Anti pollution masks - waste of money?

[AntonyG]

I've recently purchased a Respro Metro anti-pollution mask in a bid to get a lungful of breathable air. (My 'quiet country lane' is a cut-through for diesel taxis and white vans.) However, my first impression is that the mask is a waste of fifteen quid:

- It's poorly made (the velcro that holds the filter in place came off within minutes).

- It doesn't matter how much I adjust the nose piece, I can't get it comfortable.

- I can't breathe through my nose when the mask is on, so I can't tell whether it's working or not.

- I can't stop the mask from causing my glasses to steam up (nearly crashed on the way home).

- The mask is very restrictive, making it hard to look round.

All in all, a waste of time. I'd rather go back to breathing through my nose and holding my breath when a taxi goes past.

Is there any other make of mask that works better? Or has anyone had more success with the Respro Metro? (I've tried adjusting it in every way possible, but maybe I missed something?)

[Jon]

Blimey, you're not having a lot of luck are you - first broken glass and now poison gas!

I'm afraid that, in my opinion, masks are a wast of money. They also make you look a bit of a twit. Any mask will restrict your breathing, and as far as I understand it they don't block the sub 10-micron particles that are the real problem with diesel fumes. They may stop the smell, so people think they are doing good, but they aren't. My approach is to do what you do now - hold your breath when a pongo passes.

Maybe you should try finding a different route though? What with the broken glass and diesel rat-runners you might be better off on bit longer but nicer route if you can find one.

[AntonyG]

Ah, it's a hard life on two wheels... Actually it's quite an eye opener finding out what you lot have been putting up with for all these years. I only got on a bike for the first time last autumn, and although I'm still crawling up the learning curve, I could write a book about it already.

I didn't really notice the diesel fumes problem until after I'd had a cold, and now it feels like I'm in the trenches after a van goes past (burning lungs, tight chest). I've been to the doc, who said congratulations, you're allergic to diesel fumes, get a carbon mask.

I'm hoping it might go away after the winter's over, though. As you say, I feel like a berk with the mask on. (Might have something to do with the steamed up glasses as well.)

[Bob H]

I agree with Jon, throw the mask away and hold your breath, but not for too long, when traffic passes. Statistics incontrovertibly demonstrate that you are much more likely to die from death than traffic fumes!

[geocycle]

Exposure to fumes is often greater for those in the cars than cyclists because the concentration of pollutants is greater in a confined area. I say often, because external conditions (wind, pressure, turbulence etc) are highly variable. Incidently, greater number of particulates are emitted on uphill stretches of roads. As a pedestrian its better to cross over to walk on the RHS when walking uphill. Of course cyclists would have to be particularly heroic to hold their breath while peddling uphill!

I don't know much about masks but the smallest particles do the most damage because they get deeper in the lungs so look out for those that can cope with particles on a few microns. If masks are badly fitted then no matter how good the filtering they will not be effective. In the end one of the most important functions of cyclists wearing masks might be to spread the message and make pollution 'visible'.

[gar]

A folksy handkerchief is probably better than the masks that I tried. it prevents direct inhalation.

One of those red ones with spots on.

I tried the masks with little success and decided that exercicing judgement about keeping away from the worst polluting sources is probably the best way in city centres.... and a a kerchief.

In a car.... you almost have to keep up with the pollution in front whereas on a bike you can take
time out from the polluter.... all of it.

[gar]

Getting pollutants in the eyes is my worst problem and I NOW always use specs. I have bought a set with three lens types normal/dark/ bright, and they are xcellent.
£29 and worth every penny. I am on a recumbent
close to the front wheel so could not do without them, but pollution also does a lot of damage to the eyes in the Summer months.

It also makes you realise why so many people get HAY FEVER (so Called)

In fact it is traffic particulates getting in your eyes. Heavy bits of crap from the exhausts.
The car engineers claim they have dealt with it but they have NOT.

Specs for a cyclist are essential at nearly all times of year for one reason or another.

The problem then is that if you wear both a kerchief AND specs, some CRETIN of a woman (or man) will start screaming as you go past, because you are a threat to society, and all you are trying to do, is prevent society's effluents (and Cretins) from being a threat to you.

[stefsmif]

Recent article in New Scientist magazine pretty much states masks are a waste of money in that particles in the air from modern pollution from the internal combustion engine are so small that they will by pass most mask filters. Also in Victorian London people were routinely exposed to particulate pollution more than 10x the present rate so just hold your breath when a smokey vehicle passes you. Plus if walking in central London pedestrians dont wear masks and wouldn't want to yet most wont come down with serious breathing problems but I could be wrong !!!!!

[AntonyG]

I've given up on the Respro mask altogether. I started getting lots of gritty bits in my mouth, and discovered that it was carbon dust from the filter. Brilliant! Ten micron carbon particles to add to the one micron carbon particles from the diesel vehicles.

The best solution I've found so far seems to be a damp scarf. I know that the fabric isn't enough to filter the air on its own, but when it's moist I think it works better. It certainly helps to reduce the irritation, anyway.

And I've shifted my commuting time forwards by twenty minutes or so, to avoid the worst of the traffic - that helps a lot too.

[thirdcrank]

I think stefsmif is 100% correct. The type of thing readily available retail will collect a lot of gunge but the harmful stuff, including gasses will get through. Anything capable of doing more would be heavier/dear/more sophisticated and leave you looking like an astronaut, deepsea diver or firefighter. (I saw a detailed scientific paper on this some 10 years ago) Cyclists get poisoned likeevery body else but are a lot fitter and generally enjoy travel more. Mick Agar

[jb]

Agree with thirdcrank, the stuff we have to wear at work to stop particles far bigger than exhaust fumes, you would not be seen dead in on the road. Apart from which you should have a face shaved smoother than a babies bottom to prevent side contamination.
The human respiratory system is quite good at getting rid of most stuff that cheap masks would let through, its had to deal with it for several million years.

[billiobob]

While I respect the opinions of others does anyone have any hard evidence of the effectiveness of cycling masks at filtering out diesel particulates in particular? I have read a good article from Respro stating that a Respro mask will filter out 99% of particules over 0.3 microns in size. IMHO nothing wearable or portable will be able to filter out everyting. Simply put are Respro masks good enough and does the possible benefits of wearing one such as preventing inhalation of potentially harmful air borne particles outweigh the negatives ie cost,comfort, looking silly etc?

[Ben Lovejoy]

I remember reading the New Scientist article, and it did indeed conclude that masks are totally ineffective at blocking the harmful particles.

It's diesel engines that have the worst particulates, so not stopping directly behind buses and lorries helps.

But a sense of perspective also helps. As others have said, air pollution was far worse in Victorian days, and you get exposed to no more pollution when cycling than you do when walking down the street, and you get less exposure than those sitting in cars.

Ben

[thirdcrank]

you get exposed to no more pollution when cycling than you do when walking down the street, and you get less exposure than those sitting in cars.Ben

That's what I always told myself. More recently, there seems to have been quite a lot about how the fact that a cyclist in traffic may be breathing more deeply than other road users (in my case 'puffing and panting') may mean that the diesel nasties are much more likely to be drawn into their lungs and embeded in the membranes there. I hope it's just anti-cycling scaremongering.

[Ben Lovejoy]

you get exposed to no more pollution when cycling than you do when walking down the street, and you get less exposure than those sitting in cars.

(in my case 'puffing and panting') may mean that the diesel nasties are much more likely to be drawn into their lungs and embeded in the membranes there. I hope it's just anti-cycling scaremongering.

I'm sure it is. In any case, it has been very clearly established that the net health gain to cycling is a very positive one, even if all that cycling is in traffic.

Ben