One of the most commonly used masks/recommended to protect against COVID-19 is N95.

Is there any upside of using N95 masks instead of N99 or N100 to protect against COVID-19?

N95 which filter 95% of particulates, while N99 or N100 filter 99% and 99.97%, respectively.

For example:

Health officials recommend medical staff wear so-called N95 masks because they filter out about 95% of all liquid or airborne particles.

The N95 equivalent in Europe is FFP2, the N99/100 equivalent in Europe is FFP3, and the N95 equivalent in South Korea is KF94.

Prior research:


Infectious disease expert Amesh A. Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, tells Health that the N95 is still the recommended face mask for health professionals, because it has the capacity to filter out very small particles that could possibly contain the virus. “This is different than a surgical mask, which can only stop larger droplets,” says Dr. Adalja.


In the United States, respirators must meet NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) standards. Within this standard, there are several classes of respirators depending on the degree of oil resistance:

Class N: no oil resistance. A distinction is made between N95, N99 and N100. The number after the letter indicates the percentage of filtration of suspended particles


When worn correctly, N95 respirators block out at least 95% of small airborne particles. So the respirators can filter out some droplets carrying coronavirus. The coronavirus itself measures between .05 and 0.2 microns in diameter, according to a recent article in The Lancet.

I have cross-posted the question at:

  • 2
    You mean like that it will be (most probably) easier to breathe in N95 (can test it on 3M filters, if that is of interest)? – P Marecki Mar 23 at 1:39
  • @PMarecki thanks, yes that sounds like an upside – Franck Dernoncourt Mar 23 at 2:03
  • Lacks prior research, which is surprising for you, Franck. And it's irrelevant where else you posted it off site. – Carey Gregory Mar 23 at 4:08
  • 1
    @CareyGregory I think where else I posted the question is relevant so that answerers are aware of other anwers. I did some prior research: shall I list the web pages that I found that do not answer the question? – Franck Dernoncourt Mar 23 at 7:15
  • 1
    You'll sweat less. N99 and above have all-around rubber seals in my experience. N95 might not even one on the nose (but the good ones to have one there). Since this is personal experience rather any studies, I'm not putting it as an answer. – SX welcomes ageist gossip Mar 23 at 19:14

Yes, there are several "upsides" as you put it.

  • It's cheaper
  • It's easier to breath in
  • It's sufficient for catching particles smaller than it's actually designed for...

Now, that last point is what's important. According to 3M's own documentes on various types of filters and masks, it seem that there's an electrostatic effect between the layers of the filters and the particles hitting it. So:

  1. filter "grid" does not have to be smaller than the particles themselves
  2. Apparently because of the electrostatic effects, particles are attracted to - and prefer to stick to, the fibers of the filter.

From [2]:

Because of the various mechanisms by which particulate filtration occurs, the smallest particles are typically not the most difficult to filter. Most particulate filters have a region of lower filtration efficiency somewhere between 0.05-0.5 μm.1 Particles in this range are large enough to be less effectively pushed around by diffusion, but small enough to be less effectively captured by interception or impaction. The most penetrating particle size (MPPS) will depend on the filter media, air flow, and electrostatic charge on the particle. Filters that use electrostatic attraction may have a MPPS shifted to a slightly smaller size range.

enter image description here

Appendix A (equivalent mask standards) 1

  • N95 (United States NIOSH-42CFR84)
  • FFP2 (Europe EN 149-2001)
  • KN95 (China GB2626-2006)
  • P2 (Australia/New Zealand AS/NZA 1716:2012)
  • Korea 1st class (Korea KMOEL - 2017-64)
  • DS (Japan JMHLW-Notification 214, 2018)

Appendix B (Classiifcations) [2]

Standard            Classification      Filter Efficiency
NIOSH 42 CFR 84     N95                 ≥ 95%
NIOSH 42 CFR 84     N99                 ≥ 99%
NIOSH 42 CFR 84     N100                ≥ 99.97%
EN 149:2001     FFP1 (filtering facepiece)  ≥ 80%
EN 149:2001     FFP2 (filtering facepiece)  ≥ 94%
EN 149:2001     FFP3 (filtering facepiece)  ≥ 99%
EN 143:2000, EN 140:1999, EN136:1998    P1 (elastomeric facepiece)  ≥ 80%
EN 143:2000, EN 140:1999, EN136:1998    P2 (elastomeric facepiece)  ≥ 94%
EN 143:2000, EN 140:1999, EN136:1998    P3 (elastomeric facepiece)  ≥ 99.95%
GB2626-2006     KN/KP90                 ≥ 90%
GB2626-2006     KN/KP95                 ≥ 95%
GB2626-2006     KN/KP100                ≥ 99.97%


| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.