>Netherlands tests masks against the wrong specification and blamed on China.
>KN95 marks that are bought by the Dutch government are not resistant to oily particles (the N stands for Not resistant to oil)[0]; while the European FFP2 standard specifies the mask has to be able to block oil particles
Both of these statements are contradicted by the scmp article you've linked:
>The problem with the Chinese masks was first discovered by hospitals that received them, with health workers finding the masks did not fit properly [...] Dutch broadcaster NOS cited a source saying that the Chinese face masks were “not FFP2 quality nor of the lesser safety level of FFP1 – some sort of FFP0.8 at best”, meaning they had less than half the filter efficiency required for the FFP2 designation.
>Dutch government bought KN95 and tested it against FFP2 and claims it's defective.
The SCMP article says
>Dutch broadcaster NOS cited a source saying that the Chinese face masks were “not FFP2 quality nor of the lesser safety level of FFP1 – some sort of FFP0.8 at best”,
While I can understand that it can be taken to mean that the masks were subjected to to FFP2 testing (including oil penetration), that would be a very uncharitable/cynical interpretation. A more charitable interpretation of that would be that the FFP2/FFP1 standards are being referenced without oil penetration testing involved, since europe doesn't seem to have separate standards for oil/non-oil like with N95/P95 in north america. This theory is consistent with them comparing against a fictitious standard/rating of FFP0.8.
Also, I did some research myself and found the original statement by the health ministry[1]. It actually made no mention of FFP ratings, and only acknowledged that the masks carried a KN95 rating, and that the masks "did not meet the quality standard", which I've taken to mean KN95 rating, not FFP2 rating. I could not find any source that directly said the masks were tested against FFP2 (with oil penetration) and failed.
The NOS article clearly mentioned FFP2 rating in the second paragraph (from Google Translate):
"This concerns almost half of a batch of 1.3 million so-called FFP2 masks, 600,000 pieces. "
>"This concerns almost half of a batch of 1.3 million so-called FFP2 masks, 600,000 pieces. "
That's a quote by the newspaper, not the government agency. Also like I mentioned earlier, it's understandable to call them "FFP2" masks since the average european reader might not have a point of reference for what (K)N95 is.
It really boggles one's mind that a mask would be referred as FFP2 repeatedly and somehow be tested under KN95 that only existed in China* and was only recently approved in the Netherlands.
But it's all just speculation at this point without more information from the health minister.
* Granted it doesn't differ from the American standard by far.
>KN95 marks that are bought by the Dutch government are not resistant to oily particles (the N stands for Not resistant to oil)[0]; while the European FFP2 standard specifies the mask has to be able to block oil particles
Both of these statements are contradicted by the scmp article you've linked:
>The problem with the Chinese masks was first discovered by hospitals that received them, with health workers finding the masks did not fit properly [...] Dutch broadcaster NOS cited a source saying that the Chinese face masks were “not FFP2 quality nor of the lesser safety level of FFP1 – some sort of FFP0.8 at best”, meaning they had less than half the filter efficiency required for the FFP2 designation.