The seeming objective of this study was to compare the protective benefit of "standard surgical" masks that would be representative of those that are or would be used in healthcare settings, to the protective benefit N95 respirators.  The study implies that the   features of the N95 that contribute to the superior protective benefit as seen in the data, are "fit" and "filtration".  However, the "standard, tie-on surgical mask, 3M #1817" used in the surgical mask arm of this study is neither "standard", nor "surgical", nor "tie-on".  It is only available through 3M's ESPE (dental) division...of India.  It is promoted as "...fluid resistant and helps reduce potential exposure to blood and body fluids" and, given the paucity of information available on the mask, would, at best, qualify at the very lowest end of the ASTM standards.  It is unknow if it would qualify at all as a "medical" mask in the U.S.  A more representative "surgical" mask choice, taking into account establishe formal standards and classifications of surgical masks...of ANY global regulatory body...should have been considered for this and other past comparitive studies, and should certainly be taken into account moving forward.  The outcome of this study only tells us that the 3M N95 mask is superior to the 3M #1817 mask (if you can find it)  and unfortunately, nothing more.  And, this is limited to primary protective value, as "respiratory PPE".  PPE is the "last line of defense" in globally accepted hierarchy of controls, yet this N95 vs. face mask (as PPE) appears to be at the FRONT of the line in terms of research priority.  This is certainly not being driven, or even argued, on the face mask side of the fence.  More work in the area of face mask use for respiratory source control, (their originally intended purpose) such as the recent study by Milton and colleagues, would be more valuable in determining broader, more effective, means of (secondary) protection for healthcare workers...and others.