ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
My Activity
CONTENT TYPES

Household Materials Selection for Homemade Cloth Face Coverings and Their Filtration Efficiency Enhancement with Triboelectric Charging

  • Mervin Zhao
    Mervin Zhao
    4C Air, Inc., Sunnyvale, California 94089, United States
    More by Mervin Zhao
  • Lei Liao
    Lei Liao
    4C Air, Inc., Sunnyvale, California 94089, United States
    More by Lei Liao
  • Wang Xiao
    Wang Xiao
    4C Air, Inc., Sunnyvale, California 94089, United States
    More by Wang Xiao
  • Xuanze Yu
    Xuanze Yu
    4C Air, Inc., Sunnyvale, California 94089, United States
    More by Xuanze Yu
  • Haotian Wang
    Haotian Wang
    4C Air, Inc., Sunnyvale, California 94089, United States
    More by Haotian Wang
  • Qiqi Wang
    Qiqi Wang
    4C Air, Inc., Sunnyvale, California 94089, United States
    More by Qiqi Wang
  • Ying Ling Lin
    Ying Ling Lin
    World Health Organization, Geneva, CH-1211, Switzerland
    More by Ying Ling Lin
  • F. Selcen Kilinc-Balci
    F. Selcen Kilinc-Balci
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, Washington, DC 20201, United States
  • Amy Price
    Amy Price
    Stanford Anesthesia Informatics and Media (AIM) Lab, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative, and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, United States
    More by Amy Price
  • Larry Chu
    Larry Chu
    Stanford Anesthesia Informatics and Media (AIM) Lab, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative, and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, United States
    More by Larry Chu
  • May C. Chu
    May C. Chu
    Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado 80045, United States
    More by May C. Chu
  • Steven Chu
    Steven Chu
    Department of Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, United States
    Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, United States
    More by Steven Chu
  • , and 
  • Yi Cui*
    Yi Cui
    Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford California 94305, United States
    Stanford Institute for Materials and Energy Sciences, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, California 94025, United States
    *Email: [email protected]
    More by Yi Cui
Cite this: Nano Lett. 2020, 20, 7, 5544–5552
Publication Date (Web):June 2, 2020
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.0c02211
Copyright © 2020 American Chemical Society
  • Open Access

Article Views

49617

Altmetric

-

Citations

194
LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICS
PDF (10 MB)
Supporting Info (2)»

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic is currently causing a severe disruption and shortage in the global supply chain of necessary personal protective equipment (e.g., N95 respirators). The U.S. CDC has recommended use of household cloth by the general public to make cloth face coverings as a method of source control. We evaluated the filtration properties of natural and synthetic materials using a modified procedure for N95 respirator approval. Common fabrics of cotton, polyester, nylon, and silk had filtration efficiency of 5–25%, polypropylene spunbond had filtration efficiency 6–10%, and paper-based products had filtration efficiency of 10–20%. An advantage of polypropylene spunbond is that it can be simply triboelectrically charged to enhance the filtration efficiency (from 6 to >10%) without any increase in pressure (stable overnight and in humid environments). Using the filtration quality factor, fabric microstructure, and charging ability, we are able to provide an assessment of suggested fabric materials for homemade facial coverings.

  Note

This article is made available via the ACS COVID-19 subset for unrestricted RESEARCH re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused more than six million confirmed infections and major global disruptions to daily life. (1) The disease is caused by infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The virus appears to be highly infectious and a major mode of transmission is thought to be spread from an infected person releasing virus-filled fluid droplets that may shrink due to evaporation and thereby aerosolize. (2−5) Larger particles >5 μm in diameter typically settle due to gravity and usually reach only the upper respiratory tract if inhaled. Meanwhile, fine particles with diameter <5 μm can critically reach the lower respiratory tract. (3,4,6) A detailed discussion of the symptoms as well as transmission are discussed in the Supporting Information.

For airborne particulates, including viral aerosols, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends the use of N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFR) as respiratory protection. (7−9) The N95 FFR designation is determined by the CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and indicates a minimum filtration efficiency of 95% for particle sizes 0.022–0.259 μm (count median diameter of 0.075 ± 0.02 μm), according to 42 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 84. (10) As the viral aerosols are larger than the ∼0.120 μm virus itself, (11) N95 respirators are expected to provide suitable protection. (12,13) Meanwhile, medical face masks are used by healthcare workers during medical procedures to protect both the patient and the healthcare workers from the transfer of infectious microorganisms, body fluids, and particulate material. These masks are not recommended by the World Health Organization or the CDC for aerosol generating procedures. (9,14) A more detailed discussion of the approval requirements and usage of these two types of masks is given in the Supporting Information.

The widespread and intense response to caring for patients during the pandemic has led to disruptions of the global supply chain and shortage of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), especially a shortage of N95 FFRs for healthcare workers. (15,16) The WHO has recommended rationing the use of PPE and prioritization of PPE during severe shortages with FFRs reserved for healthcare professionals, leaving the general public without easy access to high-grade personal protective equipment. (17) During critical supply shortages, the possibility of disinfection and reuse of disposable FFRs has been proposed. (18) The CDC has recommended use of cloth face coverings (the WHO refers to these as “non-medical masks”) by the public to slow the spread of the virus, especially when social distancing measures are difficult to maintain. (19) These cloth face coverings can be fashioned from household items at a low cost and used as an additional control option to limit the release of larger infectious droplets from the wearer. (20,21) As some local governments are requiring the public to use cloth face coverings, it is reasonable to investigate what readily available and inexpensive materials may provide the public with some degree of protection against airborne viruses. The cloth mask material and construction would not be approved by NIOSH as an N95 FFR unless all applicable requirements of 42 CFR Part 84 were met.

We evaluated the filtration efficiency and pressure drop of common household materials of natural and synthetic origin using a modified version of the NIOSH standard test procedure with 0.075 ± 0.02 μm (count median diameter) NaCl aerosols (fabric samples were not preconditioned in any way and the flow rate was substantially reduced). The testing here did not account for real-world scenarios where the leakage around the edges of the face cover may significantly impact the actual effectiveness of these coverings. Hence, having a tight seal of the cloth around the face is imperative for these results to align with real usage conditions. All tests were conducted on an Automated Filter Tester 8130A (TSI, Inc.) with a flow rate of 32 L/min (unless otherwise specified). While FFR testing uses a flow of 85 L/min to simulate high intensity, a flow rate of 32 L/min was chosen which is similar to that in typical human breathing. (22) The filtration efficiency is the percentage of NaCl particles filtered by the material and the pressure drop is the air resistance across the filter material. Lower pressures indicate higher breathability. Additional information may be found in the Methods of the Supporting Information.

A commonly used filtration quality factor (Q) to determine the filter’s performance is defined (23)

where α (penetration) = 1 – E/100, E is the filtration efficiency (in %), and ΔP is the pressure drop across the filter (in kilopascals). A maximum Q results from a high filtration efficiency (low penetration) with low pressure drop, which is sensible for facial coverings. In addition, Q is not theoretically altered if multilayers of a singular type of filter material are considered, as penetration is multiplicative and pressure is additive.

Common household materials’ filtration properties are given in Table 1, optical images in Figure S1, and scanning electron microscope (SEM) images are given in Figure 1. The sources of the materials are given in the Methods. For reference as to how common household materials compare to PPE materials, one respirator media (polypropylene 1) and two medical face mask media (polypropylene 2 and 3) were also tested. The quality factor of the respirator grade polypropylene 1 is ∼160 kPa−1 and far exceeds any of the other materials. While previous reports show that surgical mask filtration efficiency can vary from 10 to 96% (85 L/min air flow), (24) we were only able to obtain two medical face mask brands, both of which had a filtration efficiency of ∼20–30% (Q ~ 5 kPa−1).

Table 1. Evaluation of Reference and Common Materials’ Filtration Propertiesa
material source structure basis weight (g·m–2) bulk density (basis weight/thickness) (g·m–2·μm–1) initial filtration efficiency (%) initial pressure drop (Pa) filter quality factor, Q (kPa–1)
Personal Protection Materials
polypropylene 1 particulate FFR meltblown (nonwoven) 25 0.17 95.94 ± 2.00 9.0 ± 2.0 162.7 ± 21.3
polypropylene 2 medical face mask meltblown (nonwoven) 26 0.21 33.06 ± 0.95 34.3 ± 0.5 5.0 ± 0.1
polypropylene 3 medical face mask meltblown (nonwoven) 20 0.20 18.81 ± 0.50 16.3 ± 0.5 5.5 ± 0.1
Household Materials
polypropylene 4 (PP-4) interfacing material, purchased as-is spunbond (nonwoven) 30 0.26 6.15 ± 2.18 1.6 ± 0.5 16.9 ± 3.4
cotton 1b pillow cover woven 116 0.57 5.04 ± 0.64 4.5 ± 2.1 5.4 ± 1.9
cotton 2b clothing (t-shirt) knit 157 0.37 21.62 ± 1.84 14.5 ± 2.1 7.4 ± 1.7
cotton 3b clothing (sweater) knit 360 0.45 25.88 ± 1.41 17.0 ± 0.0 7.6 ± 0.4
polyester clothing (toddler wrap) knit 200 0.38 17.50 ± 5.10 12.3 ± 0.5 6.8 ± 2.4
silk napkin woven 84 0.54 4.77 ± 1.47 7.3 ± 1.5 2.8 ± 0.4
nylon clothing (exercise pants) woven 164 0.70 23.33 ± 1.18 244.0 ± 5.5 0.4 ± 0.0
cellulose 1 paper towel bonded 42.9 0.33 10.41 ± 0.28 11.0 ± 0.0 4.3 ± 2.8
cellulose 2 tissue paper bonded 32.8 0.39 20.2 ± 0.32 19.0 ± 1.0 5.1 ± 3.2
cellulose 3 copy paper bonded 72.8 0.76 99.85 ± 0.02 1883.6 ± 39.3 1.5 ± 0.2
a

All materials were tested in samples of three unless denoted. Uncertainties denoted here represent the standard deviation between the samples. Materials in bold were further studied to investigate if the simple triboelectric charging can positively impact the filtration properties. For the particulate FFR sample, the meltblown is independently procured for usage in FFRs as it is difficult to obtain enough sample to test with the filter tester.

b

Indicates this sample did not have enough material and data is presented in samples of two.

Figure 1

Figure 1. SEM images of the microscopic structure of various household materials. All images are given in pairs. The first of the pairs has a scale bar (left, black bar in white background) corresponding to 300 μm. The second of the pairs has a scale bar (right, white bar in black background) corresponding to 75 μm. (a–c) Polypropylene samples from PPE (a,b) and common spunbond (c). (d–f) Cotton samples, as given in Table 1. (g–i) Polyester, silk, and nylon samples, respectively. (j–l) Other cellulose-based products, paper towel, tissue paper, and printing paper, as per given in Table 1.

From the microscopic images in Figure 1a,b, the PPE meltblown nonwoven has microfibers of various diameters, typically around 1–10 μm with large distances between fibers (tens of microns). The structure is bulky and clearly three-dimensional with multilayers of fibers. In contrast, the polypropylene spunbond (PP-4) sample (Figure 1c), is composed of relatively uniform fibers of size ∼20 μm. The nonwoven structure makes for a random network of fibers with select spots that are bonded together (left corners in Figure 1c). The spunbond PP-4 has a large pore size reaching ∼100 μm. Both of these nonwoven structures with random fiber networks have a large porosity and lower pressure drops. Though PP-4 has a lower filtration efficiency due to the larger fiber diameter and pores compared to the other polypropylenes, its Q ∼ 16.9 kPa−1 is among the highest in Table 1. We note a large difference in Q and filtration efficiency between polypropylenes 2 and 3 (Figure 1b as representative) and polypropylene 1, even though all are produced from the meltblown process. This most likely resulted from the difference in electrostatic charge (discussed later in the text).

Previous reports show that cloth face coverings had 10–60% instantaneous penetration levels when challenged with polydisperse NaCl aerosols. (25,26) In this study, the cotton samples taken from common household materials all exhibited similar Q, though they had various construction and filtration efficiencies. Microscopically, we see that Cotton 1 has a finer fiber diameter (∼10 μm) compared to Cottons 2–3 (∼20 μm). All the fibers are bundled into yarns of similar size, ∼150 μm. However, in Cotton 1 (Figure 1d) clear pores of ∼100 μm can be observed, whereas in Cotton 2 and 3 (Figure 1e,f) there are no such clear pores and yarn-to-yarn gaps are not as apparent. The clear pores in Cotton 1 can leak both particles and air through, which explains why it has much lower filtration efficiency of ∼5% and lower pressure drop of ∼2.5 Pa, compared to Cotton 2 and 3 (20–26% filtration efficiency, 14–17 Pa pressure drop). Based on the data in Table 1, the basis weight and density are not clearly related to the efficiency, as Cotton 3 has nearly double the basis weight of Cotton 2, but the filtration efficiency increase is only moderate. We note that the Cotton 2 and 3 filtration properties were comparable to some grades of medical face masks. As cotton is a very common material for clothing, it would be beneficial to the public to select cotton construction with the highest filtration quality factor. The cotton should be woven/knit at a high density such that there are no visible pores under light. If a lower density cotton is used, it may be best to use multilayers.

Among polyester, silk, and nylon, the most apparent feature is the high thread count in the nylon sample, leading to the high pressure (>200 Pa, whereas most other materials are <20 Pa). The nylon fibers are approximately 10 μm in diameter and in bundles of 200 μm (Figure 1i). It may be possible to procure nylon with a lower thread count, resulting in a lower pressure drop and higher Q, and it may be more suitable for facial coverings. Comparatively, we can see that the polyester sample (fleece-like fabric source) is composed of more randomly oriented fibers of 10 μm on the surface (Figure 1g). The polyester Q is comparable to cotton’s and has similar filtration efficiency to some cotton fabrics (dependent on bulk density). Silk is composed of similar fiber sizes and yarns of 100 μm (Figure 1h). From the SEM images, the silk sample has gaps between the yarns of ∼50 μm, which led to the leaking of air/particles and thus the lower filtration efficiency and pressure drop.

Finally, among the paper-based products, we see moderate filtration performance with the paper towel or tissue paper, but unsuitable pressure drop in printing paper. In the paper towel and tissue paper, the Q is comparable to some of the previous fabrics with a slightly higher pressure drop. These products may be suitable to use as a disposable media in some homemade facial coverings, such as between cotton for an increase in filtration efficiency, though their performance in high humidity environments needs to be examined in future work. These products are both similar to thicker, randomly oriented cellulose fibers (Figure 1j,k). The difference between these two and printing paper is how compressed the sample is (Figure 1l). Printing paper is clearly a much more two-dimensional dense-packed structure, leading to its very high pressure drop with little or no pores in the material. All these materials have a low mechanical strength, which would require particular care if integrated into face coverings.

Among these common household materials tested, we see that PP-4 (polypropylene spunbond, 30 g/m2) is a relatively high performing common material with Q ∼ 17 kPa–1, 2–5 times higher than the other materials (arising from the lower pressure drop). While not as common as cotton, polypropylene spunbond is an inexpensive material that can be found in hobby fabric shops, some reusable bags, mattress covers, hygiene products, and disposable work wear. As Q does not change with multilayers, it suggests that the spunbond material may be suitable as a multilayer structure for facial coverings. In fact, using five layers of the spunbond (30 g/m2) experimentally yields filtration efficiency of ∼24% (8 Pa), Q of ∼15 kPa–1 (Table S1). Considering filtration properties alone, multilayer polypropylene material is superior or at least comparable to materials used in some medical face masks (polypropylene 2 and 3).

Both medical face masks and FFRs are typically composed of polypropylene nonwoven fabrics, and in both cases the primary filtration layer is produced via melt-blowing. (27,28) The meltblown layer’s polypropylene microfibers have diameters in the range of ∼1–10 μm and a fabric thickness of 100–1000 μm. The lofty nature, high porosity, and fine fiber diameter should not be adequate for fine particle filtration used in respirators by itself. (29) To improve the filtration efficiency while preserving high air permeability, these fibers are charged through “corona discharge” and/or triboelectric means into electrets with quasi-permanent dipoles. (30−32) Once charged, the filter can significantly increase its filtration efficiency without adding any mass or density to the structure. As the basis weights of the meltblown fabrics used in the medical face mask and FFR are similar, this suggests that the meltblown used in the FFR has been charged and the meltblown of both medical face masks may not have undergone any charging process. Qualitatively, the meltblown in the FFR and medical face mask (Figure 1a,b) also has some difference in the density, which contributes to the pressure difference. Thus, achieving a high-performing filter requires both a suitable filter morphology/geometry and a high degree of injected electrical charge.

It is worth exploring whether simple triboelectric charging can positively impact the filtration properties of the materials highlighted in blue in Table 1. While it is difficult to charge the samples in the same way as electrets are made in nonwoven meltblown media in a nonindustrial setting, the act of triboelectrically creating some surface charge to mimic an electret filter may be a way to increase the filtration efficiency for a time duration enough for the public’s temporary usage (Figure 2a).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Filtration properties of common materials before and after charging. Each uncertainty represents the standard deviation of three samples (excluding cotton which are from two samples). (a) Schematic of effect of charging fibers using triboelectricity. Particle filtration efficiency can be enhanced using charges generated from the triboelectric effect. (b) Filtration efficiency of materials before and after charging. Silk, nylon, polyester, and PP-4 all have increases in filtration efficiency after rubbing with latex. Cotton’s efficiency after charging was unchanged or decreased in efficiency, possibly due to abrasion and/or pore size expansion. (c) Quality factor, Q, of household materials before and after charging. Results are roughly in agreement with data presented in (b), except nylon which had lower performance due to pressure drop and PP-4 is much better performing due to low pressure drop. (d,e) Filtration efficiency (d) and Q (e) of various polypropylene spunbond fabrics with different basis weights.

The triboelectric effect is a well-known method, commonly used to demonstrate static electricity. (33) However, the microscopic mechanism of triboelectricity is still not completely clear. Between solids, it has recently been found that the contact electrification is most likely due to an electron transfer between the two materials. (34) In general, when two different materials come into contact with one another, their electron clouds overlap (forming a transient chemical bond). As two different materials approach equilibrium chemical potential, a decrease in the interatomic distance may allow for electron transfer between the two atoms. The transferred electron is only slightly bound to the surface atoms after the two materials have separated from each other.

For the purposes of charging an arbitrary material, two materials with different charge affinities should be able to triboelectrically create surface charges on each other. This has led to well-known triboelectric series, (35) which has also recently been quantified. (36) We selected latex to initially charge the samples, being a commonly found rubber product. We rubbed the sample for 30 s using a pair of latex gloves and recorded the filtration performance before and immediately after treatment (Figure 2b,c and Supporting Movie M1).

All three cotton samples had a decreased or unchanged filtration efficiency, while all other samples had an increase in filtration efficiency. The decrease in the cotton fabrics’ filtration efficiency may be due to the pore size expansion produced by rubbing or even damage to the sample from the abrasion. It suggests that mechanical damage, friction, or stretching the cotton can all cause the filtration efficiency to decrease, and these effects should be considered for cotton face coverings. On the other hand, all other samples reported moderate to high increases in filtration efficiency when tested immediately after charging. Examining Q shows that PP-4 has the highest performance due to the low pressure drop; polyester is also within a comparable range after charging. The low Q value of nylon is due to the high pressure drop (because of the very tight weave of this synthetic) with slight increase after charging. After charging, silk has a high initial value (unsurprising as it is also a commonly used material to demonstrate static in the classroom setting), but the higher pressure drop of silk yields a lower Q, when compared to PP-4 or polyester.

In order to see if this effect can be generalized to other polypropylene fabrics, we tested additional polypropylene spunbond samples of different basis weights (Figure 2d,e, data in Table S2). We see that among three different basis weights of polypropylene spunbond (25, 30, 40 g/m2), the filtration efficiency and Q are very similar (∼5–10% initial efficiency charged to ∼20% efficiency with initial Q = ∼10–20 kPa–1 charged to ∼50 kPa–1). However, for the 60 g/m2 sample, the initial efficiency is much higher than the other samples. At the same time, the pressure is much higher as well (∼130 Pa, Table S2), which leads to a lower Q < 10 kPa–1. For the 70 g/m2 sample, it also has a higher filtration efficiency and pressure drop, but the effect of charging was not as significant as the lower basis weight samples. We note that the 70 g/m2 sample was colored pink (Figure S1), whereas the other spunbond samples were white. Addition of additives may affect charging, depending on the additives’ composition. While charging improves the efficiency (and Q) of all polypropylene samples, the effect was most prevalent in the lower basis weight samples tested here. Due to sample limitations as well as its behavior, PP-4 was used for all remaining experiments as a representative of polypropylene spunbond.

Static charge will inevitably dissipate due to adsorption of water molecules in the air, or discharge through contact with other surfaces. Therefore, we first evaluated natural, ambient decay (samples were placed on a tabletop without any covering, the temperature and humidity were approximately constant at 22 °C, 40% RH), as plotted in Figure 3a,b. Clearly, all the materials exhibited discharge from their initial charging value (denoted by time “0” here, where t0 denotes the values before charging). From Figure 3a, we see that both polyester and silk decay relatively quickly, reaching a plateau near the initial value at around 30 min. Nylon and PP-4 on the other hand have a much slower decay, with the PP-4 overnight value essentially remaining constant, within error.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Time evolution of filtration properties of common materials. Each uncertainty represents the standard deviation of three samples. (a) Filtration efficiency decay in ambient conditions (listed in the main text), up to overnight. (b) Evolution of Q as a function of time, up to overnight. (c) Evolution of filtration efficiency in a humid and warmer environment, up to an hour. (d) Evolution of the PP-4 Q as a function of the time, up to an hour.

It has been reported that polymers, especially hydrophilic polymers, are able to adsorb layers of water molecules from ambient humidity. Once adsorbed, water molecules in particular can essentially allow for a low concentration of ions (due to dissociation reactions of surface groups) that can discharge the generated triboelectric charge. (37) This is a reason why static charge is more apparent in dry environments, as the ambient moisture in the air is not enough to screen the charges generated through triboelectric means. In addition, cotton (and to a lesser extent silk) is hygroscopic, and this explains why cotton is very difficult to charge with latex, even when it is apparent that cotton clothes from a laundry dryer can have static on them.

When considering the surface chemistry of the fibers’ polymer groups, we note that polypropylene, predictably, is the most hydrophobic (it has only hydrocarbon linkages). The remaining nylon (polyamide), polyester, and silk (protein) have components which would make them more hydrophilic or less hydrophobic than polypropylene. This effect is further magnified when conditioning the materials in a humid environment of 38 °C, 85% (Figure 3c,d), which is used to mimic the exhalation temperature and moisture content. A humid environment was tested by charging the fabrics and placing them in an environmental chamber (SH-642) and measuring at the selected times (Methods in Supporting Information). We found that nylon (which was able to retain the charge well in ambient conditions) decayed to the initial value within 1 min in a humid environment and remained constant at this value for the remaining time. These conditions are also similar to the preconditioning used for FFRs in NIOSH STP0059 (85 ± 5% RH, 38 ± 2.5 °C for 25 ± 1 h) prior to measuring filter penetration. (38) On the other hand, the hydrophobic PP-4 was able to roughly stay consistent with the results that were conditioned in ambient conditions, and a considerable amount of static was retained on the sample after an hour (efficiency >10% after aging, with an uncharged value of ∼6%). The general observations here are consistent with previous studies which found that multilayers of water molecules can adsorb onto the surface polyamide (nylon), but hydrophobic polystyrene has little water adsorption. (37)

Hydrophobic polymeric materials may be considered for simple triboelectric methods for increasing filtration properties. Though polypropylene is the most common of these, some types of polyester or polyurethane fabrics can potentially be used in the same manner (or as an external/protective layer for polypropylenes like PP-4, if used as the filtration layer). More study is needed on this area to determine other common polymers which can be charged to retain their static, or multilayer polymers which can charge within a homemade face covering through interlayer friction.

In order to offer options for community use, we tested charging the PP-4 using various other common “charging” materials (Figure 4). We found that latex and nitrile rubbers were the most promising in increasing the filtration efficiency, and various other materials only had moderate (paper and wood) or negligible effect on charging the PP-4. Fortunately, latex and nitrile are commonly used glove materials, which would make the frequent charging of the material relatively easy from a user-application standpoint (i.e., rubbing the mask with gloved hands before putting on).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Efficiency after charging PP-4 with different materials. Each uncertainty represents the standard deviation of three samples.

We note that recent work has also shown that face coverings of similar fabric materials to have reported filtration efficiencies of ∼10–90%. (26) The difference between these results and our findings may arise from differences in instrumentation, testing method, and source of material. Our study chose following a modified version of the test procedure that NIOSH uses for the approval of N95 filtering facepiece respirators.

A summary of the results described in this manuscript is presented in Table 2, ranked by filtration quality factor, Q. Cotton, polyester, and polypropylene multilayered structures can meet or even exceed the efficiency of materials used in some medical face masks. However, the exact number of layers, basis weight, and thread-count of material will need to be considered in addition to the fluid resistance and performance under breathing. In our work (Table S1), we found that a five-layer structure of PP-4 after charging can achieve filtration efficiency ∼50%. Although the medical face masks tested here (∼19–33% filtration efficiency) have a pressure drop of roughly 16–34 Pa, the five-layer structure can achieve a higher filtration efficiency and pressure drop <10 Pa. This is particularly relevant, as there is a concern in the sealing of both disposable medical masks and cloth face coverings. We reiterate that these filtration efficiencies are only applicable if there is no leakage in the seals of the masks, as loose-fitting devices such as these coverings and medical masks do not have any gasket or tight-fitting mechanism to ensure a proper seal. The leakage of air around the seal areas is significant and can contribute to real-world exposure to aerosols. (24,26) Previous reports suggest that 60% of users fail the fitting of surgical masks on first attempt. (24) This risk is also carried over in cloth face coverings that do not have any special form of sealing. When designing new facial coverings for community use, it is advisible to make users aware of this risk and to design cloth face coverings with pressure drop across the covering is as low as possible (with filtration efficiency as high as possible), otherwise air contaminants (particulates, viruses, infectious droplets, etc.) will preferentially flow through gaps and leaks at the skin and cloth contact points limiting any effectiveness of filtration in a de facto form of respiratory protection. The general public should be aware of the risks of self-contamination during removal and reuse of cloth face coverings. Finally, an important distinction to make is that surgical masks are designed and intended as a form of barrier protection and provide fluid resistance for use in hospitals. The materials evaluated in this study for cloth face coverings are not intended to be used by healthcare workers or any other workers as a form of respiratory protection. Further, we did not investigate the effects of cleaning or disinfecting of the materials studied. These effects could be evaluated in future work.

Table 2. Summary and Ranking of Materials Tested Here Based on Filtration Quality Factor, Q, with Relevant Comments for Each Material
Q (kPa–1) ∼filtration efficiency (%) material comments
>100 >95 polypropylene meltblown (charged) material found in FFRs (used for reference)
30 10–20 charged polypropylene (PP-4) charged value after overnight, polypropylene spunbonds can vary (different basis weight has different efficiency), charging increased the Q in all cases
15 5–10 uncharged polypropylene (PP-4) initial polypropylene spunbond fabrics can vary in efficiency, but most tested had low pressure drops
5–10 5–20 cotton cotton fabrics can vary in initial pressure drop, select cotton fabrics without any visible pores under light illumination or use multilayer configurations
5–10 20 polyester similar properties and comments as cotton
5 30 polypropylene meltblown (uncharged) material found in medical face masks (used for reference)
5 10–20 tissue paper, paper towel low mechanical strength, but may be possible to integrate into some masks with other cloths as a composite material
<5 5 silk silk can be considered for use if cotton and/or polyester are unavailable
<1 20 nylon (woven) the nylon tested in this study had very high pressure drop. If using nylon for masks the fabric needs to have a lower pressure drop to be effective

Personal protective equipment, such as surgical masks cleared for sale by the FDA and respiratory protection approved by NIOSH, comprise only one aspect of a hierarchy of infection prevention and control measures. The WHO and CDC recommend that other measures also be used with masks or respirators. (14,39) These additional measures as well as the efficacy of cloth coverings are covered in the Supporting Information.

Supporting Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.nanolett.0c02211.

  • Discussion on COVID-19 symptoms and transmission, details of the testing procedures used for NIOSH and FDA approval for masks, public health measures suggested by the CDC and WHO, experimental methods, optical images, and additional tables (PDF)

  • Video demonstrating the simple charging of fabric that clearly has static charge after charging is complete due to the attractive nature of the fabric (MP4)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

  • Corresponding Author
    • Yi Cui - Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford California 94305, United StatesStanford Institute for Materials and Energy Sciences, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, California 94025, United StatesOrcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-6103-6352 Email: [email protected]
  • Authors
    • Mervin Zhao - 4C Air, Inc., Sunnyvale, California 94089, United StatesOrcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-7313-7150
    • Lei Liao - 4C Air, Inc., Sunnyvale, California 94089, United States
    • Wang Xiao - 4C Air, Inc., Sunnyvale, California 94089, United States
    • Xuanze Yu - 4C Air, Inc., Sunnyvale, California 94089, United States
    • Haotian Wang - 4C Air, Inc., Sunnyvale, California 94089, United States
    • Qiqi Wang - 4C Air, Inc., Sunnyvale, California 94089, United States
    • Ying Ling Lin - World Health Organization, Geneva, CH-1211, Switzerland
    • F. Selcen Kilinc-Balci - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, Washington, DC 20201, United States
    • Amy Price - Stanford Anesthesia Informatics and Media (AIM) Lab, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative, and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, United States
    • Larry Chu - Stanford Anesthesia Informatics and Media (AIM) Lab, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative, and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, United States
    • May C. Chu - Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado 80045, United States
    • Steven Chu - Department of Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, United StatesDepartment of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, United States
  • Notes
    The authors declare the following competing financial interest(s): Professors Steven Chu and Yi Cui are founders and shareholders of the company 4C Air, Inc. They are inventors on patent PCT /US2015/065608. Authors Mervin Zhao, Lei Liao, Wang Xiao, Xuanze Yu, Haotian Wang, and Qiqi Wang are employed by 4C Air, Inc.

References

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This article references 39 other publications.

  1. 1
    Dong, E.; Du, H.; Gardner, L. An Interactive Web-Based Dashboard to Track COVID-19 in Real Time. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2020, 20, 533534,  DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30120-1
  2. 2
    Christian, M. D.; Loutfy, M.; McDonald, L. C.; Martinez, K. F.; Ofner, M.; Wong, T.; Wallington, T.; Gold, W. L.; Mederski, B.; Green, K.; Low, D. E. Possible SARS Coronavirus Transmission during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. Emerging Infect. Dis. 2004, 10, 287293,  DOI: 10.3201/eid1002.030700
  3. 3
    Yan, J.; Grantham, M.; Pantelic, J.; De Mesquita, P. J. B.; Albert, B.; Liu, F.; Ehrman, S.; Milton, D. K. Infectious Virus in Exhaled Breath of Symptomatic Seasonal Influenza Cases from a College Community. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2018, 115, 10811086,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1716561115
  4. 4
    Tellier, R. Review of Aerosol Transmission of Influenza A Virus. Emerging Infect. Dis. 2006, 12, 16571662,  DOI: 10.3201/eid1211.060426
  5. 5
    Huang, H.; Fan, C.; Li, M.; Nie, H. L.; Wang, F. B.; Wang, H.; Wang, R.; Xia, J.; Zheng, X.; Zuo, X.; Huang, J. COVID-19: A Call for Physical Scientists and Engineers. ACS Nano 2020, 14, 37473754,  DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.0c02618
  6. 6
    Lindsley, W. G.; Blachere, F. M.; Thewlis, R. E.; Vishnu, A.; Davis, K. A.; Cao, G.; Palmer, J. E.; Clark, K. E.; Fisher, M. A.; Khakoo, R.; Beezhold, D. H. Measurements of Airborne Influenza Virus in Aerosol Particles from Human Coughs. PLoS One 2010, 5, e15100,  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015100
  7. 7
    NIOSH Interim Guidance on Infection Control Measures for 2009 H1N1 Influenza in Healthcare Settings, Including Protection of Healthcare Personnel. Miss. RN 2009, 71, 1318
  8. 8
    CDC. Using Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/using-ppe.html (accessed May 24, 2020).
  9. 9
    CDC. Healthcare Infection Prevention and Control FAQs for COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-faq.html (accessed May 24, 2020).
  10. 10
    Rosenstock, L. 42 CFR Part 84: Respiratory Protective Devices Implications for Tuberculosis Protection. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 1995, 16, 529531,  DOI: 10.1086/647174
  11. 11
    Matsuyama, S.; Nao, N.; Shirato, K.; Kawase, M.; Saito, S.; Takayama, I.; Nagata, N.; Sekizuka, T.; Katoh, H.; Kato, F.; Sakata, M.; Tahara, M.; Kutsuna, S.; Ohmagari, N.; Kuroda, M.; Suzuki, T.; Kageyama, T.; Takeda, M. Enhanced Isolation of SARS-CoV-2 by TMPRSS2- Expressing Cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2020, 117, 70017003,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2002589117
  12. 12
    Loeb, M.; Dafoe, N.; Mahony, J.; John, M.; Sarabia, A.; Glavin, V.; Webby, R.; Smieja, M.; Earn, D. J. D.; Chong, S.; Webb, A.; Walter, S. D. Surgical Mask vs N95 Respirator for Preventing Influenza among Health Care Workers: A Randomized Trial. JAMA - J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2009, 302, 18651871,  DOI: 10.1001/jama.2009.1466
  13. 13
    Bałazy, A.; Toivola, M.; Adhikari, A.; Sivasubramani, S. K.; Reponen, T.; Grinshpun, S. A. Do N95 Respirators Provide 95% Protection Level against Airborne Viruses, and How Adequate Are Surgical Masks?. Am. J. Infect. Control 2006, 34, 5157,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2005.08.018
  14. 14
    World Health Organization. Advice on the Use of Masks in the Context of COVID-19 (Interim Guidance) ; 2020.
  15. 15
    Artenstein, A. W. In Pursuit of PPE. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, e46  DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc2010025
  16. 16
    Ranney, M. L.; Griffeth, V.; Jha, A. K. Critical Supply Shortages — The Need for Ventilators and Personal Protective Equipment during the Covid-19 Pandemic. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, e41  DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2006141
  17. 17
    World Health Organization. Rational Use of Personal Protective Equipment for Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) and Considerations during Severe Shortages: Interim Guidance, 6 April 2020; World Health Organization, 2020.
  18. 18
    Liao, L.; Xiao, W.; Zhao, M.; Yu, X.; Wang, H.; Wang, Q.; Chu, S.; Cui, Y. Can N95 Respirators Be Reused after Disinfection? How Many Times?. ACS Nano 2020, 14, 6348,  DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.0c03597
  19. 19
    CDC. Public Health Recommendations for Community-Related Exposure. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/public-health-recommendations.html (accessed May 24, 2020).
  20. 20
    CDC. Recommendation Regarding the Use of Cloth Face Coverings, Especially in Areas of Significant Community-Based Transmission. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover.html (accessed May 24, 2020).
  21. 21
    Adams, J., Recommendation Regarding the Use of Cloth Face Coverings, CDC ; 2020.
  22. 22
    Lindsley, W. G.; King, W. P.; Thewlis, R. E.; Reynolds, J. S.; Panday, K.; Cao, G.; Szalajda, J. V. Dispersion and Exposure to a Cough-Generated Aerosol in a Simulated Medical Examination Room. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2012, 9, 681690,  DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2012.725986
  23. 23
    Podgórski, A.; Bałazy, A.; Gradoń, L. Application of Nanofibers to Improve the Filtration Efficiency of the Most Penetrating Aerosol Particles in Fibrous Filters. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2006, 61, 68046815,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2006.07.022
  24. 24
    Oberg, T.; Brosseau, L. M. Surgical Mask Filter and Fit Performance. Am. J. Infect. Control 2008, 36, 276282,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2007.07.008
  25. 25
    Rengasamy, S.; Eimer, B.; Shaffer, R. E. Simple Respiratory Protection - Evaluation of the Filtration Performance of Cloth Masks and Common Fabric Materials against 20–1000 Nm Size Particles. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2010, 54, 789798
  26. 26
    Konda, A.; Prakash, A.; Moss, G. A.; Schmoldt, M.; Grant, G. D.; Guha, S. Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics Used in Respiratory Cloth Masks. ACS Nano 2020, 14, 6339,  DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.0c03252
  27. 27
    Angadjivand, S. A.; Brandner, J. M.; Springett, J. E. Molded Respirator Comprising Meltblown Fiber Web with Staple Fibers. US 7989372 B2, 2011.
  28. 28
    Gaynor, M.; McManus, J. Spunbonded/Meltblown/Spunbonded Laminate Face Mask. US 20040000313 A1, 2002.
  29. 29
    Ghosal, A.; Sinha-Ray, S.; Yarin, A. L.; Pourdeyhimi, B. Numerical Prediction of the Effect of Uptake Velocity on Three-Dimensional Structure, Porosity and Permeability of Meltblown Nonwoven Laydown. Polymer 2016, 85, 1927,  DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2016.01.013
  30. 30
    Angadjivand, S. A.; Jones, M. E.; Meyer, D. E. Method of Charging Electret Filter Media. US 6119691 A 1996.
  31. 31
    Angadjivand, S. A.; Jones, M. E.; Meyer, D. E. Electret Filter Media. US 6119691 A, 1994.
  32. 32
    Kubik, D. A.; Davis, C. I. Melt-Blown Fibrous Electrets. US 4215682 A, 1980.
  33. 33
    Henniker, J. Triboelectricity in Polymers. Nature 1962, 196, 474474,  DOI: 10.1038/196474a0
  34. 34
    Xu, C.; Zi, Y.; Wang, A. C.; Zou, H.; Dai, Y.; He, X.; Wang, P.; Wang, Y.-C.; Feng, P.; Li, D.; Wang, Z. L. On the Electron-transfer Mechanism in the Contact-electrification Effect. Adv. Mater. 2018, 30, 1706790,  DOI: 10.1002/adma.201706790
  35. 35
    Lee, B. W.; Orr, D. E. The Triboelectric Series. https://www.alphalabinc.com/triboelectric-series/ (accessed May 24, 2020).
  36. 36
    Zou, H.; Zhang, Y.; Guo, L.; Wang, P.; He, X.; Dai, G.; Zheng, H.; Chen, C.; Wang, A. C.; Xu, C.; Wang, Z. L. Quantifying the Triboelectric Series. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 19,  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-019-09461-x
  37. 37
    Németh, E.; Albrecht, V.; Schubert, G.; Simon, F. Polymer Tribo-Electric Charging: Dependence on Thermodynamic Surface Properties and Relative Humidity. J. Electrost. 2003, 58, 316,  DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3886(02)00137-7
  38. 38
    CDC. Standard Respirator Testing Procedures. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/stps/apresp.html (accessed May 29, 2020).
  39. 39
    Sanche, S.; Lin, Y. T.; Xu, C.; Romero-Severson, E.; Hengartner, N.; Ke, R. High Contagiousness and Rapid Spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2. Emerging Infect. Dis. 2020, 26, 26,  DOI: 10.3201/eid2607.200282

Cited By

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This article is cited by 194 publications.

  1. Mozakkar Hossain, Keshab Karmakar, Prakash Sarkar, Tiyasi Chattaraj, K. D. M. Rao. Self-Sanitization in a Silk Nanofibrous Network for Biodegradable PM0.3 Filters with In Situ Joule Heating. ACS Omega 2024, 9 (8) , 9137-9146. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.3c08020
  2. Qinghong Huang, Chen Meng, Mingrui Liao, Tianyu Kou, Fangchao Zhou, Jian R Lu, Jiashen Li, Yi Li. Hierarchically Porous, Superhydrophobic PLLA/Copper Composite Fibrous Membranes for Air Filtration. ACS Applied Polymer Materials 2024, 6 (4) , 2381-2391. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsapm.3c03055
  3. A. Kumar, S. Gautam, S. Atri, H. V. Tafreshi, B. Pourdeyhimi. Importance of Dipole Orientation in Electrostatic Aerosol Filtration. Langmuir 2023, 39 (49) , 17653-17663. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.3c02016
  4. Tilen Potisk, Maja Remškar, Luka Pirker, Gregor Filipič, Igor Mihelič, Marjan Ješelnik, Urban Čoko, Miha Ravnik. Single-Layer and Double-Layer Filtration Materials Based on Polyvinylidene Fluoride-Co-hexafluoropropylene Nanofibers Coated on Melamine Microfibers. ACS Applied Nano Materials 2023, 6 (17) , 15807-15819. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsanm.3c02592
  5. Aamod V. Desai, Simon M. Vornholt, Louise L. Major, Romy Ettlinger, Christian Jansen, Daniel N. Rainer, Richard de Rome, Venus So, Paul S. Wheatley, Ailsa K. Edward, Caroline G. Elliott, Atin Pramanik, Avishek Karmakar, A. Robert Armstrong, Christoph Janiak, Terry K. Smith, Russell E. Morris. Surface-Functionalized Metal–Organic Frameworks for Binding Coronavirus Proteins. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2023, 15 (7) , 9058-9065. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.2c21187
  6. Jiajia Fu, Tianxing Liu, S Salvia Binte Touhid, Feiya Fu, Xiangdong Liu. Functional Textile Materials for Blocking COVID-19 Transmission. ACS Nano 2023, 17 (3) , 1739-1763. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.2c08894
  7. Singam Suranjoy Singh, Amr Zaitoon, Laura Arvaj, Sampathkumar Balamurugan, Annamalai Manickavasagan, Loong-Tak Lim. Biobased Antiviral Nonwoven Mask Filter with High Filtration Performance. ACS Applied Engineering Materials 2023, 1 (1) , 646-659. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsaenm.2c00161
  8. Rui A. Gonçalves, Joanne W. K. Ku, Hao Zhang, Teddy Salim, Guodong Oo, Alfred A. Zinn, Chris Boothroyd, Richard M. Y. Tang, Chee Lip Gan, Yunn-Hwen Gan, Yeng Ming Lam. Copper-Nanoparticle-Coated Fabrics for Rapid and Sustained Antibacterial Activity Applications. ACS Applied Nano Materials 2022, 5 (9) , 12876-12886. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsanm.2c02736
  9. Chong Yang, Xinyu Jiang, Xue Gao, Haiyang Wang, Lei Li, Naveed Hussain, Jiawang Xie, Zekun Cheng, Ziwei Li, Jianfeng Yan, Minlin Zhong, Lihao Zhao, Hui Wu. Saving 80% Polypropylene in Facemasks by Laser-Assisted Melt-Blown Nanofibers. Nano Letters 2022, 22 (17) , 7212-7219. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.2c02693
  10. Steven Cheng, Weixing Hao, Yuchen Wang, Yang Wang, Shu Yang. Commercial Janus Fabrics as Reusable Facemask Materials: A Balance of Water Repellency, Filtration Efficiency, Breathability, and Reusability. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2022, 14 (28) , 32579-32589. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.2c09544
  11. Teri W. Odom (Editor-in-Chief). Nano Letters in the Time of COVID-19. Nano Letters 2022, 22 (1) , 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.1c04813
  12. Sriram S. K S Narayanan, Xudong Wang, Jose Paul, Vladislav Paley, Zijian Weng, Libin Ye, Ying Zhong. Disinfection and Electrostatic Recovery of N95 Respirators by Corona Discharge for Safe Reuse. Environmental Science & Technology 2021, 55 (22) , 15351-15360. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c02649
  13. Harris Varghese, Achu Chandran. Triboelectric Nanogenerator from Used Surgical Face Mask and Waste Mylar Materials Aiding the Circular Economy. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2021, 13 (43) , 51132-51140. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.1c16557
  14. Chavis A. Stackhouse, Shan Yan, Lei Wang, Kim Kisslinger, Ryan Tappero, Ashley R. Head, Killian R. Tallman, Esther S. Takeuchi, David C. Bock, Kenneth J. Takeuchi, Amy C. Marschilok. Characterization of Materials Used as Face Coverings for Respiratory Protection. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2021, 13 (40) , 47996-48008. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.1c11200
  15. Simona G. Fine, Pan He, Jiaxing Huang. Self-Charging Textile Woven from Dissimilar Household Fibers for Air Filtration: A Proof of Concept. ACS Omega 2021, 6 (40) , 26311-26317. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.1c03412
  16. Shan Yan, Chavis A. Stackhouse, Iradwikanari Waluyo, Adrian Hunt, Kim Kisslinger, Ashley R. Head, David C. Bock, Esther S. Takeuchi, Kenneth J. Takeuchi, Lei Wang, Amy C. Marschilok. Reusing Face Covering Masks: Probing the Impact of Heat Treatment. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2021, 9 (40) , 13545-13558. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c04530
  17. Zhicheng Jin, Alec Jorns, Wonjun Yim, Ryan Wing, Yash Mantri, Jiajing Zhou, Jingcheng Zhou, Zhuohong Wu, Colman Moore, William F. Penny, Jesse V. Jokerst. Mapping Aerosolized Saliva on Face Coverings for Biosensing Applications. Analytical Chemistry 2021, 93 (31) , 11025-11032. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.1c02399
  18. Qiang Li, Yongchao Yin, Daxian Cao, Ying Wang, Pengcheng Luan, Xiao Sun, Wentao Liang, Hongli Zhu. Photocatalytic Rejuvenation Enabled Self-Sanitizing, Reusable, and Biodegradable Masks against COVID-19. ACS Nano 2021, 15 (7) , 11992-12005. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.1c03249
  19. Walaa A. Abbas, Basamat S. Shaheen, Loujain G. Ghanem, Ibrahim M. Badawy, Mohamed M. Abodouh, Shrouk M. Abdou, Suher Zada, Nageh K. Allam. Cost-Effective Face Mask Filter Based on Hybrid Composite Nanofibrous Layers with High Filtration Efficiency. Langmuir 2021, 37 (24) , 7492-7502. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.1c00926
  20. Pratik S. Kasbe, Harshal Gade, Shan Liu, George G. Chase, Weinan Xu. Ultrathin Polydopamine-Graphene Oxide Hybrid Coatings on Polymer Filters with Improved Filtration Performance and Functionalities. ACS Applied Bio Materials 2021, 4 (6) , 5180-5188. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsabm.1c00367
  21. Shovon Bhattacharjee, Prateek Bahl, Charitha de Silva, Con Doolan, Abrar Ahmad Chughtai, David Heslop, Chandini Raina MacIntyre. Experimental Evidence for the Optimal Design of a High-Performing Cloth Mask. ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering 2021, 7 (6) , 2791-2802. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.1c00368
  22. Yuxin Tong, Jin Pan, Ezgi Kucukdeger, Ashley L. Johnson, Linsey C. Marr, Blake N. Johnson. 3D Printed Mask Frames Improve the Inward Protection Efficiency of a Cloth Mask. ACS ES&T Engineering 2021, 1 (6) , 1000-1008. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestengg.1c00028
  23. Mamata Karmacharya, Sumit Kumar, Oleksandra Gulenko, Yoon-Kyoung Cho. Advances in Facemasks during the COVID-19 Pandemic Era. ACS Applied Bio Materials 2021, 4 (5) , 3891-3908. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsabm.0c01329
  24. Laura H. Kwong, Rob Wilson, Shailabh Kumar, Yoshika Susan Crider, Yasmin Reyes Sanchez, David Rempel, Ajay Pillarisetti. Review of the Breathability and Filtration Efficiency of Common Household Materials for Face Masks. ACS Nano 2021, 15 (4) , 5904-5924. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.0c10146
  25. Junli Hao, Rachel Passos de Oliveira Santos, Gregory C. Rutledge. Examination of Nanoparticle Filtration by Filtering Facepiece Respirators During the COVID-19 Pandemic. ACS Applied Nano Materials 2021, 4 (4) , 3675-3685. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsanm.1c00139
  26. Shizhe Lin, Shuixiang Wang, Wei Yang, Shuwen Chen, Zisheng Xu, Xiwei Mo, He Zhou, Jiangjiang Duan, Bin Hu, Liang Huang. Trap-Induced Dense Monocharged Perfluorinated Electret Nanofibers for Recyclable Multifunctional Healthcare Mask. ACS Nano 2021, 15 (3) , 5486-5494. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.1c00238
  27. Kiran Raj Melayil, Sushanta K. Mitra. Wetting, Adhesion, and Droplet Impact on Face Masks. Langmuir 2021, 37 (8) , 2810-2815. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.0c03556
  28. Hye Ryoung Lee, Lei Liao, Wang Xiao, Arturas Vailionis, Antonio J. Ricco, Robin White, Yoshio Nishi, Wah Chiu, Steven Chu, Yi Cui. Three-Dimensional Analysis of Particle Distribution on Filter Layers inside N95 Respirators by Deep Learning. Nano Letters 2021, 21 (1) , 651-657. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.0c04230
  29. Wonjun Yim, Diyi Cheng, Shiv H. Patel, Rui Kou, Ying Shirley Meng, Jesse V. Jokerst. KN95 and N95 Respirators Retain Filtration Efficiency despite a Loss of Dipole Charge during Decontamination. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2020, 12 (49) , 54473-54480. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.0c17333
  30. Rafael K. Campos, Jing Jin, Grace H. Rafael, Mervin Zhao, Lei Liao, Graham Simmons, Steven Chu, Scott C. Weaver, Wah Chiu, Yi Cui. Decontamination of SARS-CoV-2 and Other RNA Viruses from N95 Level Meltblown Polypropylene Fabric Using Heat under Different Humidities. ACS Nano 2020, 14 (10) , 14017-14025. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.0c06565
  31. W. Cary Hill, Matthew S. Hull, Robert I. MacCuspie. Testing of Commercial Masks and Respirators and Cotton Mask Insert Materials using SARS-CoV-2 Virion-Sized Particulates: Comparison of Ideal Aerosol Filtration Efficiency versus Fitted Filtration Efficiency. Nano Letters 2020, 20 (10) , 7642-7647. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.0c03182
  32. Lei Zhao, Yuhang Qi, Paolo Luzzatto-Fegiz, Yi Cui, Yangying Zhu. COVID-19: Effects of Environmental Conditions on the Propagation of Respiratory Droplets. Nano Letters 2020, 20 (10) , 7744-7750. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.0c03331
  33. Jason N. Hancock, Michael J. Plumley, Katherine Schilling, Donal Sheets, Lawrence Wilen. Comment on “Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics Used in Respiratory Cloth Masks”. ACS Nano 2020, 14 (9) , 10758-10763. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.0c05827
  34. Christopher D. Zangmeister, James G. Radney, Edward P. Vicenzi, Jamie L. Weaver. Filtration Efficiencies of Nanoscale Aerosol by Cloth Mask Materials Used to Slow the Spread of SARS-CoV-2. ACS Nano 2020, 14 (7) , 9188-9200. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.0c05025
  35. Frankie Wood-Black, Jeff Lewin, Michael B. Blayney, Lusiana Galindo, Robert Foreman, Marina Zelivyanskaya, Marc Reid. Highlights: Reusing Masks, Face Covering Efficacy, Plant Restarts, and More. ACS Chemical Health & Safety 2020, 27 (4) , 204-208. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chas.0c00069
  36. Jukka A. Ketoja, Kaisa Saurio, Hille Rautkoski, Eija Kenttä, Atsushi Tanaka, Antti I. Koponen, Jussi Virkajärvi, Kimmo Heinonen, Katri Kostamo, Anastasia Järvenpää, Niina Hyry, Pirjo Heikkilä, Nelli Hankonen, Ali Harlin. Design of biodegradable cellulose filtration material with high efficiency and breathability. Carbohydrate Polymers 2024, 336 , 122133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2024.122133
  37. Muhammad Zaryab Waleed, Khezina Rafiq, Muhammad Zeeshan Abid, Muhammad Burhan, Raed H. Althomali, Shahid Iqbal, Ejaz Hussain. Unveiling the impact of textile materials to prevent viral infections: Urgency for awareness and public safety†. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 2024, 12 (3) , 112713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2024.112713
  38. Phannaphat Phromphen, Pithalai Phoophat, Udomlak Sukatta, Prapassorn Rugthaworn, Nattadon Rungruangkitkrai, Pawarin Tuntariyanond, Nawarat Chartvivatpornchai, Preeyanuch Sichola, Jirachaya Boonyarit, Thanyachol Apipatpapha, Rungsima Chollakup. Enhancement of Antibacterial Silk Face Covering with the Biosynthesis of Silver Nanoparticles from Garcinia mangostana Linn. Peel and Andrographis paniculata Extract and a Bacterial Cellulose Filter. Coatings 2024, 14 (4) , 379. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings14040379
  39. Hui Liu, Yanting Zhu, Chenwei Zhang, Yangqi Zhou, Deng-Guang Yu. Electrospun nanofiber as building blocks for high-performance air filter: A review. Nano Today 2024, 55 , 102161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nantod.2024.102161
  40. Edward P Vicenzi, Scott Whittaker, Jamie L Weaver, Matthew E Staymates, James G Radney, Christopher D Zangmeister. Microscopy of Woven and Nonwoven Face Covering Materials: Implications for Particle Filtration. Microscopy and Microanalysis 2024, 30 (1) , 27-40. https://doi.org/10.1093/micmic/ozad138
  41. Jie Tang, Yuping Zhang, Xingfei Liu, Yichao Lin, Lihua Liang, Xiaofang Li, Gregori Casals, Xiangyu Zhou, Eudald Casals, Muling Zeng. Versatile Antibacterial and Antioxidant Bacterial Cellulose@Nanoceria Biotextile: Application in Reusable Antimicrobial Face Masks. Advanced Healthcare Materials 2024, 101 https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.202304156
  42. Mehrbakhsh Nilashi, Rabab Ali Abumalloh, Hossein Ahmadi, Mesfer Alrizq, Abdullah Alghamdi, Omar A. Alghamdi, Sultan Alyami. A proposed method for quality evaluation of COVID-19 reusable face mask. Measurement and Control 2024, 54 https://doi.org/10.1177/00202940231224586
  43. Kendrick Tan, Boshun Gao, Cheng-Hau Yang, Emily L. Johnson, Ming-Chen Hsu, Alberto Passalacqua, Adarsh Krishnamurthy, Baskar Ganapathysubramanian. A computational framework for transmission risk assessment of aerosolized particles in classrooms. Engineering with Computers 2024, 40 (1) , 235-256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-022-01773-9
  44. Lucas Gomes Rabello, Roberto Carlos da Conceição Ribeiro, José Carlos Costa da Silva Pinto, Rossana Mara da Silva Moreira Thiré. Chemical recycling of green poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) (PHBV)-based air filters through hydrolysis. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 2024, 12 (1) , 111816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2023.111816
  45. Didem Kiryaman, Kaushik N Vinod, Tiegang Fang, Emiel DenHartog. Effects of yarn properties on aerosol filtration performance of single jersey fabrics. Textile Research Journal 2024, 54 https://doi.org/10.1177/00405175231221297
  46. Zhaodong Ding, Zhongjian Tian, Xingxiang Ji, Guihua Yang, Mhatre Sameer, Yi Lu, Orlando J. Rojas. Hybrid Cellulose‐Based Systems for Triboelectrification in Aerosol Filtration, Ammonia Abatement and Respiration Monitoring. Advanced Functional Materials 2024, 373 https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202313790
  47. S. Atri, A. Kumar, S. Gautam, H.V. Tafreshi, B. Pourdeyhimi. Microscale modelling of electret filters using disordered 2-D domains. Powder Technology 2024, 431 , 119094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2023.119094
  48. Zhaobo Zhang, Mahmut S. Ersan, Paul Westerhoff, Pierre Herckes. Do Surface Charges on Polymeric Filters and Airborne Particles Control the Removal of Nanoscale Aerosols by Polymeric Facial Masks?. Toxics 2024, 12 (1) , 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12010003
  49. Kieran Collings, Cedric Boisdon, Tung-Ting Sham, Kevin Skinley, Hyun-Kyung Oh, Tessa Prince, Adham Ahmed, Shaun H. Pennington, Philip J. Brownridge, Thomas Edwards, Giancarlo A. Biagini, Claire E. Eyers, Amanda Lamb, Peter Myers, Simon Maher. Attaching protein-adsorbing silica particles to the surface of cotton substrates for bioaerosol capture including SARS-CoV-2. Nature Communications 2023, 14 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-40696-x
  50. Buddhi Pushpawela, Peter Chea, Ryan Ward, Richard C. Flagan. Quantification of face seal leakage using parallel resistance model. Physics of Fluids 2023, 35 (12) https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0177717
  51. Jintuo Zhu, Qijun Jiang, Yuxuan Ye, Xinjian He, Jiang Shao, Xinyu Li, Xijie Zhao, Huan Xu, Qi Hu. Water-blocking Asphyxia of N95 Medical Respirator During Hot Environment Work Tasks With Whole-body Enclosed Anti-bioaerosol Suit. Safety and Health at Work 2023, 14 (4) , 457-466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2023.10.009
  52. Orlane Douguet, Karine Buet-Gautier, Gontrand Leyssens, Marie-Ange Bueno, Daniel Mathieu, Jean-Francois Brilhac, Valérie Tschamber. Evaluation of structural parameters to predict particle filtration and air permeability performance of woven textiles. Textile Research Journal 2023, 93 (19-20) , 4686-4700. https://doi.org/10.1177/00405175231173601
  53. RACHEAL T. AFOLABI, SESHADRI RAMKUMAR. Filtration efficiency and breathability of selected face masks. TAPPI Journal 2023, 22 (9) , 574-583. https://doi.org/10.32964/TJ22.9.574
  54. Chuang Zhang, Qiangqiang Zhao, Jie Xia, Jinxin He, Ying Chen, Xia Dong, Ji’an Wei. Polymer-grafted cotton fabrics with high filtration efficiency for reusable personal protective masks. Cellulose 2023, 30 (14) , 9191-9205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-023-05428-w
  55. Scott E. Laengert, Yae Ji Kwon, Joel C. Corbin, Timothy A. Sipkens, Patrick Morkus, Ryan J. LaRue, David R. Latulippe, Catherine M. Clase, Charles-François de Lannoy. Aerosol charge neutralization and its impact on particle filtration efficiency of common face mask materials. Journal of Aerosol Science 2023, 173 , 106189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2023.106189
  56. Antonio Vázquez-López, Xiang Ao, José Sánchez del Río Saez, De-Yi Wang. Triboelectric nanogenerator (TENG) enhanced air filtering and face masks: Recent advances. Nano Energy 2023, 114 , 108635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoen.2023.108635
  57. Phannaphat Phromphen, Udomlak Sukatta, Prapassorn Rugthaworn, Jirachaya Boonyarit, Phitalai Phoophat, Nattadon Rungruangkitkrai, Pawarin Tuntariyanond, Nawarat Chartvivatpornchai, Thanyachol Apipatpapha, Rungsima Chollakup. Biosynthesis of Silver Nanoparticles Enhanced Antibacterial Silk Face Covering. Journal of Natural Fibers 2023, 20 (2) https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2023.2212926
  58. Yue Yang, Yuchen Yang, Jianying Huang, Shuhui Li, Zheyi Meng, Weilong Cai, Yuekun Lai. Electrospun Nanocomposite Fibrous Membranes for Sustainable Face Mask Based on Triboelectric Nanogenerator with High Air Filtration Efficiency. Advanced Fiber Materials 2023, 5 (4) , 1505-1518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42765-023-00299-z
  59. Younseong Song, Yong-ki Lee, Yujin Lee, Won-Tae Hwang, Jiyoung Lee, Seonghyeon Park, Nahyun Park, Hyunsub Song, Hogi Kim, Kyoung G. Lee, Il-Doo Kim, Yoosik Kim, Sung Gap Im. Anti-viral, anti-bacterial, but non-cytotoxic nanocoating for reusable face mask with efficient filtration, breathability, and robustness in humid environment. Chemical Engineering Journal 2023, 470 , 144224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2023.144224
  60. Him Cheng Wong, Shi Ke Ong, Erik Birgersson, Mei Chee Tan, Hong Yee Low. Hierarchical isoporous membrane filters for simultaneous reduction of pressure drop and efficient removal of nanoscale airborne contaminants. Applied Materials Today 2023, 33 , 101856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmt.2023.101856
  61. T. Sathish, R. Saravanan, Kamal Sharma, Sasan Zahmatkesh, K. Muthukumar, Hitesh Panchal. A novel investigations on medical and non-medical mask performance with influence of marine waste microplastics (polypropylene). Marine Pollution Bulletin 2023, 192 , 115004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115004
  62. Masoumeh Karimi Kisomi, Sadegh Seddighi, Raheleh Mohammadpour, Alireza Rezaniakolaei. Enhancing air filtration efficiency with triboelectric nanogenerators in face masks and industrial filters. Nano Energy 2023, 112 , 108514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoen.2023.108514
  63. Ari Solomon. Questioning cloth breathability in “Designing better cloth masks”. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 2023, 20 (5-6) , D7-D8. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2023.2203046
  64. Gabriel Justen Dapper, Rafaele Frassini, Wellington Vieira de Souza, Mariana Roesch-Ely, Carlos Alejandro Figueroa, Cesar Aguzzoli. Development of a Device for Dynamic Simulation of the Breathing System to Evaluate a Functional Nonwoven Fabric Coated with Cu Film. Advanced Engineering Materials 2023, 25 (12) https://doi.org/10.1002/adem.202201504
  65. Tunga Salthammer, Heinz‐Jörn Moriske. Airborne infections related to virus aerosol contamination at indoor cultural venues: Recommendations on how to minimize. Public Health Challenges 2023, 2 (1) https://doi.org/10.1002/puh2.59
  66. Md Al-Amin, Md Tanjim Hossain, Muneeb Tahir, Diana Wyman, S M Fijul Kabir. A Critical Review on Reusable Face Coverings: Mechanism, Development, Factors, and Challenges. Textiles 2023, 3 (1) , 142-162. https://doi.org/10.3390/textiles3010011
  67. Ao-Bing Wang, Xin Zhang, Li-Jun Gao, Tao Zhang, Hui-Juan Xu, Yan-Jun Bi. A Review of Filtration Performance of Protective Masks. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2023, 20 (3) , 2346. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032346
  68. Ji Wang, Renhai Zhao, Yintao Zhao, Xin Ning. Evaluation of Mask Performances in Filtration and Comfort in Fabric Combinations. Nanomaterials 2023, 13 (3) , 378. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano13030378
  69. Prasidha R. Neupane, Iswor Bajracharya, Sunil B. Khatry, . Effectiveness of Inexpensive Cloth Facemasks and Their Amendments to Reduce Ambient Particulate Exposures: A Case of Kathmandu, Nepal. Journal of Environmental and Public Health 2023, 2023 , 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/5144345
  70. Ana Aline Mendes Paim, Morgana Carneiro de Andrade, Fernanda Steffens. The use of textile materials for respiratory protection in times of pandemics: a systematic review and analysis. Research Journal of Textile and Apparel 2023, 5 https://doi.org/10.1108/RJTA-04-2022-0041
  71. Atar Singh Pipal, Ajay Taneja. Measurements of Indoor Air Quality. 2023, 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1550-5_90-1
  72. Atar Singh Pipal, Ajay Taneja. Measurements of Indoor Air Quality. 2023, 1621-1655. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2074-7_90
  73. Rahul Karmakar, Aishani Ghosal, J. Chakrabarti. Model studies on motion of respiratory droplets driven through a face mask. Europhysics Letters 2023, 141 (2) , 27001. https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/acaf9f
  74. Maryam Ebrahimiazar, Ladan Eskandarian, Samuele Amadio, Andre Khayat, Nasser Ashgriz, Milad Alizadeh-Meghrazi. Development of reusable cloth mask with nanoparticle filtration efficiency greater than 95%. Aerosol Science and Technology 2022, 56 (12) , 1075-1095. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2022.2130029
  75. Tong Deng, Yifu Chen, Yanbo Liu, Zeren Shang, Junbo Gong. Constructing Janus Microsphere Membranes for Particulate Matter Filtration, Directional Water Vapor Transfer, and High‐Efficiency Broad‐Spectrum Sterilization. Small 2022, 18 (51) https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.202205010
  76. Mehmet Ferhat Sari, Fatma Esen, Yücel Tasdemir. Investigation of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) residues and retention rates in two different face masks used during the COVID-19 lockdown period. Hygiene and Environmental Health Advances 2022, 4 , 100016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heha.2022.100016
  77. Yu Song, Eunkyoung Shim. 3D X-ray tomographic microstructure analysis of dust-clogging inside nonwoven fibrous filter media. Journal of Membrane Science 2022, 664 , 121067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2022.121067
  78. Sithara Radhakrishnan, Noel Joseph, N.P. Vighnesh, P.J. Sabarinath, Jessy John, Honey John, Nisha T. Padmanabhan. Recent updates on triboelectric nanogenerator based advanced biomedical technologies: A short review. Results in Engineering 2022, 16 , 100782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2022.100782
  79. Zehua Peng, Jihong Shi, Xiao Xiao, Ying Hong, Xuemu Li, Weiwei Zhang, Yongliang Cheng, Zuankai Wang, Wen Jung Li, Jun Chen, Michael K. H. Leung, Zhengbao Yang. Self-charging electrostatic face masks leveraging triboelectrification for prolonged air filtration. Nature Communications 2022, 13 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-35521-w
  80. Henrietta Essie Whyte, Aurélie Joubert, Lara Leclerc, Gwendoline Sarry, Paul Verhoeven, Laurence Le Coq, Jérémie Pourchez. Impact of washing parameters on bacterial filtration efficiency and breathability of community and medical facemasks. Scientific Reports 2022, 12 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-20354-w
  81. Katarina Goodge, Jenny Leigh Du Puis, Mona Maher, Margaret W. Frey, Fatma Baytar, Heeju Park. Cloth face mask fit and function for children part two: Material Selection. Fashion and Textiles 2022, 9 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s40691-022-00315-7
  82. Sae Eun Lee, Seo Jeong Kim, Kyung Wha Oh, Kyu-Hye Lee. Purchase intention toward sustainable masks after COVID-19: the moderating role of health concern. Fashion and Textiles 2022, 9 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s40691-022-00317-5
  83. Remya Vinod, Swathi, Vinod Chandran. A review on the effectiveness of various masks in protection against COVID-19. Biomedicine 2022, 42 (5) , 870-876. https://doi.org/10.51248/.v42i5.1513
  84. Erik Velasco, Hoang Hieu Ha, Anh Duc Pham, Soheil Rastan. Effectiveness of wearing face masks against traffic particles on the streets of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Environmental Science: Atmospheres 2022, 2 (6) , 1450-1468. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2EA00071G
  85. Timothy A. Sipkens, Joel C. Corbin, Triantafillos Koukoulas, Andrew Oldershaw, Thierry Lavoie, Jalal Norooz Oliaee, Fengshan Liu, Ian D. Leroux, Gregory J. Smallwood, Prem Lobo, Richard G. Green. Comparison of measurement systems for assessing number- and mass-based particle filtration efficiency. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 2022, 19 (10-11) , 629-645. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2022.2114596
  86. Armine Ghalachyan, Lana V. Ivanitskaya. Crowdsourcing homemade facemasks: 772 U.S. health facilities’ responses to personal protective equipment shortages in the first half of 2020. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management 2022, 37 (6) , 3269-3281. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3556
  87. Henrietta Essie Whyte, Aurélie Joubert, Lara Leclerc, Gwendoline Sarry, Paul Verhoeven, Laurence Le Coq, Jérémie Pourchez. Reusability of face masks: Influence of washing and comparison of performance between medical face masks and community face masks. Environmental Technology & Innovation 2022, 28 , 102710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2022.102710
  88. Siddharth Rajupet, Soleiman Bourrous, Francois Gensdarmes, Mamadou Sow. Coulombic force contribution to nano scale aerosol capture by a wire grid: Quantitative comparison of experiments and simulations. Journal of Aerosol Science 2022, 166 , 106061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2022.106061
  89. Yuanyuan Rao, Shasha Feng, Ze-Xian Low, Junwei Wu, Shengui Ju, Zhaoxiang Zhong, Weihong Xing. Biocompatible curcumin coupled nanofibrous membrane for pathogens sterilization and isolation. Journal of Membrane Science 2022, 661 , 120885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2022.120885
  90. Shovon Bhattacharjee, Prateek Bahl, Abrar Ahmad Chughtai, David Heslop, C. Raina MacIntyre. Face masks and respirators: Towards sustainable materials and technologies to overcome the shortcomings and challenges. Nano Select 2022, 3 (10) , 1355-1381. https://doi.org/10.1002/nano.202200101
  91. Carole Maldonado-Codina, Maria Navascues-Cornago, Andrew J Plowright, Aftab Mirza, Sarah Smith, Michael L Read, Jose Vega, Gary N Orsborn, Philip B Morgan. Using face masks with spectacles versus contact lenses. Contact Lens and Anterior Eye 2022, 45 (5) , 101516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2021.101516
  92. Guangluo Guo, Hua Jiang, Liqin Chai, Zhihua Cui, Weiguo Chen. Design and synthesis of diazirine‐containing dyes for polypropylene fibre: A study on the effect of alkyl chain. Coloration Technology 2022, 138 (5) , 551-564. https://doi.org/10.1111/cote.12613
  93. Charles Freeman, Reuben Burch, Catherine Black, Lesley Strawderman, Jaime Rickert, John Wilson, David Saucier, Brian Smith. Filtration efficiency and differential pressure of fabrics used in non-medical masks based on SARS COVID-19 particle size. Textile Research Journal 2022, 92 (17-18) , 3234-3242. https://doi.org/10.1177/00405175211046056
  94. Joelle M. Segovia, Ching-Hsuan Huang, Maxwell Mamishev, Nanhsun Yuan, Jiayang He, Igor Novosselov. Performance of Textile Mask Materials in Varied Humidity: Filtration Efficiency, Breathability, and Quality Factor. Applied Sciences 2022, 12 (18) , 9360. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12189360
  95. C. Boi, F. Borsetti, T.M. Brugo, M. Cappelletti, M.G. De Angelis, S. Fedi, S. Di Giacomo, T. Fabiani, G. Foli, A. Garelli, U. Genchi, D. Ghezzi, C. Gualandi, E. Lalli, M. Magnani, A. Maurizzi, F. Mazzi, N. Mehrabi, M. Minelli, R. Montalbano, L. Morelli, S. Nici, R. Onesti, A. Paglianti, K. Papchenko, S. Pappalardo, N.F. Parisi, S. Rapino, M. Reggio, M. Roselli, E. Ruggeri, L. Sabatini, E. Saracino, G.E. Scarponi, L. Serra, V. Signorini, A. Storione, M. Torsello, E. Tugnoli, C.M. Vargiu, G. Vidali, F.S. Violante. One year of surgical mask testing at the University of Bologna labs: Lessons learned from data analysis. Separation and Purification Technology 2022, 294 , 121180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2022.121180
  96. Qiaoqiao Wang, Jianwei Gu, Taicheng An. The emission and dynamics of droplets from human expiratory activities and COVID-19 transmission in public transport system: A review. Building and Environment 2022, 219 , 109224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109224
  97. Max Fraenkl, Milos Krbal, Jakub Houdek, Zuzana Olmrova Zmrhalova, Borivoj Prokes, Petr Hejda, Stanislav Slang, Jan Prikryl, Jakub Ondracek, Otakar Makes, Juraj Kostyk, Petr Nasadil, Pavel Malcik, Vladimir Zdimal, Miroslav Vlcek, . High-quality and easy-to-regenerate personal filter. PLOS ONE 2022, 17 (6) , e0268542. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268542
  98. Ashwani Sharma, Reenu Kumari, Neha Goel. Universal Health Coverage (UHC). 2022, 328-341. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-8856-7.ch017
  99. Sanchi Arora, Abhijit Majumdar. Face masks to fight against COVID-19 pandemics: A comprehensive review of materials, design, technology and product development. Journal of Industrial Textiles 2022, 51 (3_suppl) , 3613S-3647S. https://doi.org/10.1177/15280837211069869
  100. Charles Freeman, Reuben Burch, Lesley Strawderman, Catherine Black, David Saucier, Jaime Rickert, John Wilson, Holli Seitz, Jeffrey Stull. Do They Really Work? Quantifying Fabric Mask Effectiveness to Improve Public Health Messaging. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2022, 19 (11) , 6372. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116372
Load all citations
  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. SEM images of the microscopic structure of various household materials. All images are given in pairs. The first of the pairs has a scale bar (left, black bar in white background) corresponding to 300 μm. The second of the pairs has a scale bar (right, white bar in black background) corresponding to 75 μm. (a–c) Polypropylene samples from PPE (a,b) and common spunbond (c). (d–f) Cotton samples, as given in Table 1. (g–i) Polyester, silk, and nylon samples, respectively. (j–l) Other cellulose-based products, paper towel, tissue paper, and printing paper, as per given in Table 1.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Filtration properties of common materials before and after charging. Each uncertainty represents the standard deviation of three samples (excluding cotton which are from two samples). (a) Schematic of effect of charging fibers using triboelectricity. Particle filtration efficiency can be enhanced using charges generated from the triboelectric effect. (b) Filtration efficiency of materials before and after charging. Silk, nylon, polyester, and PP-4 all have increases in filtration efficiency after rubbing with latex. Cotton’s efficiency after charging was unchanged or decreased in efficiency, possibly due to abrasion and/or pore size expansion. (c) Quality factor, Q, of household materials before and after charging. Results are roughly in agreement with data presented in (b), except nylon which had lower performance due to pressure drop and PP-4 is much better performing due to low pressure drop. (d,e) Filtration efficiency (d) and Q (e) of various polypropylene spunbond fabrics with different basis weights.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Time evolution of filtration properties of common materials. Each uncertainty represents the standard deviation of three samples. (a) Filtration efficiency decay in ambient conditions (listed in the main text), up to overnight. (b) Evolution of Q as a function of time, up to overnight. (c) Evolution of filtration efficiency in a humid and warmer environment, up to an hour. (d) Evolution of the PP-4 Q as a function of the time, up to an hour.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Efficiency after charging PP-4 with different materials. Each uncertainty represents the standard deviation of three samples.

  • References

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    This article references 39 other publications.

    1. 1
      Dong, E.; Du, H.; Gardner, L. An Interactive Web-Based Dashboard to Track COVID-19 in Real Time. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2020, 20, 533534,  DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30120-1
    2. 2
      Christian, M. D.; Loutfy, M.; McDonald, L. C.; Martinez, K. F.; Ofner, M.; Wong, T.; Wallington, T.; Gold, W. L.; Mederski, B.; Green, K.; Low, D. E. Possible SARS Coronavirus Transmission during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. Emerging Infect. Dis. 2004, 10, 287293,  DOI: 10.3201/eid1002.030700
    3. 3
      Yan, J.; Grantham, M.; Pantelic, J.; De Mesquita, P. J. B.; Albert, B.; Liu, F.; Ehrman, S.; Milton, D. K. Infectious Virus in Exhaled Breath of Symptomatic Seasonal Influenza Cases from a College Community. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2018, 115, 10811086,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1716561115
    4. 4
      Tellier, R. Review of Aerosol Transmission of Influenza A Virus. Emerging Infect. Dis. 2006, 12, 16571662,  DOI: 10.3201/eid1211.060426
    5. 5
      Huang, H.; Fan, C.; Li, M.; Nie, H. L.; Wang, F. B.; Wang, H.; Wang, R.; Xia, J.; Zheng, X.; Zuo, X.; Huang, J. COVID-19: A Call for Physical Scientists and Engineers. ACS Nano 2020, 14, 37473754,  DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.0c02618
    6. 6
      Lindsley, W. G.; Blachere, F. M.; Thewlis, R. E.; Vishnu, A.; Davis, K. A.; Cao, G.; Palmer, J. E.; Clark, K. E.; Fisher, M. A.; Khakoo, R.; Beezhold, D. H. Measurements of Airborne Influenza Virus in Aerosol Particles from Human Coughs. PLoS One 2010, 5, e15100,  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015100
    7. 7
      NIOSH Interim Guidance on Infection Control Measures for 2009 H1N1 Influenza in Healthcare Settings, Including Protection of Healthcare Personnel. Miss. RN 2009, 71, 1318
    8. 8
      CDC. Using Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/using-ppe.html (accessed May 24, 2020).
    9. 9
      CDC. Healthcare Infection Prevention and Control FAQs for COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-faq.html (accessed May 24, 2020).
    10. 10
      Rosenstock, L. 42 CFR Part 84: Respiratory Protective Devices Implications for Tuberculosis Protection. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 1995, 16, 529531,  DOI: 10.1086/647174
    11. 11
      Matsuyama, S.; Nao, N.; Shirato, K.; Kawase, M.; Saito, S.; Takayama, I.; Nagata, N.; Sekizuka, T.; Katoh, H.; Kato, F.; Sakata, M.; Tahara, M.; Kutsuna, S.; Ohmagari, N.; Kuroda, M.; Suzuki, T.; Kageyama, T.; Takeda, M. Enhanced Isolation of SARS-CoV-2 by TMPRSS2- Expressing Cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2020, 117, 70017003,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2002589117
    12. 12
      Loeb, M.; Dafoe, N.; Mahony, J.; John, M.; Sarabia, A.; Glavin, V.; Webby, R.; Smieja, M.; Earn, D. J. D.; Chong, S.; Webb, A.; Walter, S. D. Surgical Mask vs N95 Respirator for Preventing Influenza among Health Care Workers: A Randomized Trial. JAMA - J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2009, 302, 18651871,  DOI: 10.1001/jama.2009.1466
    13. 13
      Bałazy, A.; Toivola, M.; Adhikari, A.; Sivasubramani, S. K.; Reponen, T.; Grinshpun, S. A. Do N95 Respirators Provide 95% Protection Level against Airborne Viruses, and How Adequate Are Surgical Masks?. Am. J. Infect. Control 2006, 34, 5157,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2005.08.018
    14. 14
      World Health Organization. Advice on the Use of Masks in the Context of COVID-19 (Interim Guidance) ; 2020.
    15. 15
      Artenstein, A. W. In Pursuit of PPE. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, e46  DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc2010025
    16. 16
      Ranney, M. L.; Griffeth, V.; Jha, A. K. Critical Supply Shortages — The Need for Ventilators and Personal Protective Equipment during the Covid-19 Pandemic. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, e41  DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2006141
    17. 17
      World Health Organization. Rational Use of Personal Protective Equipment for Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) and Considerations during Severe Shortages: Interim Guidance, 6 April 2020; World Health Organization, 2020.
    18. 18
      Liao, L.; Xiao, W.; Zhao, M.; Yu, X.; Wang, H.; Wang, Q.; Chu, S.; Cui, Y. Can N95 Respirators Be Reused after Disinfection? How Many Times?. ACS Nano 2020, 14, 6348,  DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.0c03597
    19. 19
      CDC. Public Health Recommendations for Community-Related Exposure. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/public-health-recommendations.html (accessed May 24, 2020).
    20. 20
      CDC. Recommendation Regarding the Use of Cloth Face Coverings, Especially in Areas of Significant Community-Based Transmission. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover.html (accessed May 24, 2020).
    21. 21
      Adams, J., Recommendation Regarding the Use of Cloth Face Coverings, CDC ; 2020.
    22. 22
      Lindsley, W. G.; King, W. P.; Thewlis, R. E.; Reynolds, J. S.; Panday, K.; Cao, G.; Szalajda, J. V. Dispersion and Exposure to a Cough-Generated Aerosol in a Simulated Medical Examination Room. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2012, 9, 681690,  DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2012.725986
    23. 23
      Podgórski, A.; Bałazy, A.; Gradoń, L. Application of Nanofibers to Improve the Filtration Efficiency of the Most Penetrating Aerosol Particles in Fibrous Filters. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2006, 61, 68046815,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2006.07.022
    24. 24
      Oberg, T.; Brosseau, L. M. Surgical Mask Filter and Fit Performance. Am. J. Infect. Control 2008, 36, 276282,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2007.07.008
    25. 25
      Rengasamy, S.; Eimer, B.; Shaffer, R. E. Simple Respiratory Protection - Evaluation of the Filtration Performance of Cloth Masks and Common Fabric Materials against 20–1000 Nm Size Particles. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2010, 54, 789798
    26. 26
      Konda, A.; Prakash, A.; Moss, G. A.; Schmoldt, M.; Grant, G. D.; Guha, S. Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics Used in Respiratory Cloth Masks. ACS Nano 2020, 14, 6339,  DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.0c03252
    27. 27
      Angadjivand, S. A.; Brandner, J. M.; Springett, J. E. Molded Respirator Comprising Meltblown Fiber Web with Staple Fibers. US 7989372 B2, 2011.
    28. 28
      Gaynor, M.; McManus, J. Spunbonded/Meltblown/Spunbonded Laminate Face Mask. US 20040000313 A1, 2002.
    29. 29
      Ghosal, A.; Sinha-Ray, S.; Yarin, A. L.; Pourdeyhimi, B. Numerical Prediction of the Effect of Uptake Velocity on Three-Dimensional Structure, Porosity and Permeability of Meltblown Nonwoven Laydown. Polymer 2016, 85, 1927,  DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2016.01.013
    30. 30
      Angadjivand, S. A.; Jones, M. E.; Meyer, D. E. Method of Charging Electret Filter Media. US 6119691 A 1996.
    31. 31
      Angadjivand, S. A.; Jones, M. E.; Meyer, D. E. Electret Filter Media. US 6119691 A, 1994.
    32. 32
      Kubik, D. A.; Davis, C. I. Melt-Blown Fibrous Electrets. US 4215682 A, 1980.
    33. 33
      Henniker, J. Triboelectricity in Polymers. Nature 1962, 196, 474474,  DOI: 10.1038/196474a0
    34. 34
      Xu, C.; Zi, Y.; Wang, A. C.; Zou, H.; Dai, Y.; He, X.; Wang, P.; Wang, Y.-C.; Feng, P.; Li, D.; Wang, Z. L. On the Electron-transfer Mechanism in the Contact-electrification Effect. Adv. Mater. 2018, 30, 1706790,  DOI: 10.1002/adma.201706790
    35. 35
      Lee, B. W.; Orr, D. E. The Triboelectric Series. https://www.alphalabinc.com/triboelectric-series/ (accessed May 24, 2020).
    36. 36
      Zou, H.; Zhang, Y.; Guo, L.; Wang, P.; He, X.; Dai, G.; Zheng, H.; Chen, C.; Wang, A. C.; Xu, C.; Wang, Z. L. Quantifying the Triboelectric Series. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 19,  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-019-09461-x
    37. 37
      Németh, E.; Albrecht, V.; Schubert, G.; Simon, F. Polymer Tribo-Electric Charging: Dependence on Thermodynamic Surface Properties and Relative Humidity. J. Electrost. 2003, 58, 316,  DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3886(02)00137-7
    38. 38
      CDC. Standard Respirator Testing Procedures. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/stps/apresp.html (accessed May 29, 2020).
    39. 39
      Sanche, S.; Lin, Y. T.; Xu, C.; Romero-Severson, E.; Hengartner, N.; Ke, R. High Contagiousness and Rapid Spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2. Emerging Infect. Dis. 2020, 26, 26,  DOI: 10.3201/eid2607.200282
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.nanolett.0c02211.

    • Discussion on COVID-19 symptoms and transmission, details of the testing procedures used for NIOSH and FDA approval for masks, public health measures suggested by the CDC and WHO, experimental methods, optical images, and additional tables (PDF)

    • Video demonstrating the simple charging of fabric that clearly has static charge after charging is complete due to the attractive nature of the fabric (MP4)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

You’ve supercharged your research process with ACS and Mendeley!

STEP 1:
Click to create an ACS ID

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

MENDELEY PAIRING EXPIRED
Your Mendeley pairing has expired. Please reconnect