It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
After the spread of COVID-19, surgical masks became highly recommended to the public. They tend to be handled and used multiple times, which may impact their performance. To evaluate this risk, surgical masks of Type IIR were submitted to four simulated treatments: folding, ageing with artificial saliva or sweat and washing cycles. The air permeability, mechanical integrity, electrostatic potential, and filtration efficiency (FE) of the masks were measured to quantify possible degradation. Overall, air permeability and mechanical integrity were not affected, except after washing, which slightly degraded the filtering layers. Electrostatic potential and FE showed a strong correlation, highlighting the role of electrostatic charges on small particle filtration. A slight decrease in FE for 100 nm particles was found, from 74.4% for the reference masks to 70.6% for the mask treated in saliva for 8 h. A strong effect was observed for washed masks, resulting in FE of 46.9% (± 9.5%), comparable to that of a control group with no electrostatic charges. A dry store and reuse strategy could thus be envisaged for the public if safety in terms of viral and bacterial charge is ensured, whereas washing strongly impacts FE and is not recommended.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Laboratory for Processing of Advanced Composites (LPAC), Institute of Materials (IMX), Lausanne, Switzerland (GRID:grid.5333.6) (ISNI:0000000121839049)
2 Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Laboratory for Processing of Advanced Composites (LPAC), Institute of Materials (IMX), Lausanne, Switzerland (GRID:grid.5333.6) (ISNI:0000000121839049); Delft University of Technology, Aerospace Manufacturing Technologies, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Delft, The Netherlands (GRID:grid.5292.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2097 4740)
3 Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (Empa), Biomimetic Membranes and Textiles Laboratory, St. Gallen, Switzerland (GRID:grid.7354.5) (ISNI:0000 0001 2331 3059)
4 Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (Empa), Laboratory of Advanced Analytical Technologies, Dübendorf, Switzerland (GRID:grid.7354.5) (ISNI:0000 0001 2331 3059); ETH Zürich, Institute of Environmental Engineering, Zürich, Switzerland (GRID:grid.5801.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2156 2780)
5 Federal Office for Civil Protection FOCP, Spiez Laboratory, Spiez, Switzerland (GRID:grid.482328.7) (ISNI:0000 0004 0516 7352)
6 Clinic of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Kantonsspital, Department of Surgery, Winterthur, Switzerland (GRID:grid.413349.8) (ISNI:0000 0001 2294 4705)