Air pollution is responsible for 40,000 deaths per year according to Public Health France, a government body. This figure has been improving in recent years thanks to measures aimed at limiting the use of fossile fuel vehicles. However, most of our large cities are still very heavily congested with car traffic while the number of cyclists has exploded since the end of pandemic. Coexistence is complicated both in terms of accidents and public health. Cyclists inhale airborn pollutants where they are most concentrated.
Logic would dictate that every cyclist or biker should be wearing anti-pollution masks. ANSES (the French national agency for food, environmental and health safety) announced in a report published in July 2018 that data are insufficient to demonstrate a health benefit and recommend their use. So let's see why some specialists are shaky to recommand wearing an anti-pollution mask when cycling?
The government is responsible for air quality
The issue is actually very political. A December 30th 1996 French law states that the government is the guarantor of "the implementation of the law […] to breathe air that is not harmful to health". The State is the guarantor of the physical integrity of its citizens. Air pollution is therefore a public health issue that could cost it dearly if people wearing an anti-pollution mask, recommended by a State body, were to contract a respiratory disease anyway.
In May 2018, the European Commission referred six Member States to the Court of Justice. The reason? They do not comply with air quality standards. France and Germany ahead!
If achieving clean air is complicated and takes decades, why not encourage people to wear protective masks without promising the moon?
ANSES statement
"While the effectiveness of a mask tested in a laboratory may prove to be high, it does not necessarily reflect the effectiveness in real conditions of use by the general population."
Faced with the impossibility of committing to such a delicate subject, ANSES agency puts forward several arguments to justify itself.
- Wearing an anti-pollution bicycle mask does not protect you from the most dangerous gases such as carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide or nitrogen dioxide. Even FFP3/N99 certified cycling masks are ineffective. However, this is the most demanding standard. This argument is fair, but a mask still filters a large scale of dust and fine particles. These are all pollutants that do not enter our bodies.
- Wearing a mask with the feeling of being 100% protected would lead cyclists to overexpose themselves to pollutants by riding in the heart of traffic where their health would be most threatened. Given the absence of cycle paths away from traffic as in Germany or the Netherlands, are they not forced to do so anyway?
- ANSES reminds us of the importance of acting at the source as a priority by limiting pollutant emissions. Thanks for the advice!
- It is better to inform and explain the behaviors to adopt to reduce exposure to air pollution, such as changing the time for bike commuting and choosing less exposed routes. What a joke!
An anti-pollution mask is therefore not a panacea and does not protect 100%, that's obvious and it's written on it (FFP2/N95 = 94% filtration of particles up to 0.4µm). It's a bit like bicycle helmets which do not protect 100% but which nevertheless greatly limit breakage in the event of an impact. Note that these are also not mandatory after 12 years in france and many other countries.
What is an anti-pollution mask used for?
The main airborn pollutants, as I mentioned above, are carbon monoxide, nitrogen and sulphur dioxide and ozone. There are also fine particles made up of various types of dust, engine combustion residues, heating, brake pad or tyre residues linked to friction. They often pass through the nose, our only natural filter, to end up in our lungs where they cause inflammation and worsen the health of fragile people.
The effectiveness of a mask depends on several key factors.
- The mask must be perfectly adapted to the morphology of the face so that a maximum of inspired air passes through the filter and not through the sides due to lack of sealing. It is therefore necessary to favor brands that offer different sizes.
- The mask must be breathable enough so that you do not suffocate in it and rebreathe your own carbon dioxide, which is very dangerous in the long run.
- It must be well maintained
- Its filter must have an official standard such as FFP1, FFP2/N95 or FFP3/N99 indicating the quality of filtration in relation to fine particles (PM 2.5 or PM10 for example). It is quite crazy to see the number of brands sold in Europe with an "anti-pollution" claim but without any filtration standard.
The benefits of Frogmasks
In 2020, Frogmask created a range of anti-pollution masks made in France and equipped with FFP2/N95 filters. The main target audiences are urban cyclists and motorcyclists, but also people with asthma or allergies to pollen.
To fully understand the market's expectations for a quality cycling mask, the brand has checked all boxes:
- 3 different sizes to best adapt to each face shape and guarantee optimal sealing.
- A repositionable fastening system at the nape of the neck that does not interfere with wearing a helmet and/or a ponytail and does not pull behind the ears.
- Two nosebands, one on the filter and the other in the mask structure to block the hot exhaled air so that it does not rise up the nose and cause fogging of the glasses.
- An ultra-light, ultra-breathable, unmeashable and water-repellent 3D Mesh structure that can be machine washed up to 60°.
- Finally the use of FFP2/N95 filters (94% minimum of the inspired air is filtered and freed from particles up to 0.4µm).
- A price of 39€, made in France, guaranteed for one year and refunded if not satisfied.
