The Salon World Safety Black KN95 Protective Mask failed because it missed the filtration requirement (95%). The KN95 standard also requires that the mask have the manufacturer’s name and the appropriate technical standard, typically either "GB 2626-2019" or GB-2626-2006,” written across the front of the mask. This is similar to how official N95 masks display NIOSH approval numbers. This mask did not have the required identification on its front.
Click here to learn more about our full testing methodology.
Why did this mask fail?
Video TranscriptHey, everyone. Welcome back to the place where we're testing every single mask on Amazon, including Salon World Safety. I love the niche. I love it. Let's get that niche into this clamper. Oh no, there's no tear tag. How am I supposed... Wait, what? Hidden tear tag? All right, that's good.
In here, you can already tell that the fine folks at Salon World Safety, which I'm sure you know and love, such a popular brand in the world, are not giving you a real KN95 mask, which we'll talk about in just a second. But first, let's get this thing going. This is a PFE machine, particulate filtration efficiency machine. If you want to find out how this machine works and how we do the N95 test that also tests for KN95, check out that link. All right, so this is not a KN95, not even close. This is so funny. The blade that writes or that impresses KN95 on this is broken, and so this one just says 95. Yeah.
So to be KN95, you've got to have three things. You got to say KN95. You got to say the executive standard that this was being used, which tells you what tests are being put on it. So in most cases it says something like GB2626-2019. It's going to look like that. And then you got to have the manufacturer name on there. Now, why didn't they put that? Well, probably because it doesn't look super stylish. And if you're over at Salon World Safety, you're going to care about the way it looks more than hitting that standard. But the question is, if you're the type of mask maker that's not willing to do the work to figure out the standard, are you going to make a mask that's actually going to protect you? Because if you don't know about the standard, how is it that you're going to know about material science and to make something that is good? It doesn't always work that way. I would say probably about half the masks that are not following the standard end up still being decent masks.
Look real quick at the listing, definitely target people in the salon world. They have white or black. They're claiming 95% filtration efficiency. Ships from the US. Ideal for most workplaces. But it's used by salon and spa professionals, food service and everyone else. They wanted the niche, but they didn't want to limit it too hard. It's a pretty basic mask. Typically, what happens is these types of manufacturers, they make just a ton of these masks and they put them in different packaging, which is why it's important that you actually see the manufacturer's name on it.
All right, but does any of that matter if it protects you? If this machine says it hits the 95%, why are we even here talking about this? Great point. It's a good mask. Seems like a good mask. Let's look at the screen. 91.144, 91.144. You know, I was starting to worry about my trusty machine here, because the last five tests, even though the KN95s were out of standard, they were fake, they were passing standards. But this one, this one shows a failure. So again, looking at the construction and the quality, those can all be clues whether you can actually trust a mask or not. So 91% efficiency, there are just better masks out there. I would just choose a different mask. All right guys, thank you so much for watching. If this has been helpful, smash that like button, give me a subscribe, or write in the comments about how I could better put my microphone on, because what the heck is happening? Geez. All right, I'll catch you on the next test.
Country of Origin