask failed this test, perhaps because as I have aged, my face has changed a bit. Here is an explanation of these procedures:

https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/resp...ttesting1.html

Fit testing can be done using either quantative or qualitative tests, and these bicycle masks really need that kind of test to ensure a fit. Without that fit, you will be breathing some air around the seal instead of through the filter. While most will go through the filter, contaminants can still get through. You can get these fit tests done at a safety supply store, as most of them will do the tests on the wearer.

The NIOSH approved half-face masks, with a Technical Certification number (TC number) have the advantage of allowing the use of cartridges which filter out gases, such as acid gases or organic vapors. When combined with the HEPA filters (High Efficiency Particulate Filter), more toxic airborne materials can be filtered than what the bicycle filter will get.

John

Hi John, Thanks for the info and the links. (Only the first link works)
I do agree fit is most important. Without a proper fit, no filter can help.

I understand there are both gaseous pollutants (e.g. CO, Ozone) and particulate pollutants (e.g. PM10, PM 2.5) within traffic pollution, do you know which is more damaging to human body?

Reason I ask is that masks containing both types of filters seems to have significant higher breathing resistance.

Chuwa,

'Sorry about the links. I tried, and couldn't find them either. I don't know why they don't work currently.

Here's another for NIOSH. NIOSH stands for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and they do the research on topics of occupational health.

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/topics/respirators/

You asked which, particulates or gases, is most hazardous? Well, that depends upon which chemical you select.

CO goes into the bloodstream, and combines with haemoglobin to form a complex which blocks the obsorption of oxygen into the red blood cells. We will naturally get rid of it, but having it there reduces our oxygen carrying capacity--basically our exercise performance on the bike.

Ozone is a really bad actor, which has a very low threshold limit value (TLV) of 0.2 ppm for "Heavy, moderate, or light workloads [<= 2 hours]." For heavy work all day, the TLV is 0.05 ppm. Bicycling would be considered heavy work. It acts on pulmonary function, reducing it by acting on the air sacs of the lungs directly. It also goes into the circulation, and forms "free radicals" which react with other molecules within the body.

Diesel exhaust (and CO for that matter) has been implicated in increased heart attacks. This is the particulate that I'm most concerned about, as it is very small, and gets way down into the air sacs in the lungs.

Other gases can also cause problems. Benzene (TLV 0.5 ppm) and formaldehyde (no 8-hour TLV allowed, ceiling level for 15 minutes of 0.3 ppm) are both carcinogens (leukemia for benzene, and formaldehyde is a suspected carcinogen), and are found in auto exhaust. Nitrogen dioxide has a TLV of 3 ppm, and is both an upper and lower respiratory irritant. Sulfure dioxide had a TLV in 2007 of 2 ppm, with a Ceiling Concentration of 5 ppm, but it is on that year's "Notice of Intended Changes." I looked up the intended change for sulfure dioxide, and it was to discontinue the 8-hour TLV-TWA (Time Weighted Average) and put a Ceiling Concentration of 0.25 ppm into effect for 2008. I have not checked my 2008 TLV booklet to see whether it was incorporated as it is at work. I'll look tomorrow.

The lower the TLV, the worse the chemical is on the body. Here are different websites which documents the chemicals in auto exhaust:

https://www.greenlivingtips.com/artic...chemicals.html

https://www.nutramed.com/environment/carsepa.htm

https://www.epa.gov/region5/air/mobile/auto_emis.htm

Even though there is more breathing resistance with the combined HEPA and organic vapor/acid gas cartridges, I'd still go with them. In highly polluted environments, you will find that the gaseous pollutants will decrease lung function, and you can probably make up for the resistance over time with retaining your vital lung capacity. If you can get the HEPA filters with pleats instead of a single surface (which is what I see on the cycling respirators), it should dramatically cut the breathing resistance through vastly increased surface areas. I see this in my North P-100 filter and prefilter, and I believe it is available with many other respirator manufacturers.

By the way, HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

John

Today, I had a very interesting experience. I was commuting from my home to work, about 4 miles, but had just gotten outside the house when I began coughing and retching--actually lost my breakfast--probably because of something in the air. I went inside the house and got my respirator, screwed in the acid gas/organic vapour/P-100 cartridges into it, and put it on. The symptoms disappeared. I rode to work wearing it, and had to open the door for a contractor who was demolishing a corrosive exhaust line in our factory. They are 40-hour Haz-Wopper certified, and when I rode in to open the door for them, their supervisor said, "John, you're scaring us." I told them that I had a story to tell, and after showering, told them the rest of the story.

I suspect that the episode was caused by air pollution emminating from a "bus barn" that is operated by the school district nearby. They now have 40 diesel engine buses that start up in the morning. I have a hunch that this developed a cloud of diesel exhaust which enveloped my neighborhood. I know of the possibility, but now this has really gotten my attention. I think there was very high levels of PM10 particles (nanoparticles) in the air this morning. This, in my mind, is fairly well confirmed by the symptoms immediately dissipating as soon as I put on the half-face respirator. I had, I believe, an acute reaction to these particles in the air. I will be doing more (sampling, discussing it with my neighbors, etc.) about this as the days and weeks go on. I am now very concerned about the health of my community concerning this.

I had no problems with bicycling fairly fast to work (I needed to open the doors for these guys) while using the respirator. But I told them it was a bit ugly inside (lots of drainage from my nose), so I left the respirator on while opening the door.

It's an interesting beginning to the day, and I joked that perhaps because it is Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent, that God did not want me to keep my breakfast today.

John

Freak.

So I stumbled upon this thread and read it multiple times over the last couple days as I was trying to learn more about the Respro, the EN149FFP1 standard, and compare it to my North B5500 and its slew of cartridges. If you want to learn more about the standard, search for "EN149 FFP1" instead of "EN149FFP1"

There is a whole slew of masks conforming to this standard. The masks are for fine particulates and water soluble solvents. I am not sure if this means they are good for organic solvents. (can anyone answer this please?)

Regardless, I believe the North B5500 is easier to breath through then the Respro, can be seal tested, has a good selection of cartridges to choose from, and sits better on the nose ridge (i.e. more comfortable) than the Respro. However, it does look much more post-apocalyptic than the Respro. Also, if you want to wear a helmet and put the mask or take it off, the Respro will suit you better.

There is some confusion about this respirator standard. The EN149 FFP1 is a respirator which is for filtering particulates. It seems to work, and is probably about equivalent to the N95 respirators used in the USA. But you will notice that the advertising states:
Again, it is for Non-toxic solid and liquid aerosols. Aerosols are fine droplets suspended in the air, sometimes with a toxic component to them. Now, there are not threshold limit values (TLVs) from the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) for non-toxic materials except for "total dust." So to say that they are for "non-toxic solid and liquid aerosols" will protect up to 4.5 times the TLV shows some ignorance of what a TLV actually is. "Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) refer to airborne concentrations of chemical substances and represent conditions under which it is believed that nearly all workers may be repeatedly exposed, day after day, over a working lifetime, without adverse health effects." (ACGIH TLV Booklet, 2008, page 3.) This respirator should protect against airborne fine particles, such as the PM 10 and finer particles from diesel exhaust. This respirator will not protect against airborne organic vapors, such as those produced by burning gasoline (benzene, for instance). For that protection, you need some filtering mechanism which includes activated charcoal, which is what the cartridge respirators provide. I hope this clarifies the respirator situation.

Please note that the FFP1 is a "disposable" respirator; they are made for a single use. Cartridge respirators are made for multiple uses. So there is a big difference there. The FFP1 will do a good job protecting against the H1N1 virus, for instance, but not so good against any vapors.

John

John-

Great thread.

I was wondering if you knew whether or not biodiesel (say, B100) changes any of this? Are the particulate sizes the same? Is B100 any less toxic than regular diesel (in terms of exhaust)?


Nick

Nick,

From what I can tell, the nanoparticles of biodiesel are somewhat different in character from regular diesel, but are still present. What is absent is not the carbon particles, but the contaminants of sulfur and other potential contaminants. But that is just from a very simple search. I found one reference paper to biodiesel that may be helpful (follow the link on the word "biodiesel").

Apparently Seong Chan Kim has done some interesting research on respirators and nonoparticles too:

https://www.me.umn.edu/~schankim/E16A...44A078969.html

https://www.me.umn.edu/~schankim/6397...54F19B6CB.html

Also, I just found this new book on the NIOSH Nanoparticle website, titled:

Respiratory Diseases Research at NIOSH

Reviews of Research Programs of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

https://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?re...=12171&page=R1

Use the search engine in this on-line book, and you will find a lot of references to diesel. It is the carbon in diesel which is of concern on the nonoparticle scale.

I have talked to researchers on nonoparticles from NIOSH at a conference two years ago, and they were saying that new research, perhaps that done by Dr. Kim above, had shown that nanoparticles such as diesel exhaust (carbon content) was effectively filtered by HEPA filtration on cartridge respirators, and N95 masks too. Probably the EU FFP1 would also do the job, but there needs to be a very good fit on the mask, and if it is the disposable EU FFP1 or USA N95 masks, they need to have both straps in place and the mask fitted well around the face to ensure a seal.

John

John, thanks for the info and references.

Hi Moog, used to live in SW18, and tried a respo mask once, from memory, I used this only on one ride, as the increase in effort to breath over not having it on was too great.
The respo is really the only option if you must have a mask in the UK, anything else will be either too industrial (3M types), or too light weight (painters)
Would suggest checking out how other many riders use them, as I can't remember seen many, if any.
The polution you are going to get will be less than if you were sitting in a sealed up car, and all the trucks and busses there have to be Euro III compliant, so should be pretty clean; just don't sit behind an exhaust!
jimc101

I have heard that claim a lot, about bicyclists getting less pollution than those inside a car, but have never seen it quantified in a study. I suspect that it is not true, at least with newer cars. Many of those new cars now include filtration of the air, and some even have HEPA filtration of the air coming into the cars.

John

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) announced that exposure to some air pollutants and toxic compounds may be ten times higher inside vehicles than in ambient air.

This report found that pollution levels inside cars are often much higher those detected in the ambient air, at the roadside, and in other commonly used vehicles.

I just want to say thanks for this thread!

I don't cycle and this is the reason why. I seem to be more sensitive of it than others. Or, perhaps, more aware of it.
The reason for this is because my life sometimes contrasts between living in a city and working at sea.

I notice the effects of pollution within minutes and I've come to learn how to avoid the fumes. It's frustrating because when I go on holiday I feel strong and healthy again. But on the drive back it's all back to square one! I remember this especially after a holiday in France skiing and driving back across France - I might as well have not bothered! Now I can consider uprating my `pollen` filter in the vehicle. I'll be searching for info on that now.

A quick offtopic note: I did find info on a filter that cleans air in a room by pumping, and even a 12v one that can sit on a car seat (very expensive at $400ish though). In terms of in the home there are plants that can clean the air ( https://www.care2.com/greenliving/top...eaner-air.html )

I don't yet know what it is exactly that has the greatest effect. It could be the particulates, but it could be the carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide binds to the red blood cells so that would give a groggy effect. That's the most pronounced effect I notice so that will be the filter I try first.

In terms of what brand to choose?
What is the availability of the filters? I'm looking for something available in both South America and Europe really.

The other thing to think about is how quick these masks are to take on and off. The ones I've tried at work required a rubber tightening; not ideal.

Again, thank you though. I have been unable to cycle because of this problem and it will be great to be able to cycle again.
I don't know what causes my tiredness but hopefully some experimentation with the filters will sort that.

Thank you thank you :-)


edit:: Had a good look and there are no half face masks compatible with a Camelbak, only full face masks... hmm... should get some looks with that!
At least with the bike masks it's clear what it's for.

Hi jago25_98 ,
An american doctor in Beijing reviewed Totobobo mask and agree it's performance is impressive:
https://www.myhealthbeijing.com/child...hich-are-best/