ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics Used in Respiratory Cloth Masks
My Activity
  • Open Access
ADDITION/CORRECTION. This article has been corrected. View the notice.
Article

Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics Used in Respiratory Cloth Masks
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

  • Abhiteja Konda
    Abhiteja Konda
    Center for Nanoscale Materials, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, Illinois 60439, United States
  • Abhinav Prakash
    Abhinav Prakash
    Center for Nanoscale Materials, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, Illinois 60439, United States
    Pritzker School of Molecular Engineering, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, United States
  • Gregory A. Moss
    Gregory A. Moss
    Worker Safety & Health Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, Illinois 60439, United States
  • Michael Schmoldt
    Michael Schmoldt
    Center for Nanoscale Materials, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, Illinois 60439, United States
    Worker Safety & Health Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, Illinois 60439, United States
  • Gregory D. Grant
    Gregory D. Grant
    Pritzker School of Molecular Engineering, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, United States
  • Supratik Guha*
    Supratik Guha
    Pritzker School of Molecular Engineering, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, United States
    Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, Illinois 60439, United States
    *Telephone: (914)-325-5147. Email: [email protected]
Open PDFSupporting Information (1)

ACS Nano

Cite this: ACS Nano 2020, 14, 5, 6339–6347
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252
Published April 24, 2020
Copyright © 2020 American Chemical Society

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The emergence of a pandemic affecting the respiratory system can result in a significant demand for face masks. This includes the use of cloth masks by large sections of the public, as can be seen during the current global spread of COVID-19. However, there is limited knowledge available on the performance of various commonly available fabrics used in cloth masks. Importantly, there is a need to evaluate filtration efficiencies as a function of aerosol particulate sizes in the 10 nm to 10 μm range, which is particularly relevant for respiratory virus transmission. We have carried out these studies for several common fabrics including cotton, silk, chiffon, flannel, various synthetics, and their combinations. Although the filtration efficiencies for various fabrics when a single layer was used ranged from 5 to 80% and 5 to 95% for particle sizes of <300 nm and >300 nm, respectively, the efficiencies improved when multiple layers were used and when using a specific combination of different fabrics. Filtration efficiencies of the hybrids (such as cotton–silk, cotton–chiffon, cotton–flannel) was >80% (for particles <300 nm) and >90% (for particles >300 nm). We speculate that the enhanced performance of the hybrids is likely due to the combined effect of mechanical and electrostatic-based filtration. Cotton, the most widely used material for cloth masks performs better at higher weave densities (i.e., thread count) and can make a significant difference in filtration efficiencies. Our studies also imply that gaps (as caused by an improper fit of the mask) can result in over a 60% decrease in the filtration efficiency, implying the need for future cloth mask design studies to take into account issues of “fit” and leakage, while allowing the exhaled air to vent efficiently. Overall, we find that combinations of various commonly available fabrics used in cloth masks can potentially provide significant protection against the transmission of aerosol particles.

Copyright © 2020 American Chemical Society

Note

The units in Figure 2 were corrected April 27, 2020.

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 use of cloth masks, many of them homemade, (1,2) has become widely prevalent in response to the 2019–2020 SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, where the virus can be transmitted via respiratory droplets. (3−6) The use of such masks is also an anticipated response of the public in the face of future pandemics related to the respiratory tract. However, there is limited data available today on the performance of common cloth materials used in such cloth masks, (7−12) particularly their filtration efficiencies as a function of different aerosol sizes ranging from ∼10 nm to ∼10 μm scale sizes. This is also of current significance as the relative effectiveness of different droplet sizes in transmitting the SARS-CoV-2 virus is not clear, and understanding the filtration response across a large bracketed size distribution is therefore important. (13−16) In this paper, we report the results of experiments where we measure the filtration efficiencies of a number of common fabrics, as well as selective combinations for use as hybrid cloth masks, as a function of aerosol sizes ranging from ∼10 nm to 6 μm. These include cotton, the most widely used fabric in cloth masks, as well as fabric fibers that can be electrostatically charged, such as natural silk.
Respiratory droplets can be of various sizes (17,18) and are commonly classified as aerosols (made of droplets that are <5 μm) and droplets that are greater than 5 μm. (3) Although the fate of these droplets largely depends on environmental factors such as humidity, temperature, etc., in general, the larger droplets settle due to gravity and do not travel distances more than 1–2 m. (19) However, aerosols remain suspended in the air for longer durations due to their small size and play a key role in spreading infection. (14−16) The use of physical barriers such as respiratory masks can be highly effective in mitigating this spread via respiratory droplets. (20−22) Filtration of aerosols follows five basic mechanisms: gravity sedimentation, inertial impaction, interception, diffusion, and electrostatic attraction. (23,24) For aerosols larger than ∼1 μm to 10 μm, the first two mechanisms play a role, where ballistic energy or gravity forces are the primary influence on the large exhaled droplets. As the aerosol size decreases, diffusion by Brownian motion and mechanical interception of particles by the filter fibers is a predominant mechanism in the 100 nm to 1 μm range. For nanometer-sized particles, which can easily slip between the openings in the network of filter fibers, electrostatic attraction predominates the removal of low mass particles which are attracted to and bind to the fibers. Electrostatic filters are generally most efficient at low velocities such as the velocity encountered by breathing through a face mask. (25)
There have been a few studies reported on the use of cloth face masks mainly during or after the Influenza Pandemic in 2009; (8−12,26) However, there is still a lack of information that includes (i) the performance of various fabrics as a function of particle size from the nanoscale to the micron sized (particularly important because this covers the ∼10 nm to ∼5 μm size scale for aerosols) and (ii) the effect of hybrid multilayer approaches for masks that can combine the benefits of different filtering mechanisms across different aerosol size ranges. (9,26) These have been the objectives of the experimental work described in this paper. In addition, we also point out the importance of fit (that leads to gaps) while using the face mask. (27,28)
The experimental apparatus (see Figure 1) consists of an aerosol generation and mixing chamber and a downstream collection chamber. The air flows from the generation chamber to the collection chamber through the cloth sample that is mounted on a tube connecting the two chambers. The aerosol particles are generated using a commercial sodium chloride (NaCl) aerosol generator (TSI Particle Generator, model #8026), producing particles in the range of a few tens of nanometers to approximately 10 μm. The NaCl aerosol based testing is widely used for testing face respirators in compliance with the NIOSH 42 CFR Part 84 test protocol. (29,30) Two different particle analyzers are used to determine particle size dimensions and concentrations: a TSI Nanoscan SMPS nanoparticle sizer (Nanoscan, model #3910) and a TSI optical particle sizer (OPS, model #3330) for measurements in the range of 10 to 300 nm and 300 nm to 6 μm, respectively.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Schematic of the experimental setup. A polydisperse NaCl aerosol is introduced into the mixing chamber, where it is mixed and passed through the material being tested (“test specimen”). The test specimen is held in place using a clamp for a better seal. The aerosol is sampled before (upstream, Cu) and after (downstream, Cd) it passes through the specimen. The pressure difference is measured using a manometer, and the aerosol flow velocity is measured using a velocity meter. We use two circular holes with a diameter of 0.635 cm to simulate the effect of gaps on the filtration efficiency. The sampled aerosols are analyzed using particle analyzers (OPS and Nanoscan), and the resultant particle concentrations are used to determine filter efficiencies.

Particles are generated upstream of the cloth sample, whose filtration properties are to be tested, and the air is drawn through the cloth using a blower fan which can be controlled in order to vary the airflow rate. Effective area of the cloth sample during the tests was ∼59 cm2. Measurements of particle size and distribution were made by sampling air at a distance of 7.5 cm upstream and 15 cm downstream of the cloth sample. The differential pressures and air velocities were measured using a TSI digital manometer (model #AXD620) and a TSI Hot Wire anemometer (model #AVM410). The differential pressure (ΔP) across the sample material is an indicator of the comfort and breathability of the material when used as a face mask. (31) Tests were carried out at two different airflows: 1.2 and 3.2 CFM, representative of respiration rates at rest (∼35 L/min) and during moderate exertion (∼90 L/min), respectively. (32)
The effect of gaps between the contour of the face and the mask as caused by an improper fit will affect the efficiency of any face mask. (21,27,28,33) This is of particular relevance to cloth and surgical masks that are used by the public and which are generally not “fitted”, unlike N95 masks or elastomeric respirators. A preliminary study of this effect was explored by drilling holes (symmetrically) in the connecting tube onto which the fabric (or a N95 or surgical mask) is mounted. The holes, in proximity to the sample (Figure 1), resulted in openings of area ∼0.5−2% of the active sample area. This, therefore, represented “leakage” of the air around the mask.
Although the detailed transmission specifics of SARS-CoV-2 virus are not well understood yet, droplets that are below 5 μm are considered the primary source of transmission in a respiratory infection, (13,15,34) and droplets that are smaller than 1 μm tend to stay in the environment as aerosols for longer durations of up to 8 h. (19) Aerosol droplets containing the SARS-CoV-2 virus have been shown to remain suspended in air for ∼3 h. (13,35) We have therefore targeted our experimental measurements in the important particle size range between ∼10 nm and 6 μm.
We tested the performance of over 15 natural and synthetic fabrics that included materials such as cotton with different thread counts, silk, flannel, and chiffon. The complete list is provided in the Materials and Methods section. For comparison, we also tested a N95 respirator and surgical masks. Additionally, as appropriate, we tested the efficiency of multiple layers of a single fabric or a combination of multiple fabrics for hybrid cloth masks in order to explore combinations of physical filtering as well as electrostatic filtering.

Results and Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

We determine the filtration efficiency of a particular cloth as a function of particle size (Figure 2) by measuring the concentration of the particles upstream, Cu (Figure 2a,b) and the concentration of the particle downstream, Cd (Figure 2c,d). Concentrations were measured in the size ranges of 10–178 nm (using the nanoscan tool) and 300 nm to 6 μm (using the optical particle sizer tool). The representative example in Figure 2 shows the case for a single layer of silk fabric, where the measurements of Cu and Cd were carried out at a flow rate of 1.2 CFM. Following the procedure detailed in the Materials and Methods section, we then estimated the filtration efficiency of a cloth from Cu and Cd as a function of aerosol particle size.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Particle concentration as a function of particle size at a flow rate of 1.2 CFM. Plots showing the particle concentration (in arbitrary units) upstream and downstream through a single layer of natural silk for particle sizes <300 nm (a,c) and between 300 nm and 6 μm (b,d). Each bin shows the particle concentration for at least six trials. The particle concentrations in panels (b) and (d) are given in log scale for better representation of the data. The y-axis scales are the same for panels "a" and "c"; and for panels "b" and "d".

The results plotted in Figure 3a are the filtration efficiencies for cotton (the most common material used in cloth masks) with different thread counts (rated in threads per inch—TPI—and representative of the coarseness or fineness of the fabric). We compare a moderate (80 TPI) thread count quilter’s cotton (often used in do-it-yourself masks) with a high (600 TPI) cotton fabric sample. Additionally, we also measured the transmission through a traditional cotton quilt where two 120 TPI quilter’s cotton sheets sandwich a ∼0.5 cm batting (90% cotton–5% polyester–5% other fibers). Comparing the two cotton sheets with different thread counts, the 600 TPI cotton is clearly superior with >65% efficiency at <300 nm and >90% efficiency at >300 nm, which implies a tighter woven cotton fabric may be preferable. In comparison, the single-layer 80 TPI cotton does not perform as well, with efficiencies varying from ∼5 to ∼55% depending on the particle size across the entire range. The quilt, a commonly available household material, with a fibrous cotton batting also provided excellent filtration across the range of particle sizes (>80% for <300 nm and >90% for >300 nm).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Filtration efficiency of individual fabrics at a flow rate of 1.2 CFM (without gap). (a) Plot showing the filtration efficiencies of a cotton quilt consisting of two 120 threads per inch (TPI) cotton sheets enclosing a ∼0.5 cm thick cotton batting, 80 TPI quilters cotton (Q Cotton 80 TPI), and a 600 TPI cotton (cotton 600 TPI). (b) Plot showing the filtration efficiencies of one layer of natural silk (Silk-1L), four layers of natural silk (Silk-4L), one layer of flannel, and one layer of chiffon. The error bars on the <300 nm measurements are higher, particularly for samples with high filtration efficiencies because of the small number of particles generated in this size range, the relatively poorer counting efficiency of the detector at <300 nm particle size, and the very small counts downstream of the sample. The sizes of the error bars for some of the data points (>300 nm) are smaller than the symbol size and hence not clearly visible.

Electrostatic interactions are commonly observed in various natural and synthetic fabrics. (36,37) For instance, polyester woven fabrics can retain more static charge compared to natural fibers or cotton due to their lower water adsorption properties. (36) The electrostatic filtering of aerosols have been well studied. (38) As a result, we investigated three fabrics expected to possess moderate electrostatic discharge value: natural silk, chiffon (polyester–Spandex), and flannel (cotton–polyester). (36) The results for these are shown in Figure 3b. In the case of silk, we made measurements through one, two, and four layers of the fabric as silk scarves are often wrapped in multiple layers around the face (the results for two layers of silk are presented in Figure S1 (Supporting Information) and omitted from this figure). In all of these cases, the performance in filtering nanosized particles <300 nm is superior to performance in the 300 nm to 6 μm range and particularly effective below ∼30 nm, consistent with the expectations from the electrostatic effects of these materials. Increasing the number of layers (as shown for silk in Figure 3b), as expected, improves the performance. We performed additional experiments to validate this using the 600 TPI cotton and chiffon (Figure S1). We note that the performance of a four-layer silk composite offers >80% filtration efficiency across the entire range, from 10 nm to 6 μm.
In Figure 4a, we combine the nanometer-sized aerosol effectiveness (for silk, chiffon, and flannel) and wearability (of silk and chiffon because of their sheer nature) with the overall high performance of the 600 TPI cotton to examine the filtration performance of hybrid approaches. We made measurements for three variations: combining one layer 600 TPI cotton with two layers of silk, two layers of chiffon, and one layer of flannel. The results are also compared with the performance of a standard N95 mask. All three hybrid combinations performed well, exceeding 80% efficiency in the <300 nm range, and >90% in the >300 nm range. These cloth hybrids are slightly inferior to the N95 mask above 300 nm, but superior for particles smaller than 300 nm. The N95 respirators are designed and engineered to capture more than 95% of the particles that are above 300 nm, (39,40) and therefore, their underperformance in filtering particles below 300 nm is not surprising.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Filtration efficiency of hybrid fabrics at a flow rate of 1.2 CFM. (a) Plot showing the filtration efficiencies without gap for an N95 respirator and a combination of different fabrics: 1 layer of 600 threads per inch (TPI) cotton and 2 layers of silk (cotton/silk), 1 layer of 600 TPI cotton and 2 layers of chiffon (cotton/chiffon), and 1 layer of 600 TPI cotton and 1 layer of flannel (cotton/flannel). (b) Plot showing the filtration efficiencies of a surgical mask and cotton/silk with (dashed) and without a gap (solid). The gap used is ∼1% of the active mask surface area. The error bars on the <300 nm measurements are higher, particularly for samples with high filtration efficiencies because of the small number of particles generated in this size range, the relatively poorer counting efficiency of the detector at <300 nm particle size, and the very small counts downstream of the sample. The sizes of the error bars for some of the data points (>300 nm) are smaller than the symbol size and hence not clearly visible.

It is important to note that in the realistic situation of masks worn on the face without elastomeric gasket fittings (such as the commonly available cloth and surgical masks), the presence of gaps between the mask and the facial contours will result in “leakage” reducing the effectiveness of the masks. It is well recognized that the “fit” is a critical aspect of a high-performance mask. (27,28,33,41) Earlier researchers have attempted to examine this qualitatively in cloth and other masks through feedback on “fit” from human trials. (11,12) In our case, we have made a preliminary examination of this effect via the use of cross-drilled holes on the tube holding the mask material (see Figure 1) that represents leakage of air. For example, in Figure 4b, we compare the performance of the surgical mask and the cotton/silk hybrid sample with and without a hole that represents about ∼1% of the mask area. Whereas the surgical mask provides moderate (>60%) and excellent (close to 100%) particle exclusion below and above 300 nm, respectively, the tests carried out with the 1% opening surprisingly resulted in significant drops in the mask efficiencies across the entire size range (60% drop in the >300 nm range). In this case, the two holes were ∼0.635 cm in diameter and the mask area was ∼59 cm2. Similar trends in efficiency drops are seen in the cotton/silk hybrid sample, as well. Hole size also had an influence on the filtration efficiency. In the case of an N95 mask, increasing hole size from 0.5 to 2% of the cloth sample area reduced the weighted average filtration efficiency from ∼60 to 50% for a particle of size <300 nm. It is unclear at this point whether specific aerodynamic effects exacerbate the “leakage” effects when simulated by holes. Its determination  is outside the scope of this paper. However, our measurements at both the high flow (3.2 CFM) and low flow (1.2 CFM) rates show substantial drop in effectiveness when holes are present. The results in Figures 24 highlight materials with good performance. Several fabrics were tested that did not provide strong filtration protection (<30%), and examples include satin and synthetic silk (Table S1). The filtration efficiencies of all of the samples that we measured at both 1.2 CFM and 3.2 CFM are detailed in the Supporting Information (Figures S2–S4).
In Table 1, we summarize the key findings from the various fabrics and approaches that we find promising. Average filtration efficiencies (see Materials and Methods section for further detail) in the 10–178 nm and 300 nm to 6 μm range are presented along with the differential pressures measured across the cloths, which represents the breathability and degree of comfort of the masks. The average differential pressure across all of the fabrics at a flow rate of 1.2 CFM was found to be 2.5 ± 0.4 Pa, indicating a low resistance and represent conditions for good breathability (Table 1). (31) As expected, we observed an increase in the average differential pressures for the higher flow rate (3.2 CFM) case (Table S1).
Table 1. Filtration Efficiencies of Various Test Specimens at a Flow Rate of 1.2 CFM and the Corresponding Differential Pressure (ΔP) across the Specimena
 flow rate: 1.2 CFM
 filter efficiency (%)pressure differential
sample/fabric<300 nm average ± error>300 nm average ± errorΔP (Pa)
N95 (no gap)85 ± 1599.9 ± 0.12.2
N95 (with gap)34 ± 1512 ± 32.2
surgical mask (no gap)76 ± 2299.6 ± 0.12.5
surgical mask (with gap)50 ± 744 ± 32.5
cotton quilt96 ± 296.1 ± 0.32.7
quilter’s cotton (80 TPI), 1 layer9 ± 1314 ± 12.2
quilter’s cotton (80 TPI), 2 layers38 ± 1149 ± 32.5
flannel57 ± 844 ± 22.2
cotton (600 TPI), 1 layer79 ± 2398.4 ± 0.22.5
cotton (600 TPI), 2 layers82 ± 1999.5 ± 0.12.5
chiffon, 1 layer67 ± 1673 ± 22.7
chiffon, 2 layers83 ± 990 ± 13.0
natural silk, 1 layer54 ± 856 ± 22.5
natural silk, 2 layers65 ± 1065 ± 22.7
natural silk, 4 layers86 ± 588 ± 12.7
hybrid 1: cotton/chiffon97 ± 299.2 ± 0.23.0
hybrid 2: cotton/silk (no gap)94 ± 298.5 ± 0.23.0
hybrid 2: cotton/silk (gap)37 ± 732 ± 33.0
hybrid 3: cotton/flannel95 ± 296 ± 13.0
a

The filtration efficiencies are the weighted averages for each size range—less than 300 nm and more than 300 nm.

Guidance

We highlight a few observations from our studies for cloth mask design:
Fabric with tight weaves and low porosity, such as those found in cotton sheets with high thread count, are preferable. For instance, a 600 TPI cotton performed better than an 80 TPI cotton. Fabrics that are porous should be avoided.
Materials such as natural silk, a chiffon weave (we tested a 90% polyester–10% Spandex fabric), and flannel (we tested a 65% cotton–35% polyester blend) can likely provide good electrostatic filtering of particles. We found that four layers of silk (as maybe the case for a wrapped scarf) provided good protection across the 10 nm to 6 μm range of particulates.
Combining layers to form hybrid masks, leveraging mechanical and electrostatic filtering may be an effective approach. This could include high thread count cotton combined with two layers of natural silk or chiffon, for instance. A quilt consisting of two layers of cotton sandwiching a cotton−polyester batting also worked well. In all of these cases, the filtration efficiency was >80% for <300 nm and >90% for >300 nm sized particles.
The filtration properties noted in (i) through (iii) pertain to the intrinsic properties of the mask material and do not take into account the effect of air leaks that arise due to improper “fit” of a mask on the user’s face. It is critically important that cloth mask designs also take into account the quality of this “fit” to minimize leakage of air between the mask and the contours of the face, while still allowing the exhaled air to be vented effectively. Such leakage can significantly reduce mask effectiveness and are a reason why properly worn N95 masks and masks with elastomeric fittings work so well.

Conclusions

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

In conclusion, we have measured the filtration efficiencies of various commonly available fabrics for use as cloth masks in filtering particles in the significant (for aerosol-based virus transmission) size range of ∼10 nm to ∼6 μm and have presented filtration efficiency data as a function of aerosol particle size. We find that cotton, natural silk, and chiffon can provide good protection, typically above 50% in the entire 10 nm to 6.0 μm range, provided they have a tight weave. Higher threads per inch cotton with tighter weaves resulted in better filtration efficiencies. For instance, a 600 TPI cotton sheet can provide average filtration efficiencies of 79 ± 23% (in the 10 nm to 300 nm range) and 98.4 ± 0.2% (in the 300 nm to 6 μm range). A cotton quilt with batting provides 96 ± 2% (10 nm to 300 nm) and 96.1 ± 0.3% (300 nm to 6 μm). Likely the highly tangled fibrous nature of the batting aids in the superior performance at small particle sizes. Materials such as silk and chiffon are particularly effective (considering their sheerness) at excluding particles in the nanoscale regime (<∼100 nm), likely due to electrostatic effects that result in charge transfer with nanoscale aerosol particles. A four-layer silk (used, for instance, as a scarf) was surprisingly effective with an average efficiency of >85% across the 10 nm −6 μm particle size range. As a result, we found that hybrid combinations of cloths such as high threads-per-inch cotton along with silk, chiffon, or flannel can provide broad filtration coverage across both the nanoscale (<300 nm) and micron scale (300 nm to 6 μm) range, likely due to the combined effects of electrostatic and physical filtering. Finally, it is important to note that openings and gaps (such as those between the mask edge and the facial contours) can degrade the performance. Our findings indicate that leakages around the mask area can degrade efficiencies by ∼50% or more, pointing out the importance of “fit”. Opportunities for future studies include cloth mask design for better “fit” and the role of factors such as humidity (arising from exhalation) and the role of repeated use and washing of cloth masks. In summary, we find that the use of cloth masks can potentially provide significant protection against the transmission of particles in the aerosol size range.

Materials and Methods

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Materials

All of the fabrics used as well as the surgical masks and N95 respirators tested are commercially available. We used 15 different types of fabrics. This included different types of cotton (80 and 600 threads per inch), cotton quilt, flannel (65% cotton and 35% polyester), synthetic silk (100% polyester), natural silk, Spandex (52% nylon, 39% polyester, and 9% Spandex), satin (97% polyester and 3% Spandex), chiffon (90% polyester and 10% Spandex), and different polyester and polyester–cotton blends. Specific information on the composition, microstructure, and other parameters can be found in the Supporting Information (Table S2).

Polydisperse Aerosol Generation

A polydisperse, nontoxic NaCl aerosol was generated using a particle generator and introduced into the mixing chamber along with an inlet for air. The aerosol is then mixed in the mixing chamber with the help of a portable fan. The particle generator produces particles sizes in the ranges of 10 nm to 10 μm.

Detection of Aerosol Particles

The particles were sampled both upstream (Cu, before the aerosol passes through the test specimen) and downstream (Cd, after the aerosol passes through the test specimen) for 1 min. The samples collected from the upstream and downstream are separately sent to the two particle sizers to determine a particle concentration (pt/cc). Each sample is tested seven times following the minimum sample size recommended by the American Industrial Hygiene Association exposure assessment sampling guidelines. (42) We observed a significantly lower particle count in the upper size distribution for both of the data sets, that is, for particles greater than 178 nm for the data from the TSI Nanoscan analyzer and greater than 6 μm for the data from TSI OPS analyzer. We exclude the data above these thresholds for all of the studies reported due to the extremely low counts. We categorize our data based on these two particle analyzers—individually the two plots (Figure 2a,b) show two size distributions—particles smaller than 300 nm and particles larger than 300 nm. Two different flow rates of 1.2 CFM (a face velocity of 0.1 m/s) and 3.2 CFM (a face velocity of 0.26 m/s) were used that corresponded to rates observed at rest to moderate activity, respectively. The velocity of the aerosol stream was measured at ∼5 cm behind where the test specimen would be mounted using a velocity meter.

Differential Pressure

The differential pressure (ΔP) across the test specimen was measured ∼7.5 cm away on either side of the material being tested using a micromanometer. The ΔP value is an estimate of the breathability of the fabric.

Data Analysis

The particle concentrations from seven consecutive measurements were recorded and divided into multiple bins—10 for nanoparticle sizer (dimensions in nm: 10–13, 13–18, 18–24, 24–32, 32–42, 42–56, 56–75, 75–100, 100–133, 133–178) and 6 for optical particle sizer (dimensions in μm: 0.3–0.6, 0.6–1.0, 1.0–2.0, 2.0–3.0, 3.0–4.0, 4.0–6.0). The seven measurements for each bin were subjected to one iteration of the Grubbs’ test with a 95% confidence interval to remove at most one outlier per bin. This improves the statistical viability of the data. Following Grubbs’ test, average concentrations were used to calculate the filtration efficiencies as described below.

Filtration Efficiency

The filtration efficiency (FE) of different masks was calculated using the following formula:
where Cu and Cd are the mean particle concentrations per bin upstream and downstream, respectively. To account for any possible drifts in the aerosol generation, we measured upstream concentrations before and after the downstream measurement and used the average of these two upstream values to calculate Cu (for runs that did not include a gap). We do not measure upstream concentration twice when the run included a gap. The error in FE was calculated using the quadrature rule of error propagation. Due to noise in the measurements, some FE values were below 0, which is unrealistic. As such, negative FE values were removed from consideration in figures and further calculations. In addition to the FE curves, we computed an aggregate filter efficiency for each test specimen. To do this, we took a weighted average of FE values weighted by the bin width for the two particle size ranges (<300 nm and >300 nm). These values are reported in Table 1 and Table S1.

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252.

  • Filtration efficiencies for various fabrics tested at two different flow rates and the effect of layering on the filtration efficiencies of chiffon, silk, and 600 TPI cotton; detailed information on various fabrics used (PDF)

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

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Author
  • Authors
    • Abhiteja Konda - Center for Nanoscale Materials, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, Illinois 60439, United StatesOrcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-3362-0583
    • Abhinav Prakash - Center for Nanoscale Materials, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, Illinois 60439, United StatesPritzker School of Molecular Engineering, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, United StatesOrcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-8899-0568
    • Gregory A. Moss - Worker Safety & Health Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, Illinois 60439, United States
    • Michael Schmoldt - Center for Nanoscale Materials, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, Illinois 60439, United StatesWorker Safety & Health Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, Illinois 60439, United States
    • Gregory D. Grant - Pritzker School of Molecular Engineering, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, United States
  • Author Contributions

    A.K. and A.P. contributed equally.

  • Funding

    Department of Defense Vannevar Bush Fellowship Grant No. N00014-18-1-2869.

  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Use of the Center for Nanoscale Materials, an Office of Science user facility, was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, under Contract No. DE-AC02-06CH11357. S.G. acknowledges the Vannevar Bush Fellowship under the program sponsored by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering [OUSD (R&E)] and the Office of Naval Research as the executive manager for the grant. A.K. acknowledges and thanks Prof. Anindita Basu for helpful discussion and support.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 42 other publications.

  1. 1
    Ma, N.; Jeffrey, S. S. How to Sew a Fabric Face Mask. Science 2020, 367, 1424,  DOI: 10.1126/science.abb0736
  2. 2
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Use of Cloth Face Coverings to Help Slow the Spread of COVID-19; CS316353B, available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/diy-cloth-face-coverings.html, 2020; pp 13.
  3. 3
    Kutter, J. S.; Spronken, M. I.; Fraaij, P. L.; Fouchier, R. A.; Herfst, S. Transmission Routes of Respiratory Viruses Among Humans. Curr. Opin. Virol. 2018, 28, 142151,  DOI: 10.1016/j.coviro.2018.01.001
  4. 4
    Stelzer-Braid, S.; Oliver, B. G.; Blazey, A. J.; Argent, E.; Newsome, T. P.; Rawlinson, W. D.; Tovey, E. R. Exhalation of Respiratory Viruses by Breathing, Coughing, and Talking. J. Med. Virol. 2009, 81, 16741679,  DOI: 10.1002/jmv.21556
  5. 5
    Milton, D. K.; Fabian, M. P.; Cowling, B. J.; Grantham, M. L.; McDevitt, J. J. Influenza Virus Aerosols in Human Exhaled Breath: Particle Size, Culturability, and Effect of Surgical Masks. PLoS Pathog. 2013, 9, e1003205  DOI: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1003205
  6. 6
    National Academies of Sciences. Medicine. Rapid Expert Consultation on the Possibility of Bioaerosol Spread of SARS-CoV-2 for the COVID-19 Pandemic; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2020; p 3.
  7. 7
    National Academies of Sciences. Medicine. Rapid Expert Consultation on the Effectiveness of Fabric Masks for the COVID-19 Pandemic; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2020; p 8.
  8. 8
    MacIntyre, C. R.; Seale, H.; Dung, T. C.; Hien, N. T.; Nga, P. T.; Chughtai, A. A.; Rahman, B.; Dwyer, D. E.; Wang, Q. A Cluster Randomised Trial of Cloth Masks Compared With Medical Masks in Healthcare Workers. BMJ. Open 2015, 5, e006577  DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006577
  9. 9
    Shakya, K. M.; Noyes, A.; Kallin, R.; Peltier, R. E. Evaluating the Efficacy of Cloth Facemasks in Reducing Particulate Matter Exposure. J. Exposure Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2017, 27, 352357,  DOI: 10.1038/jes.2016.42
  10. 10
    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,  DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/meq044
  11. 11
    Davies, A.; Thompson, K. A.; Giri, K.; Kafatos, G.; Walker, J.; Bennett, A. Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks: Would They Protect in an Influenza Pandemic?. Disaster Med. Public Health Prep. 2013, 7, 413418,  DOI: 10.1017/dmp.2013.43
  12. 12
    van der Sande, M.; Teunis, P.; Sabel, R. Professional and Home-Made Face Masks Reduce Exposure to Respiratory Infections Among the General Population. PLoS One 2008, 3, e2618  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002618
  13. 13
    van Doremalen, N.; Bushmaker, T.; Morris, D. H.; Holbrook, M. G.; Gamble, A.; Williamson, B. N.; Tamin, A.; Harcourt, J. L.; Thornburg, N. J.; Gerber, S. I.; Lloyd-Smith, J. O.; de Wit, E.; Munster, V. J. Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared With SARS-CoV-1. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 1564,  DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc2004973
  14. 14
    Morawska, L.; Cao, J. Airborne Transmission of SARS-Cov-2: The World Should Face the Reality. Environ. Int. 2020, 139, 105730,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105730
  15. 15
    Wang, J.; Du, G. COVID-19 May Transmit Through Aerosol. Ir. J. Med. Sci. 2020, 12,  DOI: 10.1007/s11845-020-02218-2
  16. 16
    Santarpia, J. L.; Rivera, D. N.; Herrera, V.; Morwitzer, M. J.; Creager, H.; Santarpia, G. W.; Crown, K. K.; Brett-Major, D.; Schnaubelt, E.; Broadhurst, M. J.; Lawler, J. V.; Reid, S. P.; Lowe, J. J. Transmission Potential of SARS-CoV-2 in Viral Shedding Observed at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. 2020, medRxiv; https://10.1101/2020.03.23.20039446 (accessed 2020-04-04).
  17. 17
    Zhang, H.; Li, D.; Xie, L.; Xiao, Y. Documentary Research of Human Respiratory Droplet Characteristics. Procedia Eng. 2015, 121, 13651374,  DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.09.023
  18. 18
    World Health Organization. Annex C - Respiratory droplets. In Natural Ventilation for Infection Control in Health-Care Settings; Atkinson, J., Chartier, Y., Pessoa-Silva, C. L., Jensen, P., Li, Y., Seto, W. H., Eds.; World Health Organization: Geneva, 2009; pp 7782.
  19. 19
    Morawska, L. Droplet Fate in Indoor Environments, or Can We Prevent the Spread of Infection?. Indoor Air 2006, 16, 335347,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2006.00432.x
  20. 20
    Ching, W.-H.; Leung, M. K. H.; Leung, D. Y. C.; Li, Y.; Yuen, P. L. Reducing Risk of Airborne Transmitted Infection in Hospitals by Use of Hospital Curtains. Indoor Built Environ. 2008, 17, 252259,  DOI: 10.1177/1420326X08091957
  21. 21
    Lai, A. C. K.; Poon, C. K. M.; Cheung, A. C. T. Effectiveness of Facemasks to Reduce Exposure Hazards for Airborne Infections Among General Populations. J. R. Soc., Interface 2012, 9, 938948,  DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2011.0537
  22. 22
    Leung, N. H. L.; Chu, D. K. W.; Shiu, E. Y. C.; Chan, K.-H.; McDevitt, J. J.; Hau, B. J. P.; Yen, H.-L.; Li, Y.; Ip, D. K. M.; Peiris, J. S. M.; Seto, W.-H.; Leung, G. M.; Milton, D. K.; Cowling, B. J. Respiratory Virus Shedding in Exhaled Breath and Efficacy of Face Masks. Nat. Med. 2020,  DOI: 10.1038/s41591-020-0843-2
  23. 23
    Hinds, W. C. 9 - Filtration. In Aerosol Technology: Properties, Behavior, and Measurement of Airborne Particles, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1999; pp 182205.
  24. 24
    Vincent, J. H. 21 - Aerosol Sample Applications and Field Studies. In Aerosol Sampling. Science, Standards, Instrumentation and Applications; Vincent, J. H., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, 2007; pp 528529.
  25. 25
    Colbeck, I.; Lazaridis, M. 5 - Filtration Mechanisms. In Aerosol Science: Technology and Applications, 1st ed.; Colbeck, I., Lazaridis, M., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, 2014; pp 89118.
  26. 26
    Jung, H.; Kim, J.; Lee, S.; Lee, J.; Kim, J.; Tsai, P.; Yoon, C. Comparison of Filtration Efficiency and Pressure Drop in Anti-Yellow Sand Masks, Quarantine Masks, Medical Masks, General Masks, and Handkerchiefs. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2014, 14, 9911002,  DOI: 10.4209/aaqr.2013.06.0201
  27. 27
    Holton, P. M.; Tackett, D. L.; Willeke, K. Particle Size-Dependent Leakage and Losses of Aerosols in Respirators. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 1987, 48, 848854,  DOI: 10.1080/15298668791385697
  28. 28
    Rengasamy, S.; Eimer, B. C. Nanoparticle Penetration Through Filter Media and Leakage Through Face Seal Interface of N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirators. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2012, 56, 568580,  DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/mer122
  29. 29
    Rengasamy, S.; Zhuang, Z.; Niezgoda, G.; Walbert, G.; Lawrence, R.; Boutin, B.; Hudnall, J.; Monaghan, W. P.; Bergman, M.; Miller, C.; Harris, J.; Coffey, C. A Comparison of Total Inward Leakage Measured Using Sodium Chloride (NaCl) and Corn Oil Aerosol Methods for Air-Purifying Respirators. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2018, 15, 616627,  DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2018.1479064
  30. 30
    Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR), Title 42: Public Health, Part 84—Approval of Respiratory Protective Devices. Code of Federal Regulations , April 2020.
  31. 31
    Lord, J. 35—The Determination of the Air Permeability of Fabrics. J. Text. I. 1959, 50, T569T582,  DOI: 10.1080/19447025908659937
  32. 32
    Silverman, L.; Lee, G.; Plotkin, T.; Sawyers, L. A.; Yancey, A. R. Air Flow Measurements on Human Subjects With and Without Respiratory Resistance at Several Work Rates. AMA Arch. Ind. Hyg. Occup. Med. 1951, 3, 461478
  33. 33
    Grinshpun, S. A.; Haruta, H.; Eninger, R. M.; Reponen, T.; McKay, R. T.; Lee, S.-A. Performance of an N95 Filtering Facepiece Particulate Respirator and a Surgical Mask During Human Breathing: Two Pathways for Particle Penetration. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2009, 6, 593603,  DOI: 10.1080/15459620903120086
  34. 34
    Wells, W. F. Airborne Contagion and Air Hygiene: An Ecological Study of Droplet Infections. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1955, 159, 90,  DOI: 10.1001/jama.1955.02960180092033
  35. 35
    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,  DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.0c02618
  36. 36
    Perumalraj, R. Characterization of Electrostatic Discharge Properties of Woven Fabrics. J. Textile Sci. Eng. 2015, 06, 1000235,  DOI: 10.4172/2165-8064.1000235
  37. 37
    Frederick, E. R. Fibers, Filtration and Electrostatics - A Review of the New Technology. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 1986, 36, 205209,  DOI: 10.1080/00022470.1986.10466060
  38. 38
    Sanchez, A. L.; Hubbard, J. A.; Dellinger, J. G.; Servantes, B. L. Experimental Study of Electrostatic Aerosol Filtration at Moderate Filter Face Velocity. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 606615,  DOI: 10.1080/02786826.2013.778384
  39. 39
    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
  40. 40
    Balazy, A.; Toivola, M.; Reponen, T.; Podgorski, A.; Zimmer, A.; Grinshpun, S. A. Manikin-Based Performance Evaluation of N95 Filtering-Facepiece Respirators Challenged With Nanoparticles. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2005, 50, 259269
  41. 41
    National Academies of Sciences. Medicine. Reusable Elastomeric Respirators in Health Care: Considerations for Routine and Surge Use; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2019; p 226.
  42. 42
    Bullock, W. H.; Ignacio, J. S. A Strategy for Assessing and Managing Occupational Exposures; AIHA Press, American Industrial Hygiene Association, 2006.

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
Citation Statements
Explore this article's citation statements on scite.ai

This article is cited by 678 publications.

  1. Ji Qin, Tareq N. Bastawisy, Jiahao Chen, Danmeng Shuai, Meili Gong, Sean Johnston, Zhengyuan Pan, Francisco Romay, Qisheng Ou, Boya Xiong. Antiviral and Sustainable Coating on Textiles by Moringa oleifera Protein for Personal Protective Equipment Applications. ACS ES&T Engineering 2025, 5 (5) , 1306-1315. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestengg.4c00903
  2. Fei Xu, Jiedan Zhou, Linzhou Chen, Jinjian Zhong, Qingda Huang, Ke Wu, Dafeng Yang, Huajun Fan, Xiangliang Yang. Tetraethoxysilane/Polydopamine-Functionalized Composite Materials to Assemble a Sampling Device for Monitoring Amphetamines in Exhaled Breath. ACS Applied Polymer Materials 2024, 6 (24) , 15013-15023. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsapm.4c02044
  3. Hong-Peng Ma, Yu-Long Chang, Su-Wen Yang, Wei Yuan, Yu-Xiao Sun, Xia Jiang, Wen-Jie Lv, Hua-Lin Wang. In Situ Dynamic Structural Evolution of Microchannels under Sustained Pressure: Anisotropy, Transportation, and Applications. ACS ES&T Engineering 2024, 4 (11) , 2777-2786. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestengg.4c00359
  4. Natalie Ireland, Yi-Hsuan Chen, Candace Su-Jung Tsai. Potential Penetration of Engineered Nanoparticles under Practical Use of Protective Clothing Fabrics. ACS Chemical Health & Safety 2024, 31 (5) , 393-403. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chas.4c00021
  5. Natalie Artzi, (Associate Editor)Jillian M. Buriak, (Executive Editor)Warren C. W. Chan, (Executive Editor)Chunying Chen, (Executive Editor)Mark C. Hersam, (Executive Editor)Il-Doo Kim, (Executive Editor)Luis M. Liz-Marzán, (Executive Editor)Wolfgang J. Parak, (Associate Editor)Bozhi Tian, (Associate Editor)Xiaodong Chen (Editor-in-Chief). The 2024 Kavli Prize in Nanoscience: Nanomedicine. ACS Nano 2024, 18 (33) , 21609-21613. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.4c09619
  6. Sumin Han, Euna Oh, Hyerin Shin, Surjith Kumaran, Dae-Hong Ko, Hyo-Jick Choi. Antimicrobial Face Masks and Mask Covers with a Salt-Coated Stacked Spunbond Polypropylene Fabric: Effective Inactivation of Resilient Pathogens and Prevention of Contact Transmission. ACS Applied Bio Materials 2024, 7 (8) , 5171-5187. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsabm.4c00232
  7. Hyeonji Oh, Yu-Ming Tu, Laximicharan Samineni, Sophie De Respino, Behzad Mehrafrooz, Himanshu Joshi, Lynnicia Massenburg, Horacio Lopez-Marques, Nada Elessawy, Woochul Song, Harekrushna Behera, Raman Dhiman, Veda Sheersh Boorla, Kartik Kher, Yi-Chih Lin, Costas Maranas, Aleksei Aksimentiev, Benny D. Freeman, Manish Kumar. Dehydrated Biomimetic Membranes with Skinlike Structure and Function. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2024, 16 (16) , 20865-20877. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.3c19572
  8. 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
  9. Jaehyeong Bae, Jiyoung Lee, Won-Tae Hwang, Doo-Young Youn, Hyunsub Song, Jaewan Ahn, Jong-Seok Nam, Ji-Soo Jang, Doo-won Kim, Woosung Jo, Taek-Soo Kim, Hyeon-Jeong Suk, Pan-Kee Bae, Il-Doo Kim. Advancing Breathability of Respiratory Nanofilter by Optimizing Pore Structure and Alignment in Nanofiber Networks. ACS Nano 2024, 18 (2) , 1371-1380. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.3c06060
  10. Weili Shao, Jingyi Niu, Ruikai Han, Simeng Liu, Kai Wang, Ying Cao, Pengju Han, Xiang Li, Hui Zhang, Hongqin Yu, Xuelong Zhu, Li Cao, Fan Liu. Electrospun Multiscale Poly(lactic acid) Nanofiber Membranes with a Synergistic Antibacterial Effect for Air-Filtration Applications. ACS Applied Polymer Materials 2023, 5 (11) , 9632-9641. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsapm.3c02109
  11. Marquise D. Bell, Kai Ye, Te Faye Yap, Anoop Rajappan, Zhen Liu, Yizhi Jane Tao, Daniel J. Preston. Rapid In Situ Thermal Decontamination of Wearable Composite Textile Materials. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2023, 15 (37) , 44521-44532. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.3c09063
  12. Asli Celebioglu, Christopher W. Lawson, Emmy Zhiren Hsiung, Rimi Chowdhury, Craig Altier, Tamer Uyar. Antibacterial Nanofibrous Mat of Pullulan/Cinnamaldehyde-Cyclodextrin Inclusion Complexes as a Potential Cloth Mask Layer with Long-Term Storage Stability and Facile Disposal Property. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2023, 11 (30) , 11269-11280. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c02598
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Kapil Punjabi, Eshant Bhatia, Roshan Keshari, Kiran Jadhav, Subhasini Singh, Jayanti Shastri, Rinti Banerjee. Biopolymer Coating Imparts Sustainable Self-Disinfecting and Antimicrobial Properties to Fabric: Translated to Protective Gears for the Pandemic and Beyond. ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering 2023, 9 (2) , 1116-1131. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.2c01481
  16. Yingying Zhong, Xin Ting Zheng, Suqing Zhao, Xiaodi Su, Xian Jun Loh. Stimuli-Activable Metal-Bearing Nanomaterials and Precise On-Demand Antibacterial Strategies. ACS Nano 2022, 16 (12) , 19840-19872. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.2c08262
  17. Jun Tae Kim, Chan Woo Lee, Hong Ju Jung, Hee Jae Choi, Ali Salman, Suchithra Padmajan Sasikala, Sang Ouk Kim. Application of 2D Materials for Adsorptive Removal of Air Pollutants. ACS Nano 2022, 16 (11) , 17687-17707. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.2c07937
  18. Luis M. Liz-Marzán, (Executive Editor)Andre E. Nel, (Associate Editor)C. Jeffrey Brinker, (Associate Editor)Warren C. W. Chan, (Executive Editor)Chunying Chen, (Associate Editor)Xiaodong Chen, (Editor-in-Chief)Dean Ho, (Associate Editor)Tony Hu, (Associate Editor)Kazunori Kataoka, (Associate Editor)Nicholas A. Kotov, (Associate Editor)Wolfgang J. Parak, (Associate Editor)Molly M. Stevens (Associate Editor). What Do We Mean When We Say Nanomedicine?. ACS Nano 2022, 16 (9) , 13257-13259. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.2c08675
  19. Peifu Cheng, Jeremy Espano, Andrew Harkaway, Andrew E. Naclerio, Nicole K. Moehring, Philipp Braeuninger-Weimer, Piran R. Kidambi. Nanoporous Atomically Thin Graphene Filters for Nanoscale Aerosols. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2022, 14 (36) , 41328-41336. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.2c10827
  20. 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
  21. Hongchen Shen, Minghao Han, Yun Shen, Danmeng Shuai. Electrospun Nanofibrous Membranes for Controlling Airborne Viruses: Present Status, Standardization of Aerosol Filtration Tests, and Future Development. ACS Environmental Au 2022, 2 (4) , 290-309. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenvironau.1c00047
  22. Reshmi Chandran Rema, Amrita Salim, Rosebin Babu, Sanjay Pal, Raja Biswas, Binulal N Sathy, Shantikumar V. Nair, Deepthy Menon. Nanofibrous Facemasks with Curcumin for Improved Bacterial/Particulate Filtration and Biocidal Activity. ACS Applied Polymer Materials 2022, 4 (7) , 4839-4849. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsapm.2c00440
  23. Zhiqiang Nie, Yinghao Li, Xinxin Li, Youqian Xu, Guanyuan Yang, Ming Ke, Xiaohang Qu, Yinhua Qin, Ju Tan, Yonghong Fan, Chuhong Zhu. Layer-by-Layer Assembly of a Polysaccharide “Armor” on the Cell Surface Enabling the Prophylaxis of Virus Infection. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2022, 14 (23) , 26359-26371. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.2c03442
  24. Mirco Sorci, Tanner D. Fink, Vaishali Sharma, Sneha Singh, Ruiwen Chen, Brigitte L. Arduini, Katharine Dovidenko, Caryn L. Heldt, Edmund F. Palermo, R. Helen Zha. Virucidal N95 Respirator Face Masks via Ultrathin Surface-Grafted Quaternary Ammonium Polymer Coatings. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2022, 14 (22) , 25135-25146. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.2c04165
  25. Nuri Burak Kiremitler, Munteha Zeynep Kemerli, Nilgun Kayaci, Sultan Karagoz, Sami Pekdemir, Gokhan Sarp, Senem Sanduvac, Mustafa Serdar Onses, Erkan Yilmaz. Nanostructures for the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of SARS-CoV-2: A Review. ACS Applied Nano Materials 2022, 5 (5) , 6029-6054. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsanm.2c00181
  26. Zhen Tang, Shiquan Lin, Zhong Lin Wang. Effect of Surface Pre-Charging and Electric Field on the Contact Electrification between Liquid and Solid. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2022, 126 (20) , 8897-8905. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.2c01713
  27. Xinyang Jin, Feng Gao, Mingxin Qin, Yunpeng Yu, Yue Zhao, Tianyi Shao, Cai Chen, Wenhua Zhang, Bin Xie, Yujie Xiong, Lihua Yang, Yuen Wu. How to Make Personal Protective Equipment Spontaneously and Continuously Antimicrobial (Incorporating Oxidase-like Catalysts). ACS Nano 2022, 16 (5) , 7755-7771. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.1c11647
  28. Hongchen Shen, Zhe Zhou, Haihuan Wang, Jiahao Chen, Mengyang Zhang, Minghao Han, Yun Shen, Danmeng Shuai. Photosensitized Electrospun Nanofibrous Filters for Capturing and Killing Airborne Coronaviruses under Visible Light Irradiation. Environmental Science & Technology 2022, 56 (7) , 4295-4304. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c00885
  29. Taslim Ur Rashid, Sadia Sharmeen, Shanta Biswas. Effectiveness of N95 Masks against SARS-CoV-2: Performance Efficiency, Concerns, and Future Directions. ACS Chemical Health & Safety 2022, 29 (2) , 135-164. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chas.1c00016
  30. Han Zhang, Luna Jia, Pan Li, Lu Yu, Yibo Liu, Weiran Zhao, Hao Wang, Bo Li. Large-Scale Blow Spinning of Nanofiber Membranes for Highly Efficient Air Mechanical Filtration with Antibacterial Activity. ACS Applied Polymer Materials 2022, 4 (3) , 2081-2090. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsapm.1c01916
  31. Hannah M. Dewey, Jaron M. Jones, Mike R. Keating, Januka Budhathoki-Uprety. Increased Use of Disinfectants During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Its Potential Impacts on Health and Safety. ACS Chemical Health & Safety 2022, 29 (1) , 27-38. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chas.1c00026
  32. Lisa Pokrajac, Ali Abbas, Wojciech Chrzanowski, Goretty M. Dias, Benjamin J. Eggleton, Steven Maguire, Elicia Maine, Timothy Malloy, Jatin Nathwani, Linda Nazar, Adrienne Sips, Jun’ichi Sone, Albert van den Berg, Paul S. Weiss, Sushanta Mitra. Nanotechnology for a Sustainable Future: Addressing Global Challenges with the International Network4Sustainable Nanotechnology. ACS Nano 2021, 15 (12) , 18608-18623. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.1c10919
  33. Kyeongeun Lee, Yeon-Woo Jung, Hanjou Park, Dongmi Kim, Jooyoun Kim. Sequential Multiscale Simulation of a Filtering Facepiece for Prediction of Filtration Efficiency and Resistance in Varied Particulate Scenarios. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2021, 13 (48) , 57908-57920. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.1c16850
  34. Prerona Gogoi, Sunil Kumar Singh, Ankur Pandey, Arun Chattopadhyay, Partho Sarathi Gooh Pattader. Nanometer-Thick Superhydrophobic Coating Renders Cloth Mask Potentially Effective against Aerosol-Driven Infections. ACS Applied Bio Materials 2021, 4 (11) , 7921-7931. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsabm.1c00851
  35. Shao-Hsiang Hung, Maya E. Bowden, Richard E. Peltier, Jessica D. Schiffman. Optimizing the Packing Density and Chemistry of Cellulose Nanofilters for High-Efficiency Particulate Removal. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2021, 60 (43) , 15720-15729. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.1c03051
  36. Shakiba Zeinali, Janusz Pawliszyn. Needle-Trap Device Containing a Filter: A Novel Device for Aerosol Studies. Analytical Chemistry 2021, 93 (43) , 14401-14408. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.1c01964
  37. Gunwoo Kim, Kyuin Park, Kyung-Jun Hwang, Sungho Jin. Highly Sunlight Reflective and Infrared Semi-Transparent Nanomesh Textiles. ACS Nano 2021, 15 (10) , 15962-15971. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.1c04104
  38. Wolfgang J. Parak, (Associate Editor)Tanja Weil, (Editorial Advisory Board and Associate Editor of the Journal of the American Chemical Society)Paul S. Weiss (Editor-in-Chief). A Virtual Issue on Nanomedicine. ACS Nano 2021, 15 (10) , 15397-15401. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.1c09106
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. Hongchen Shen, Zhe Zhou, Haihuan Wang, Mengyang Zhang, Minghao Han, David P. Durkin, Danmeng Shuai, Yun Shen. Development of Electrospun Nanofibrous Filters for Controlling Coronavirus Aerosols. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2021, 8 (7) , 545-550. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00337
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. Bright Archer, Veino Risto Shaumbwa, Dagang Liu, Minyu Li, Tuyajargal Iimaa, Unursaikhan Surenjav. Nanofibrous Mats for Particulate Matter Filtration. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2021, 60 (20) , 7517-7534. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.1c00829
  46. Melissa S. Blevens, Homero F. Pastrana, Hannah C. Mazzotta, Candace Su-Jung Tsai. Cloth Face Masks Containing Silver: Evaluating the Status. ACS Chemical Health & Safety 2021, 28 (3) , 171-182. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chas.1c00005
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. James Malloy, Alberto Quintana, Christopher J. Jensen, Kai Liu. Efficient and Robust Metallic Nanowire Foams for Deep Submicrometer Particulate Filtration. Nano Letters 2021, 21 (7) , 2968-2974. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.1c00050
  50. Christopher D. Zangmeister, James G. Radney, Matthew E. Staymates, Edward P. Vicenzi, Jamie L. Weaver. Hydration of Hydrophilic Cloth Face Masks Enhances the Filtration of Nanoparticles. ACS Applied Nano Materials 2021, 4 (3) , 2694-2701. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsanm.0c03319
  51. Praveen Kumar, Shounak Roy, Ankita Sarkar, Amit Jaiswal. Reusable MoS2-Modified Antibacterial Fabrics with Photothermal Disinfection Properties for Repurposing of Personal Protective Masks. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2021, 13 (11) , 12912-12927. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.1c00083
  52. 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
  53. Ilaria Armentano, Marco Barbanera, Eleonora Carota, Silvia Crognale, Marco Marconi, Stefano Rossi, Gianluca Rubino, Mauro Scungio, Juri Taborri, Giuseppe Calabrò. Polymer Materials for Respiratory Protection: Processing, End Use, and Testing Methods. ACS Applied Polymer Materials 2021, 3 (2) , 531-548. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsapm.0c01151
  54. Jie Shi, Yuanzuo Zou, Jie-Xin Wang, Xiao-Fei Zeng, Guang-Wen Chu, Bao-Chang Sun, Dan Wang, Jian-Feng Chen. Investigation on Designing Meltblown Fibers for the Filtering Layer of a Mask by Cross-Scale Simulations. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2021, 60 (4) , 1962-1971. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.0c06232
  55. Yu-Cheng Hsiao, Pei-Ru Jheng, Hieu T. Nguyen, Yun-Hsuan Chen, Yankuba B. Manga, Long-Sheng Lu, Lekha Rethi, Chih-Hwa Chen, Tzu-Wen Huang, Jia-De Lin, Ting-Kuang Chang, Yi-Cheng Ho, Er-Yuan Chuang. Photothermal-Irradiated Polyethyleneimine–Polypyrrole Nanopigment Film-Coated Polyethylene Fabrics for Infrared-Inspired with Pathogenic Evaluation. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2021, 13 (2) , 2483-2495. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.0c17169
  56. Sumit Kumar, Mamata Karmacharya, Shalik Ram Joshi, Oleksandra Gulenko, Juhee Park, Gun-Ho Kim, Yoon-Kyoung Cho. Photoactive Antiviral Face Mask with Self-Sterilization and Reusability. Nano Letters 2021, 21 (1) , 337-343. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.0c03725
  57. 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
  58. Si-Wei Xiong, Pei-gen Fu, Qian Zou, Li-ye Chen, Meng-ying Jiang, Pan Zhang, Ze-gang Wang, Li-sheng Cui, Hu Guo, Jing-Gang Gai. Heat Conduction and Antibacterial Hexagonal Boron Nitride/Polypropylene Nanocomposite Fibrous Membranes for Face Masks with Long-Time Wearing Performance. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2021, 13 (1) , 196-206. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.0c17800
  59. Xiaoli Shan, Han Zhang, Cihui Liu, Liyan Yu, Yunsong Di, Xiaowei Zhang, Lifeng Dong, Zhixing Gan. Reusable Self-Sterilization Masks Based on Electrothermal Graphene Filters. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2020, 12 (50) , 56579-56586. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.0c16754
  60. 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
  61. Ajeet Kumar Kaushik, Jaspreet Singh Dhau, Hardik Gohel, Yogendra Kumar Mishra, Babak Kateb, Nam-Young Kim, Dharendra Yogi Goswami. Electrochemical SARS-CoV-2 Sensing at Point-of-Care and Artificial Intelligence for Intelligent COVID-19 Management. ACS Applied Bio Materials 2020, 3 (11) , 7306-7325. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsabm.0c01004
  62. Peixin Tang, Zheng Zhang, Ahmed Y El-Moghazy, Nicharee Wisuthiphaet, Nitin Nitin, Gang Sun. Daylight-Induced Antibacterial and Antiviral Cotton Cloth for Offensive Personal Protection. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2020, 12 (44) , 49442-49451. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.0c15540
  63. Weidong He, Yinghe Guo, Hanchao Gao, Jingxian Liu, Yang Yue, Jing Wang. Evaluation of Regeneration Processes for Filtering Facepiece Respirators in Terms of the Bacteria Inactivation Efficiency and Influences on Filtration Performance. ACS Nano 2020, 14 (10) , 13161-13171. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.0c04782
  64. Nazmul Karim, Shaila Afroj, Kate Lloyd, Laura Clarke Oaten, Daria V. Andreeva, Chris Carr, Andrew D. Farmery, Il-Doo Kim, Kostya S. Novoselov. Sustainable Personal Protective Clothing for Healthcare Applications: A Review. ACS Nano 2020, 14 (10) , 12313-12340. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.0c05537
  65. 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
  66. 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
  67. Ian A. Carr, Prasanna Hariharan, Suvajyoti Guha. Letter to the Editor Regarding Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics Used in Respiratory Cloth Masks. ACS Nano 2020, 14 (9) , 10754-10755. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.0c04482
  68. Abhiteja Konda, Abhinav Prakash, Gregory A. Moss, Michael Schmoldt, Gregory D. Grant, Supratik Guha. Response to Letters to the Editor on Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics Used in Respiratory Cloth Masks: Revised and Expanded Results. ACS Nano 2020, 14 (9) , 10764-10770. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.0c04897
  69. Ana Rule, Gurumurthy Ramachandran, Kirsten Koehler. Comment on Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics Used in Respiratory Cloth Masks: Questioning Their Findings. ACS Nano 2020, 14 (9) , 10756-10757. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.0c05265
  70. 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
  71. Andrea N. Giordano, Casey R. Christopher. Repurposing Best Teaching Practices for Remote Learning Environments: Chemistry in the News and Oral Examinations During COVID-19. Journal of Chemical Education 2020, 97 (9) , 2815-2818. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00753
  72. Edouard Alphandéry. The Potential of Various Nanotechnologies for Coronavirus Diagnosis/Treatment Highlighted through a Literature Analysis. Bioconjugate Chemistry 2020, 31 (8) , 1873-1882. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.0c00287
  73. Hong Zhong, Zhaoran Zhu, Peng You, Jing Lin, Chi Fai Cheung, Vivien L. Lu, Feng Yan, Ching-Yuen Chan, Guijun Li. Plasmonic and Superhydrophobic Self-Decontaminating N95 Respirators. ACS Nano 2020, 14 (7) , 8846-8854. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.0c03504
  74. 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
  75. 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
  76. Sana Ullah, Azeem Ullah, Jaeyun Lee, Yeonsu Jeong, Motahira Hashmi, Chunhong Zhu, Kye Il Joo, Hyung Joon Cha, Ick Soo Kim. Reusability Comparison of Melt-Blown vs Nanofiber Face Mask Filters for Use in the Coronavirus Pandemic. ACS Applied Nano Materials 2020, 3 (7) , 7231-7241. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsanm.0c01562
  77. Mervin Zhao, Lei Liao, Wang Xiao, Xuanze Yu, Haotian Wang, Qiqi Wang, Ying Ling Lin, F. Selcen Kilinc-Balci, Amy Price, Larry Chu, May C. Chu, Steven Chu, Yi Cui. Household Materials Selection for Homemade Cloth Face Coverings and Their Filtration Efficiency Enhancement with Triboelectric Charging. Nano Letters 2020, 20 (7) , 5544-5552. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.0c02211
  78. Carsten Weiss, Marie Carriere, Laura Fusco, Ilaria Capua, Jose Angel Regla-Nava, Matteo Pasquali, James A. Scott, Flavia Vitale, Mehmet Altay Unal, Cecilia Mattevi, Davide Bedognetti, Arben Merkoçi, Ennio Tasciotti, Açelya Yilmazer, Yury Gogotsi, Francesco Stellacci, Lucia Gemma Delogu. Toward Nanotechnology-Enabled Approaches against the COVID-19 Pandemic. ACS Nano 2020, 14 (6) , 6383-6406. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.0c03697
  79. Steven R. Lustig, John J. H. Biswakarma, Devyesh Rana, Susan H. Tilford, Weike Hu, Ming Su, Michael S. Rosenblatt. Effectiveness of Common Fabrics to Block Aqueous Aerosols of Virus-like Nanoparticles. ACS Nano 2020, 14 (6) , 7651-7658. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.0c03972
  80. Nazek El-Atab, Nadeem Qaiser, Huda Badghaish, Sohail F. Shaikh, Muhammad Mustafa Hussain. Flexible Nanoporous Template for the Design and Development of Reusable Anti-COVID-19 Hydrophobic Face Masks. ACS Nano 2020, 14 (6) , 7659-7665. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.0c03976
  81. Muhammad Taqi Mehran, Salman Raza Naqvi, Muhammad Ali Haider, Maryam Saeed, Muhammad Shahbaz, Tareq Al-Ansari. Global plastic waste management strategies (Technical and behavioral) during and after COVID-19 pandemic for cleaner global urban life. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects 2025, 47 (1) , 4472-4481. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2020.1869869
  82. Changhyun (Lyon) Nam, Kwangeun Kim. Stacked crystalline nanomembrane GaAs/Si tunnel diodes on polypropylene substrates derived from disposable masks. Materials Letters 2025, 393 , 138604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2025.138604
  83. Arkadeep Datta, Ranjan Ganguly, Harunori Yoshikawa. Tunable dielectrophoretic (DEP) filters for capturing air-borne microdroplets. Building and Environment 2025, 280 , 113053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.113053
  84. Zungui Shao, Qibin Wang, Zeqian Gui, Ruimin Shen, Ruixin Chen, Yifang Liu, Gaofeng Zheng. Electrospun bimodal nanofibrous membranes for high-performance, multifunctional, and light-weight air filtration: A review. Separation and Purification Technology 2025, 358 , 130417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2024.130417
  85. Weili Shao, Shengli Zhu, Liang Zhu, Wanying Han, Hui Xu, Gaowei Nie, Shuaitong Liang, Rongwu Wang, Fan Liu. Stable manufacturing of electrospun PVDF/FPU multiscale nanofiber membranes and application of high efficiency protective mask filter elements. Separation and Purification Technology 2025, 359 , 130511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2024.130511
  86. Weihua Yang, Warren R. Myers, Kenneth J. Ryan. Evaluating total outward leakage of face-worn products across various particle sizes for source control against submicron aerosols: Implications for public health protection. Journal of Aerosol Science 2025, 187 , 106586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2025.106586
  87. Christopher McKinley, Yi Luo, Joseph Brennan. Linking Health Consciousness and Social Media Information Seeking to College Students COVID-19 Prevention Behavior: Examining a Modified IMBP Model. Western Journal of Communication 2025, 89 (3) , 585-608. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2023.2294711
  88. Eric Budish. R < 1 as an economic constraint. Review of Economic Design 2025, 111 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10058-025-00379-z
  89. Karine Machry, Danilo M. Melo, Daniela Patrícia Freire Bonfim, Paulo Augusto Marques Chagas, Felipe de Aquino Lima, Clovis Wesley Oliveira de Souza, Luiz Tadeu Moraes Figueredo, Mônica Lopes Aguiar, André Bernardo. Antibacterial and antiviral activity of a highly efficient electrospun r‐ PET nanofiber. The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 2025, 1 https://doi.org/10.1002/cjce.25697
  90. Yeram Yang, Jongmin Park, Sueun Choi, Kiyoung Lee, Cheonghoon Lee, Chungsik Yoon. Assessment of the filtration efficiency and antibacterial activity of reusable antibacterial face masks after washing. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health 2025, 71 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-025-01731-6
  91. Soqrat Omari Shekaftik, Nafiseh Nasirzadeh. Nanotechnology‐Enabled Face Masks for Improved Medical Applications. 2025, 321-341. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119792192.ch13
  92. Weihua Yang, Warren R. Myers, Mike Bergman, Edward Fisher, Kenneth J. Ryan, Brooke Vollmer, Lee Portnoff, Ziqing Zhuang. Evaluating source control efficacy against exhaled submicron particles: Total outward leakage of surgical masks and half facepiece respirators across a spectrum of particle sizes. Aerosol Science and Technology 2025, 59 (4) , 487-498. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2024.2427282
  93. V. Glen Esmeralda, Jamila Patterson, S. Shelciya. Preliminary study on the ejection of microplastics from different types of face masks. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 2025, 22 (4) , 288-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2024.2443198
  94. Stijn Everaert, Lode Godderis, Jean-Marie Raquez, Greet Schoeters, Pieter Spanoghe, Jonas Moens, Luc Hens, Olivier Michel, Dirk Adang, Norbert Fraeyman. Do We Need Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) Nanoparticles in Face Masks?. Toxics 2025, 13 (4) , 244. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics13040244
  95. Johanna Zikulnig, Martin Lenzhofer, Christoph Mayer, Günter Grabher, Tobias Berchtold, Jürgen Kosel. Compact Device for Monitoring Electret Filter Performance via Electric Field Strength. Advanced Sensor Research 2025, 4 (4) https://doi.org/10.1002/adsr.202400187
  96. Livia Grandoni, Loïc Méès, Nathalie Grosjean, Giovanni Leuzzi, Paolo Monti, Armando Pelliccioni, Pietro Salizzoni. Joint size and velocity statistics of droplets exhaled while speaking, coughing, and breathing. Physical Review Fluids 2025, 10 (4) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevFluids.10.043102
  97. Kenneth Chen, Eva A. Enns. Evaluating trade-offs between COVID-19 prevention and learning loss: an agent-based simulation analysis. Royal Society Open Science 2025, 12 (4) https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.231842
  98. Felipe de Aquino Lima, Ana Carolina Sguizzato Honorato, Gabriela Brunosi Medeiros, Paulo Augusto Marques Chagas, Edilton Nunes da Silva, Ana Cristina Coelho Vieira, Wanderley Pereira Oliveira, Mônica Lopes Aguiar, Vádila Giovana Guerra. Analysis of recycled polystyrene electrospinning process: Fiber diameter, morphology, and filtration applications. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 2025, 13 (2) , 115435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2025.115435
  99. Sungheum Um, Seungbok Lee. Effects of KF94 Face Mask on Cardiopulmonary Function and Subjective Sensation during Graded Exercise: A Comparison of KF94 2D and 3D Face Masks. SN Computer Science 2025, 6 (3) https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-024-03635-1
  100. Manu M. Joseph, Jyothi B. Nair, Jayadev S. Arya. Integrated Utilization of Functional Nanomaterials for COVID-19 Monitoring, Prevention, and Diagnostic Strategies. Research on Biomedical Engineering 2025, 41 (1) https://doi.org/10.1007/s42600-025-00404-8
Load more citations

ACS Nano

Cite this: ACS Nano 2020, 14, 5, 6339–6347
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252
Published April 24, 2020
Copyright © 2020 American Chemical Society

Article Views

830k

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Schematic of the experimental setup. A polydisperse NaCl aerosol is introduced into the mixing chamber, where it is mixed and passed through the material being tested (“test specimen”). The test specimen is held in place using a clamp for a better seal. The aerosol is sampled before (upstream, Cu) and after (downstream, Cd) it passes through the specimen. The pressure difference is measured using a manometer, and the aerosol flow velocity is measured using a velocity meter. We use two circular holes with a diameter of 0.635 cm to simulate the effect of gaps on the filtration efficiency. The sampled aerosols are analyzed using particle analyzers (OPS and Nanoscan), and the resultant particle concentrations are used to determine filter efficiencies.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Particle concentration as a function of particle size at a flow rate of 1.2 CFM. Plots showing the particle concentration (in arbitrary units) upstream and downstream through a single layer of natural silk for particle sizes <300 nm (a,c) and between 300 nm and 6 μm (b,d). Each bin shows the particle concentration for at least six trials. The particle concentrations in panels (b) and (d) are given in log scale for better representation of the data. The y-axis scales are the same for panels "a" and "c"; and for panels "b" and "d".

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Filtration efficiency of individual fabrics at a flow rate of 1.2 CFM (without gap). (a) Plot showing the filtration efficiencies of a cotton quilt consisting of two 120 threads per inch (TPI) cotton sheets enclosing a ∼0.5 cm thick cotton batting, 80 TPI quilters cotton (Q Cotton 80 TPI), and a 600 TPI cotton (cotton 600 TPI). (b) Plot showing the filtration efficiencies of one layer of natural silk (Silk-1L), four layers of natural silk (Silk-4L), one layer of flannel, and one layer of chiffon. The error bars on the <300 nm measurements are higher, particularly for samples with high filtration efficiencies because of the small number of particles generated in this size range, the relatively poorer counting efficiency of the detector at <300 nm particle size, and the very small counts downstream of the sample. The sizes of the error bars for some of the data points (>300 nm) are smaller than the symbol size and hence not clearly visible.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Filtration efficiency of hybrid fabrics at a flow rate of 1.2 CFM. (a) Plot showing the filtration efficiencies without gap for an N95 respirator and a combination of different fabrics: 1 layer of 600 threads per inch (TPI) cotton and 2 layers of silk (cotton/silk), 1 layer of 600 TPI cotton and 2 layers of chiffon (cotton/chiffon), and 1 layer of 600 TPI cotton and 1 layer of flannel (cotton/flannel). (b) Plot showing the filtration efficiencies of a surgical mask and cotton/silk with (dashed) and without a gap (solid). The gap used is ∼1% of the active mask surface area. The error bars on the <300 nm measurements are higher, particularly for samples with high filtration efficiencies because of the small number of particles generated in this size range, the relatively poorer counting efficiency of the detector at <300 nm particle size, and the very small counts downstream of the sample. The sizes of the error bars for some of the data points (>300 nm) are smaller than the symbol size and hence not clearly visible.

  • References


    This article references 42 other publications.

    1. 1
      Ma, N.; Jeffrey, S. S. How to Sew a Fabric Face Mask. Science 2020, 367, 1424,  DOI: 10.1126/science.abb0736
    2. 2
      Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Use of Cloth Face Coverings to Help Slow the Spread of COVID-19; CS316353B, available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/diy-cloth-face-coverings.html, 2020; pp 13.
    3. 3
      Kutter, J. S.; Spronken, M. I.; Fraaij, P. L.; Fouchier, R. A.; Herfst, S. Transmission Routes of Respiratory Viruses Among Humans. Curr. Opin. Virol. 2018, 28, 142151,  DOI: 10.1016/j.coviro.2018.01.001
    4. 4
      Stelzer-Braid, S.; Oliver, B. G.; Blazey, A. J.; Argent, E.; Newsome, T. P.; Rawlinson, W. D.; Tovey, E. R. Exhalation of Respiratory Viruses by Breathing, Coughing, and Talking. J. Med. Virol. 2009, 81, 16741679,  DOI: 10.1002/jmv.21556
    5. 5
      Milton, D. K.; Fabian, M. P.; Cowling, B. J.; Grantham, M. L.; McDevitt, J. J. Influenza Virus Aerosols in Human Exhaled Breath: Particle Size, Culturability, and Effect of Surgical Masks. PLoS Pathog. 2013, 9, e1003205  DOI: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1003205
    6. 6
      National Academies of Sciences. Medicine. Rapid Expert Consultation on the Possibility of Bioaerosol Spread of SARS-CoV-2 for the COVID-19 Pandemic; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2020; p 3.
    7. 7
      National Academies of Sciences. Medicine. Rapid Expert Consultation on the Effectiveness of Fabric Masks for the COVID-19 Pandemic; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2020; p 8.
    8. 8
      MacIntyre, C. R.; Seale, H.; Dung, T. C.; Hien, N. T.; Nga, P. T.; Chughtai, A. A.; Rahman, B.; Dwyer, D. E.; Wang, Q. A Cluster Randomised Trial of Cloth Masks Compared With Medical Masks in Healthcare Workers. BMJ. Open 2015, 5, e006577  DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006577
    9. 9
      Shakya, K. M.; Noyes, A.; Kallin, R.; Peltier, R. E. Evaluating the Efficacy of Cloth Facemasks in Reducing Particulate Matter Exposure. J. Exposure Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2017, 27, 352357,  DOI: 10.1038/jes.2016.42
    10. 10
      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,  DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/meq044
    11. 11
      Davies, A.; Thompson, K. A.; Giri, K.; Kafatos, G.; Walker, J.; Bennett, A. Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks: Would They Protect in an Influenza Pandemic?. Disaster Med. Public Health Prep. 2013, 7, 413418,  DOI: 10.1017/dmp.2013.43
    12. 12
      van der Sande, M.; Teunis, P.; Sabel, R. Professional and Home-Made Face Masks Reduce Exposure to Respiratory Infections Among the General Population. PLoS One 2008, 3, e2618  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002618
    13. 13
      van Doremalen, N.; Bushmaker, T.; Morris, D. H.; Holbrook, M. G.; Gamble, A.; Williamson, B. N.; Tamin, A.; Harcourt, J. L.; Thornburg, N. J.; Gerber, S. I.; Lloyd-Smith, J. O.; de Wit, E.; Munster, V. J. Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared With SARS-CoV-1. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 1564,  DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc2004973
    14. 14
      Morawska, L.; Cao, J. Airborne Transmission of SARS-Cov-2: The World Should Face the Reality. Environ. Int. 2020, 139, 105730,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105730
    15. 15
      Wang, J.; Du, G. COVID-19 May Transmit Through Aerosol. Ir. J. Med. Sci. 2020, 12,  DOI: 10.1007/s11845-020-02218-2
    16. 16
      Santarpia, J. L.; Rivera, D. N.; Herrera, V.; Morwitzer, M. J.; Creager, H.; Santarpia, G. W.; Crown, K. K.; Brett-Major, D.; Schnaubelt, E.; Broadhurst, M. J.; Lawler, J. V.; Reid, S. P.; Lowe, J. J. Transmission Potential of SARS-CoV-2 in Viral Shedding Observed at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. 2020, medRxiv; https://10.1101/2020.03.23.20039446 (accessed 2020-04-04).
    17. 17
      Zhang, H.; Li, D.; Xie, L.; Xiao, Y. Documentary Research of Human Respiratory Droplet Characteristics. Procedia Eng. 2015, 121, 13651374,  DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.09.023
    18. 18
      World Health Organization. Annex C - Respiratory droplets. In Natural Ventilation for Infection Control in Health-Care Settings; Atkinson, J., Chartier, Y., Pessoa-Silva, C. L., Jensen, P., Li, Y., Seto, W. H., Eds.; World Health Organization: Geneva, 2009; pp 7782.
    19. 19
      Morawska, L. Droplet Fate in Indoor Environments, or Can We Prevent the Spread of Infection?. Indoor Air 2006, 16, 335347,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2006.00432.x
    20. 20
      Ching, W.-H.; Leung, M. K. H.; Leung, D. Y. C.; Li, Y.; Yuen, P. L. Reducing Risk of Airborne Transmitted Infection in Hospitals by Use of Hospital Curtains. Indoor Built Environ. 2008, 17, 252259,  DOI: 10.1177/1420326X08091957
    21. 21
      Lai, A. C. K.; Poon, C. K. M.; Cheung, A. C. T. Effectiveness of Facemasks to Reduce Exposure Hazards for Airborne Infections Among General Populations. J. R. Soc., Interface 2012, 9, 938948,  DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2011.0537
    22. 22
      Leung, N. H. L.; Chu, D. K. W.; Shiu, E. Y. C.; Chan, K.-H.; McDevitt, J. J.; Hau, B. J. P.; Yen, H.-L.; Li, Y.; Ip, D. K. M.; Peiris, J. S. M.; Seto, W.-H.; Leung, G. M.; Milton, D. K.; Cowling, B. J. Respiratory Virus Shedding in Exhaled Breath and Efficacy of Face Masks. Nat. Med. 2020,  DOI: 10.1038/s41591-020-0843-2
    23. 23
      Hinds, W. C. 9 - Filtration. In Aerosol Technology: Properties, Behavior, and Measurement of Airborne Particles, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1999; pp 182205.
    24. 24
      Vincent, J. H. 21 - Aerosol Sample Applications and Field Studies. In Aerosol Sampling. Science, Standards, Instrumentation and Applications; Vincent, J. H., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, 2007; pp 528529.
    25. 25
      Colbeck, I.; Lazaridis, M. 5 - Filtration Mechanisms. In Aerosol Science: Technology and Applications, 1st ed.; Colbeck, I., Lazaridis, M., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, 2014; pp 89118.
    26. 26
      Jung, H.; Kim, J.; Lee, S.; Lee, J.; Kim, J.; Tsai, P.; Yoon, C. Comparison of Filtration Efficiency and Pressure Drop in Anti-Yellow Sand Masks, Quarantine Masks, Medical Masks, General Masks, and Handkerchiefs. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2014, 14, 9911002,  DOI: 10.4209/aaqr.2013.06.0201
    27. 27
      Holton, P. M.; Tackett, D. L.; Willeke, K. Particle Size-Dependent Leakage and Losses of Aerosols in Respirators. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 1987, 48, 848854,  DOI: 10.1080/15298668791385697
    28. 28
      Rengasamy, S.; Eimer, B. C. Nanoparticle Penetration Through Filter Media and Leakage Through Face Seal Interface of N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirators. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2012, 56, 568580,  DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/mer122
    29. 29
      Rengasamy, S.; Zhuang, Z.; Niezgoda, G.; Walbert, G.; Lawrence, R.; Boutin, B.; Hudnall, J.; Monaghan, W. P.; Bergman, M.; Miller, C.; Harris, J.; Coffey, C. A Comparison of Total Inward Leakage Measured Using Sodium Chloride (NaCl) and Corn Oil Aerosol Methods for Air-Purifying Respirators. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2018, 15, 616627,  DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2018.1479064
    30. 30
      Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR), Title 42: Public Health, Part 84—Approval of Respiratory Protective Devices. Code of Federal Regulations , April 2020.
    31. 31
      Lord, J. 35—The Determination of the Air Permeability of Fabrics. J. Text. I. 1959, 50, T569T582,  DOI: 10.1080/19447025908659937
    32. 32
      Silverman, L.; Lee, G.; Plotkin, T.; Sawyers, L. A.; Yancey, A. R. Air Flow Measurements on Human Subjects With and Without Respiratory Resistance at Several Work Rates. AMA Arch. Ind. Hyg. Occup. Med. 1951, 3, 461478
    33. 33
      Grinshpun, S. A.; Haruta, H.; Eninger, R. M.; Reponen, T.; McKay, R. T.; Lee, S.-A. Performance of an N95 Filtering Facepiece Particulate Respirator and a Surgical Mask During Human Breathing: Two Pathways for Particle Penetration. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2009, 6, 593603,  DOI: 10.1080/15459620903120086
    34. 34
      Wells, W. F. Airborne Contagion and Air Hygiene: An Ecological Study of Droplet Infections. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1955, 159, 90,  DOI: 10.1001/jama.1955.02960180092033
    35. 35
      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,  DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.0c02618
    36. 36
      Perumalraj, R. Characterization of Electrostatic Discharge Properties of Woven Fabrics. J. Textile Sci. Eng. 2015, 06, 1000235,  DOI: 10.4172/2165-8064.1000235
    37. 37
      Frederick, E. R. Fibers, Filtration and Electrostatics - A Review of the New Technology. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 1986, 36, 205209,  DOI: 10.1080/00022470.1986.10466060
    38. 38
      Sanchez, A. L.; Hubbard, J. A.; Dellinger, J. G.; Servantes, B. L. Experimental Study of Electrostatic Aerosol Filtration at Moderate Filter Face Velocity. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 606615,  DOI: 10.1080/02786826.2013.778384
    39. 39
      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
    40. 40
      Balazy, A.; Toivola, M.; Reponen, T.; Podgorski, A.; Zimmer, A.; Grinshpun, S. A. Manikin-Based Performance Evaluation of N95 Filtering-Facepiece Respirators Challenged With Nanoparticles. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2005, 50, 259269
    41. 41
      National Academies of Sciences. Medicine. Reusable Elastomeric Respirators in Health Care: Considerations for Routine and Surge Use; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2019; p 226.
    42. 42
      Bullock, W. H.; Ignacio, J. S. A Strategy for Assessing and Managing Occupational Exposures; AIHA Press, American Industrial Hygiene Association, 2006.
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252.

    • Filtration efficiencies for various fabrics tested at two different flow rates and the effect of layering on the filtration efficiencies of chiffon, silk, and 600 TPI cotton; detailed information on various fabrics used (PDF)


    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.