Stiftung Warentest evaluated 32 FFP2 masks, revealing that only four models received unconditional recommendations. Key findings highlighted issues with breathing comfort and the presence of latex in some products. Masks underwent tests for fit and leakage, with strict adherence to safety standards required. Recommendations include taking breaks while wearing masks and ensuring a proper fit to enhance protection against infections. Additionally, concerns were raised about latex contamination in several tested masks, which could trigger allergic reactions.
Stiftung Warentest’s Comprehensive Review of FFP2 Masks
Stiftung Warentest has conducted three extensive evaluations of FFP2 masks, with their latest review featured in issue 11/2022. In this round, experts scrutinized 12 newly introduced masks. Unfortunately, none received an unconditional recommendation, leaving only four models as commendable options.
While the filter performance of the materials generally passed muster, testers raised concerns about the presence of latex in certain products and noted low breathing comfort across several masks.
Test Methodology and Findings
In their investigation, Stiftung Warentest utilized a Sheffield test head and sensor to measure the comfort of exhalation. The results revealed that four masks exhibited such high resistance that breathing became challenging. These models were classified as ‘not very suitable’, particularly for older or vulnerable individuals who may struggle with such difficulties. For those interested in the complete test results and a comprehensive overview of the evaluated masks, a detailed report is available for purchase through Stiftung Warentest.
Of the total 32 masks tested, only four emerged as unconditionally recommended options. The top FFP2 masks include:
- 3M Aura 9320+
- Lindenpartner FFP2 particulate filtering half mask NR LP2
- Moldex FFP2 NR D 2400+ Classic
- Uvex FFP2 NR silv-Air lite 4200
It’s important to note that some suppliers may have updated their masks or released new variants; therefore, vigilance regarding product designations is essential.
This summary reflects findings from reputable experts, indicating that while the tests may be dated, they still hold significant relevance. Always remember that testing represents a specific moment in time, as manufacturers might change formulations, repackage, or rebrand their products.
Recommendations for FFP2 Mask Usage
The recent test results have garnered attention, including a mention by German Federal Minister of Health Karl Lauterbach, who expressed his reliance on the Stiftung Warentest test winners via social media.
Since wearing well-fitted FFP2 masks can be more challenging than surgical masks, it is advisable to take regular mask breaks. The German statutory accident insurance (DGUV) recommends a maximum duration of 75 minutes for wearing masks, followed by a 30-minute break.
Those masks that passed the breathing comfort assessment underwent further testing in a controlled environment with harmless aerosols. Participants, representing various face shapes, performed everyday movements to evaluate the mask’s fit and overall leakage—essentially measuring how many tiny particles escape through the mask material and potential gaps.
According to the professional association for health services and welfare, the DIN EN 149 standard stipulates that FFP2 masks should allow, on average, no more than eight percent of aerosols to bypass or penetrate them in eight out of ten wearers. In the Stiftung Warentest study, only one mask met this criterion and was deemed suitable without restrictions.
When selecting a mask, it’s crucial to ensure a proper fit to maximize protection against potential infections, such as COVID-19. If in doubt, trying on different models may be beneficial. A well-fitted mask should pull towards the mouth upon inhalation and expand upon exhalation, while a small leak can undermine the mask’s filtering capabilities.
Moreover, the Society for Pneumology and Respiratory Medicine highlights that improper use of FFP2 masks by wearers contributes to inadequate protection due to poor fit and handling.
Understanding Mask Labels and Safety Concerns
FFP2 masks must adhere to the EN 149:2001 standard and feature a CE mark along with a four-digit number indicating the testing body. In the recent testing, 15 out of the 32 models evaluated were found to be contaminated with latex proteins, particularly in the fastening bands, exceeding the established guideline of 200 mg per kg set by the Plastics Commission of the Federal Institute for Health Consumer Protection and Veterinary Medicine. While latex proteins are not inherently harmful, they can provoke allergies and intolerances in some individuals.