It is frustrating that Amazon continues to have supply chain contamination. It doesn't help that Amazon is a leading seller of uncertified knock off part for part copies of 3M respirators. One of them is "Amazon's choice" for "respirator", and people can make even more money with knockoffs by branding them as actual 3M masks. I think most people won't realize there's actually a difference between genuine 3M respirators that are NIOSH certified, and the knockoffs that superficially look identical, especially because Amazon is promoting the knockoffs. This is a dangerous deception. I've tested a number of the knockoff masks, including full face versions, and the attention to detail matters. The seals on the ones I tested did not fit as well as the authentic respirators. With respirators with the devil is in the details, and subtle things, that people might not even notice comparing them side by side, can make a dramatic difference in how protective they are, as seen in this video. But some of the knockoffs have even worse quality control than this one. And you don't know which one you're getting.

@@gerardhughes absolutely! When you recommended the GVS Elipse Source Control to me (given my narrow nose bridge) I found the only source for me in Canada was Amazon. I investigated to make Darn sure the Amazon seller was truly GVS. Very pleased with it. The second one which I ordered did have a problem which I feel was the result of insufficient liquified material going into the mold. I spotted the problem when I washed the respirator prior to wearing. Had I not examined it, there likely would have been a leak. The missing blue material was by the purple filter. GVS’ customer service was outstanding in their response and immediately sent me a new respirator. Any manufacturer can have an error in production so one needs to always examine before wearinfg.

Yeah, that was a bit surprising :-) I am using the mask fit testing machine beyond its intended purpose, but it is built to count particles between .02 microns and one micron, so it is a real sub micron particle counter. But I'm using a much lower air flow rate than a NIOSH PFE test, and I'm not using calibrated most penetrating particle sizes, so I don't know exactly how these results would correspond to NIOSH PFE test. The mask is actually a pretty good respirator copy, and better made than the other 3M knockoff respirators I have gotten off of Amazon. There's really no way to know what level of quality the knockoff you buy will be since most of the masks are completely generic and have no branding on them. This mask has branding, but who knows how long the brand will last, and if the quality control will stay the same.

The genuine 3M elastomeric respirators have "3M" molded on to the front of the mask. The copy, not genuine, I showed removed the 3M logo. No 3M logo means it's not genuine. However, it is also possible for companies that make copies to put the 3M logo back on. So just because it has 3M on it does not guarantee that it is genuine. But not having the 3M logo on it guarantees that it is not genuine. At least that is the case in the US with 3M respirators. It is possible that there may be differences in other countries.

@@gerardhughes It have 3m embossed logo, number code on the mouth side i think it's imported from europe market, also have a little embossed number code on the side of the front strap

I wondered that about some of the knockoff respirators that I got. One came just stuffed in a plastic bag with no protection other than the bag. No box, not even a shipping box. I got a bag and a bag. With at least one of the knockoff masks, it's clear that the wrinkles are from a very poor manufacturing process. But with the others, it's less clear to me. Whether it's manufacturing or packaging, either way, the result is that an inferior seal is all I have ever gotten from the knock off masks.

@@gerardhughes After looking two such, I must agree because the quality is not great for sure and they have a similar problem both. I wonder why I've not thrown them away. Perhaps, it is time now. I have more than enough reliable ones anyway.

@@hoggif I should probably toss the four copies that I have, as well as the counterfeit filters which have fake NIOSH labels printed on them. I have an entire box just for counterfeit respirators. This brings up one of the big issues with personal protective equipment including respiratory protection, which is that it relies entirely on trust. We buy a respirator and have to trust that it works because we don't have ways to test that it works, at least most people don't. So we trust that the science is correct, that the standards are correct, that the NIOSH certification is correct, and that the manufacturing follows NIOSH, and that the distribution chain is clean all the way to our doorstep. But with the Chinese knockoffs, there is none of that. If we trust the respirator to work, we're basing that trust off of nothing. I have some knock off acid gas filters, and there's absolutely no way for me to test them that I know of. I can test particulate filters with my mask testing machines. But I don't have a way to test chemical filters.

@@gerardhughes Testing gas filters requires you to be able to analyze the gas. Generally not too easy to do at home. Of course, one can detect with senses clear leaks with eg. something you can smell. One could also build up something with commercial gas sensors (and then wonder how to calibrate them). Not a task for everyone. I have used some very out of date filters for low risk applications. Sometimes they failed at 5 or 10 minutes of use while ok at start. Something only for low risk applications where you can detect leakage with senses and it is enough. Or then just not try to safe a few buicks and use a proper one.

These companies change frequently, and none of them have NIOSH approval or quality control, so there's really not a need to mention the specific company because this is something that is common to a wide range of these knockoff respirators. None of the ones I have tried, none of them, have tested as well as the real article. So, even though some of the companies have a chance of being higher quality, from my sampling, I believe the vast majority of them are lower quality. I think by listing the seller name, which is not the same as the manufacturer, people might get a false sense of safety by avoiding just that seller. The same exact product is sold by many sellers under different brands. The way to be safer is by buying the genuine 3M respirator through a trusted sales channel rather than avoiding a single seller with a disposable name.

@@gerardhughes it appeared from the video that you were following a scientific methodology. With a normal testing procedure you would provide the brand and model number of the product you tested. You can't assume all non-3M brands will test similarly (or all 3M models and samples will test similarly); you can only say that a specific number of samples from a specific model from a brand tested in a specific way.

@@ocluke80 You are correct, I do not have a scientific random sampling. My videos based on general scientific methodology and principles, but, to a degree, have something in common with anecdotes when it comes to science. As with mythbusters, I lack the time and budget to do the requisite number of trials to meet statistical significance, hence why I made a video instead submitting my findings to a scientific journal. It would be nice if I could afford to randomly select 20 different knockoff respirators and do the necessary number of trials on each one for a study with high confidence levels. But that's just not in the cards for me. I should add, though, but it is quite common in peer-reviewed published respirator studies for the make and model of the various respirators in the study to be blinded. So it is perfectly within the bounds of normal scientific practices for me to not mention a specific brand or model. So, I am speculating as to the quantity of knockoff respirators that do not meet standards based on my limited testing. However, I am following the cautionary principle when it comes to respiratory protective equipment. I believe it's reasonable and appropriate based on that principle to avoid knockoff copies based on the uncertainty alone. Stick to NIOSH approved respirators, or those approved by other countries with rigorous testing and approval standards, if you would like to have confidence in your respirator but don't have the resources to do individual PortaCount testing on it. If you look at the number of search results for respirator on Amazon, the results are overwhelmingly knockoffs of 3M respirators by companies with random letter names. Again, I don't believe that there is any real value in naming any one of those disposable brands because that would give the false impression that the exact same generics sold by different sellers with different branding are somehow safe. My considerations would be different if this was a limited market, and there was one or just a few bad actors that could be easily identified and avoided. But that is not the case when it comes to respirators on Amazon.

@@gerardhughes I did not imply that you should have followed a scientific journal-worthy, statistically significant experiment. You can still follow best practices, which is to provide the information on the product you were testing. _"Again, I don't believe that there is any real value in naming any one of those disposable brands because that would give the false impression that the exact same generics sold by different sellers with different branding are somehow safe."_ I do not follow that logic. Why would this be the case? You can only make a claim about the product you tested, not other products sold by similar looking brands. It might very well be the case that another product tests similarly, but only the one you tested has any data behind it.