针对近期走红的预防流感“神器” 专家：“液体口罩”不能替代传统口罩

Core Viewpoint - The rise of "liquid masks" as a nasal spray product is linked to the recent outbreak of influenza, attracting consumers looking for alternatives to traditional masks, despite concerns about its efficacy and potential misleading claims [1][2]. Group 1: Product Description and Popularity - "Liquid masks" are marketed as a nasal spray that creates a "physical barrier" to block viruses, claiming a "99.9% blocking rate" and promoting a slogan of "everyone can take off their masks" [1]. - The product has gained popularity on e-commerce platforms, with some brands reportedly selling over 1 million bottles annually, appealing to consumers who find traditional masks uncomfortable or unattractive [1][2]. Group 2: Expert Opinions on Efficacy - Experts express skepticism about the claims made by "liquid masks," emphasizing that they do not replace traditional masks, which have established scientific backing for their effectiveness in reducing virus transmission [3][4]. - The traditional masks are noted for their clear technical standards and proven ability to reduce droplet transmission by over 70% when worn correctly [3]. Group 3: Regulatory and Safety Concerns - "Liquid masks" are classified as everyday consumer products rather than medical devices, lacking large-scale clinical validation for their advertised protective effects [2][4]. - Legal experts warn that the claims of "99.9% virus blockage" may constitute false advertising, urging consumers to be cautious and for e-commerce platforms to monitor misleading promotional content [2]. Group 4: Limitations and Risks - The protective effect of "liquid masks" is limited, as they primarily rely on a gel layer that may not effectively filter out viruses smaller than 0.1 microns, and potential side effects such as nasal dryness and irritation have not been thoroughly evaluated [5][6]. - Experts highlight that while the gel may adsorb some viruses, the overall effectiveness is compromised by the possibility of virus transmission through the mouth, indicating that the product should not be relied upon as a primary protective measure [6].