FFP2 masks independently tested

Masks have been compulsory in large parts of public space for over a year.

The chemist and head of the non-profit Hamburg Environmental Institute, Michael Braungart, explains in an interview why he considers many masks problematic and what you can do to absorb as few pollutants as possible.

Mr Braungart, I make a point of living as free of pollutants as possible: I buy toothpaste without microplastics, clothing with eco-labels and, above all, organic food. Now I often wear an FFP2 mask for long periods and I don’t feel good about it. Am I too anxious?

Michael Braungart: No, I don’t think so. At the Hamburg Environmental Institute we examined FFP2 masks and found hundreds of chemicals being released. We identified and listed fifty of them.

Which chemicals are they?

Michael Braungart: Optical brighteners, for example, which have a hormonal effect. Various adhesives and organic hydrocarbons, which can be carcinogenic above a certain concentration. There were also residues of flame retardants, as well as nanosilver, which is known to be able to cause mutations. In addition, we probably inhale around 2,000 microplastic fibres a day directly when we wear a mask for long periods. Microplastics you inhale remain in the body – unlike when you eat them, where there is at least the possibility that they are excreted again.

But the masks are certified? Michael Braungart: That may be, but they fall into the product class of consumer goods and are therefore not assessed as strictly as other medical products. This means that different limits apply. Around 60,000 chemicals are used in the chemical industry, and for consumer goods only a few of them are tested, namely those listed in the Consumer Goods Ordinance. You published your results some time ago. Several media outlets then carried out their own fact checks by sending masks to laboratories. Stiftung Warentest also examined masks. None of the investigations found the substances you mentioned at worrying levels. Michael Braungart: The crux here is that these limits refer to volume per cubic metre. But the space in which I breathe under a mask is only about 30 cubic centimetres. This means that the substances accumulate the longer the mask is worn, so the concentration rises. I find it extremely annoying that this is not discussed and investigated more widely. The question is, who actually checks the fact-checkers? My sole concern really is to draw attention to health risks. How exactly the inhaled pollutants will affect our bodies in the long term simply cannot be said with certainty at present.

Source: nordbayern.de, July 2021 (no longer available online, German)

Prof. Michael Braungart teaches at Leuphana University Lüneburg and heads the non-profit Hamburg Environmental Institute. © Raphael Gabauer