Cited by 266Infection Control and VentilationAerosol Filtration and Electrostatic PrecipitationTextile materials and evaluations

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

Open access
Zhao, Mervin, Liao, Lei, Xiao, Wang, Yu, Xuanze, Wang, Haotian, Wang, Qiqi, Lin, Ying Ling, Kilinc-Balci, F. Selcen +5 more·2020·Nano Letters

Abstract

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

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.nanolett.0c02211

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • N95 FFRs are employed as personal protective equipment (PPE) and they provide a high level of protection for filtering facepiece masks that cover only the nose and mouth.

    “N95 FFR are employed as personal protective equipment (PPE) and they provide a high level of protection for filtering facepiece masks that cover only the nose and mouth (as opposed to full and half-face respirators constructed from elastomeric materials) [3, 58–74].”

    From The protective performance of reusable cloth face masks, disposable procedure masks, KN95 masks and N95 respirators: Filtration and total inward leakage (2021) · cites this paper as [61]

    The Abstract (page not specified) describes N95 filtering facepiece respirators as respiratory protection, identifies them as PPE for healthcare workers, and states that the N95 designation requires at least 95% filtration under specified test conditions. It does not address whether they cover only the nose and mouth or contrast them with elastomeric full- or half-face respirators. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 30 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhao, M., Liao, L., Xiao, W., Yu, X., Wang, H., Wang, Q., Lin, Y. L., Kilinc-Balci, F. S., Price, A., Chu, L., Chu, M. C., Chu, S., & Cui, Y.
Affiliations
  • 4C Air (United States) (US)
  • 4C Air, Inc., Sunnyvale, California 94089, United States
  • World Health Organization (CH)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Colorado School of Public Health (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (US)
Corresponding author
Cui, Yi
Venue
Nano Letters
Published
2020-06-02
Volume
20
Issue
7
Pages
5544-5552
ISSN
  • 1530-6984 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-6992
OpenAlex
W3029827942
Cited by
266
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 99 · 2020: 35
FWCI
31.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nano Letters (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • World Health Organization
  • National Institutes of Health (CC999999)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Infection Control and Ventilation
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Aerosol Filtration and Electrostatic Precipitation
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Polymers and Plastics › Textile materials and evaluations
Keywords
filtration efficiency, triboelectric charging, cotton, polyesters, nylon, silk, COVID-19 personal protective equipment, source control, fabric microstructure
MeSH terms
Personal Protective Equipment, Betacoronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Aerosols, Air Microbiology, Electricity, Equipment Design, Filtration, Humans, Masks, Microscopy, Electron, Scanning, Particle Size, Pneumonia, Viral, Textiles, Coronavirus Infections, Nanotechnology, Nanostructures, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review