The FFP2 mask requirement still applies in many federal states. But not all masks are recommended. These are the test results from Stiftung Warentest.
There are clear differences in FFP2 masks – this was revealed by a study by Stiftung Warentest. While there were no complaints about the filter performance of the materials, the testers complained about the fit of a majority of the ten masks tested – and about the breathing comfort of three masks.
For their investigation, the foundation first measured comfort when exhaling using a type of “artificial lung” and a sensor, as the test report states. With seven masks, the resistance measured was so great that breathing was difficult. They were therefore rated as “unsuitable” because older and weakened people in particular could have problems as a result.
During the first test in February – the second took place in July – only one mask was recommended without restriction: The 3M 9320+ (view on Amazon). The organization now finds three more masks to be “suitable”. This is the Lindenpartner FFP2 particle filtering half mask NR LP2 (view on amazon) and the Moldex FFP NR D 2400+ Classic (look at Voelkner). These are very comfortable to wear, fit well and provide effective protection against aerosols.
Notice: Stiftung Warentest last carried out the test in July 2021 updated. It is possible that some suppliers have changed their masks or introduced a new range. So pay close attention to the designations.
FFP2 masks in the test: Winner of the Stiftung Warentest (July 2021)
Source: 3M 3M Aura respirator 9320+ (20 pieces)
100% suitable according to Stiftung Warentest. High effectiveness against aerosols, high wearing comfort.
around 45 euros
To the shop (Amazon)
Source: Lindenpartner Lindenpartner FFP2 particle filtering half mask NR LP2
100% suitable according to Stiftung Warentest. High effectiveness against aerosols, high wearing comfort.
around 10 euros
To the shop (Amazon)
Source: Moldex Moldex FFP2 NR D 2400+ Classic
100% suitable according to Stiftung Warentest. High effectiveness against aerosols, high wearing comfort.
around 40 euros
To the shop (Voelkner)
Masks from dm and Rossmann are only slightly suitable
The Stiftung Warentest also identifies the Uvex FFP2 NR silv-Air lite 4200 as “suitable”. Here, however, the breathing comfort is medium. In addition, Stiftung Warentest describes the Dräger FFP2 NR D X-Plore 1720 C and the Hum Aeroprotective filtering half mask M-9520 as “also suitable”. However, both are contaminated with latex proteins. The latter also only have an average breathing comfort.
The Stiftung Warentest describes a total of seven masks as only slightly suitable, including the products from dm and Rossmann. Although these have a high filter effect, they offer little breathing comfort.
FFP2 test winner from 3M: Health expert Karl Lauterbach also uses it
The well-known SPD health expert Karl Lauterbach has in one tweet mentionedthat he is also on the Stiftung Warentest test winner 3M 9320+ (view on Amazon) puts.
Because breathing through well-fitting FFP2 masks is generally more difficult compared to surgical masks, the advice is to take regular mask breaks. The German Social Accident Insurance (DGUV) recommends a maximum wearing time of 75 minutes – then a half-hour mask break should be taken.
You can read the full test for a fee at Stiftung Warentest.
How many tiny particles flow through?
The masks that passed the breathing comfort test were then tested by Stiftung Warentest in a “test chamber with aqueous, harmless aerosols”. According to the testers, the subjects had different face shapes and had to perform various everyday movements in the chamber.
The fit of the mask and thus the so-called total leakage should be tested – i.e. how many tiny particles flow through the material of the mask and also through possible gaps between the mask and the face of the wearer.
According to the professional association for health service and welfare, the corresponding standard DIN EN 149 for FFP2 masks stipulates that on average eight out of ten wearers are allowed to flow past or through the mask with a maximum of eight percent of the aerosols. In the investigation by Stiftung Warentest, only one mask met this requirement – it was the only one rated as fully suitable.
Buying masks: which breathing and face masks to wear
If in doubt, try another model
This test result underpins an important piece of advice that was already in place: If you want to wear an FFP2 mask to protect yourself and others from possible infection with the corona virus, you should make sure that it fits properly – and if in doubt, choose a different model try with a different fit.
Because even a small leak through which the breathing air flows can enormously reduce the filter performance of the FFP2 mask. The mask fits well if the fabric pulls towards the mouth when you breathe in and puffs up when you breathe out.
The Society for Pneumology and Respiratory Medicine also sees the possible incorrect use of FFP masks by the wearer as a problem: they generally welcome the recommendation to wear these masks in the population. However, one sees the problem that insufficient protection is achieved through incorrect handling and a poor fit.
“Therefore, the population needs to be more educated on how to wear the masks,” the professional society concluded in a statement at the end of January 2021.
The labeling of the masks and harmful substances in the fastening straps
FFP2 masks must comply with the EN 149:2001 standard and have a CE mark and a four-digit number printed on them. The number provides information about the test center.
A total of six of the 20 models from the test were contaminated with latex proteins. These are in the fastening straps and are above the guideline value of 200 mg per kg. This value was set by the Plastics Commission of the Federal Institute for Health Consumer Protection and Veterinary Medicine in 2002. Latex proteins are not inherently dangerous, but they can trigger allergies and intolerances.