Anti-Fogging Treatments for New Masks. (a comparison of techniques)

[lowviz]

@Akimbo

Your input (waaaaay back in post #9) put this frameless mask issue on track. Endless thanks. I now have more than enough research articles to substantiate your suspicions:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2015.12.022

"A transparent superhydrophobic coating can be easily created through the use of commercial silicone oil and controlled combustion. In this simple fabrication, silicone oil is sprayed onto a hot glass heated to about 550 °C, resulting in the transparent superhydrophobic coating on the glass. The coating is stable at temperature up to about 450 °C, and against a saline solution and acidic or basic solutions with pH from 4 to 10."

 

[stuartv]

Damn, since this is an unauthorized experiment and no fault can be assigned to the maker letting people know the brand may be of service to all.

I will eventually share the brand and model. I just want to give the manufacturer time to respond first.

 

[lexvil]

I will eventually share the brand and model. I just want to give the manufacturer time to respond first.

I would do it now, this is far beyond anything they should cover, it like driving your can in the lake and expecting the maker to fix it because you wanted a boat.

The main reason I would post it is to keep someone else from doing it too, their response can follow. I wouldn’t hold it against them if they told you to jump back in the lake.

 

[stuartv]

2 other bits of news to share:

I had soaked my Mako mask for 2 days, dived it, then I put it back in for a week. On this last soak, the way it was sitting in the ammonia, it was face down and the buckles were sticking up. Roughly 1/4 - 1/2 inch of the buckles was sticking up out of the ammonia.
When I took it out after a week, it had a thick white encrustation on the plastic of the buckles that was sticking up out of the ammonia. It came right off when rubbed under running water.

I think this does beg the question that I think @dmaziuk raised, of whether any and all plastics that are part of a mask could be damaged by a long ammonia soak. I guess that lends further weight to @lexvil's approach of just filling the inside, so that only the inside of the lenses and a minimal amount of the skirt is actually exposed to the ammonia.


The other thing is, I had another look at my DGX UltraView ARC mask after it completely dried (after coming out of the ammonia bath and a fresh water rinse). I thought that ARC had been completely unaffected. Now I can see 2 small spots where it looks like the coating is gone from the lens. Hopefully, you can see them in this picture. On each side, towards the top of the lens.

All in all, I'm going to say that I will probably not give another mask an ammonia bath if it has any kind of coating inside the lens. In the end, it seems like the coating will insulate the glass from the ammonia anyway, completely defeating the purpose. However, I *will* continue to give every new mask a run through the dishwasher. That does seem to make a really worthwhile difference all on its own. And especially for masks with a coating which I would definitely not want to flame.

 

[stuartv]

I would do it now, this is far beyond anything they should cover, it like driving your can in the lake and expecting the maker to fix it because you wanted a boat.

The main reason I would post it is to keep someone else from doing it too, their response can follow. I wouldn’t hold it against them if they told you to jump back in the lake.

I won't hold it against them at all if they tell me to jump in the proverbial lake. However, I would also avoid buying their masks in the future, because they don't stand up to a process that every other mask I have tried has stood up to just fine.

As far as keeping someone else from doing it, too, well, if anyone is reading all this and contemplating whether to soak their mask, they can LOOK at their mask and the picture I posted and tell if they have the same one or not. If they are even thinking of buying a mask and concerned to not buy the same mask I had an issue with, they can look at them and tell whether it's the same.

I like this manufacturer. I have a number of their products, all of which I like - except how this one mask fared. I will wait to post their name until I can post their response along with it. I have no problem saying that I may be biased in their favor and want to give them the maximum benefit of the doubt and best opportunity I can for them to put this in the most favorable light they can. I don't get any compensation from them. I don't get any free or discounted products from them. I just like their stuff. And, while I do like them, I am not so in their pocket that I would brush this mask failure under the rug and not share the info with you all.

 

[MAKO Spearguns]

My understanding is that the glass is inserted in the mold before the silicon is injected, which gets mold release on it/them. Dano/@MAKO Spearguns can give us a much more specific and informed description.

I have contacted the factory and inquired about the manufacturing techniques. I am waiting for a reply.

thanks,
dano

 

[lowviz]

The last big piece of this puzzle is whether or not the silicone is simply contaminating the glass or has somehow become chemically bonded to the glass.

At @lexvil's suggestion, I'm nearly ready to repeat the ball drop test on an ammonia-treated mask to see if the ammonia treatment has compromised the lens' strength.

But before I perform the drop test, I'll coat one of the lenses with heavy silicone grease (pool grade) and attempt to clean it off with common liquid dish soap and a soft brush. I'll then run it through the dishwasher once and report back...

 

[stuartv]

I'll coat one of the lenses with heavy silicone grease (pool grade) and attempt to clean it off with common liquid dish soap and a soft brush. I'll then run it through the dishwasher once and report back...

Considering the vast number of parameters that would likely be different between your proposed test and the manufacturing process, I'm not sure what value your test would really provide.

Whether your mask comes clean or persists in being contaminated, what would that really tell us about new masks, from the factory?

 

[lowviz]

That particular type of silicone grease is extremely hard to remove, which is probably why it is used in constant contact with water. Very hard to remove from hands, too.

So, if I can grease up a lens with silicone at room temperature and successfully remove it (with just soap and a pass through the dishwasher) then I would have evidence that MFH's are likely to have some sort of silicone that is even harder to remove than any silicone that I can come up with. One may then suppose that MFH's have chemically bonded silicone that doesn't get removed by simple cleaning.

If you spray silicone oil onto very hot glass you will get a very adherent chemically bonded hydrophobic film that is resistant to acids and bases between pH 4-10. The reference for that is given above.

Ammonia solution exceeds that range at a bit over 11 so it should attack the chemically bonded film.

Edit:
Just so everybody is on the same page, I'd like to be explicit about what we are trying to do. This is true 'Applied Research' and not 'Pure (or Basic) Research'. Here is the best description of the two that I could find: https://www.sjsu.edu/people/fred.prochaska/courses/ScWk170/s0/Basic-vs.-Applied-Research.pdf

 

[stuartv]

Or it could be evidence that it's a different formulation of silicone?

And, if there is something there making it hydrophobic, how do you know for sure that it is silicone-based? Is it known that all masks use a silicone compound for whatever purpose it is that some masks use Si?

My apologies if these questions have been addressed earlier in the thread. If so, feel free to just say that and not waste time rewriting War and Peace...