We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Study of Surface Morphology and Effectiveness of Common Nasopharyngeal Masks: A Case of Kathmandu, Nepal
AI summary Read the abstract
Researchers tested 38 face masks — including cloth masks, surgical masks, and N95 respirators — against PM10 and PM2.5 particles using a mannequin head setup in Kathmandu, Nepal, finding significant variation in filtration efficiency among mask types. The study provides practical guidance on mask effectiveness for particulate matter protection in real-world conditions.
Facemasks are widely used worldwide to prevent inhaling airborneparticles and viruses, especially after the outbreak of COVID-19. To assess theeffectiveness of various facemasks against PM10 and PM2.5,experiments with a mannequin head were conducted at 10 and 55 LPM airflowrates. A total of 38 masks, including 26 CMs, 7 SMs, and 5 N95 masks, weretested against PM10 and PM2.5 at 55 LPM airflow rate,while 18 masks, including 10 CMs, 6 SMs, and 2 N95 masks, were tested at 10 LPMairflow rate. The surface morphology of these facemasks was examined using asimple digital microscope of 0.3 M image sensor. SMs and N95 masks had smallerpore sizes and higher porosity, resulting in higher filtering efficiency. Incontrast, CMs had larger pore sizes and lower porosity, leading to poor filtering efficiency. Theaverage pore sizes of SMs and CMs were 70 μm and 160 μm, respectively, whiletheir porosities were 99 pores/mm2 and 20 pores/mm2, respectively. N95FFRshad an average pore size of 49 μm with a porosity of 88 pores/mm2. The averagefiltering efficiency of facemasks followed the order N95 FFRs > SMs >CMs. The Prototype Cloth Masks (PTCMs) were stitched using cottonfabrics with adjustable ear straps, nose pins, and polypropylene (PP) fabric asthe filter. Their filtering efficiency was found to be nearlyequivalent to N95 masks and their performance did not deteriorate even afterfive washing and drying cycles. This facemask can help reduce particulateexposure, particularly in developing countries with high air pollution, such asthe Kathmandu Valley.
More Papers Like This
Effectiveness of Inexpensive Cloth Facemasks and Their Amendments to Reduce Ambient Particulate Exposures: A Case of Kathmandu, Nepal
AI summary Read the abstract
This study tested multiple types of inexpensive cloth face masks under controlled airflow conditions in Kathmandu, Nepal and found wide variation in particulate matter filtration efficiency across mask types, with multilayer and tightly woven designs performing best for reducing ambient particle inhalation.
Preliminary study on the ejection of microplastics from different types of face masks
AI summary Read the abstract
Researchers tested surgical masks, cloth masks, and N95 respirators to see how many microplastics they release. They found that all types shed microplastic fibers, with surgical masks releasing the most particles, and that used masks shed more than unused ones. The study raises awareness that face masks, while important for health protection, are themselves a source of microplastic exposure.
Exudation of microplastics from commonly used face masks in COVID-19 pandemic
AI summary Read the abstract
Researchers simulated real-world mask usage and found that commonly used face masks — including surgical and cloth types — shed measurable quantities of microplastic particles that could be inhaled by the wearer, raising concerns about respiratory exposure during prolonged mask use.
COVID-19: Performance study of microplastic inhalation risk posed by wearing masks
AI summary Read the abstract
Researchers tested how different types of face masks affect the risk of inhaling microplastics during breathing. They found that while masks generally reduce exposure to granular microplastics, surgical, cotton, and activated carbon masks can increase fiber-like microplastic inhalation, and reusing disinfected masks raises particle exposure further. N95 masks offered the best protection, reducing spherical microplastic inhalation risk by over 25 times compared to wearing no mask.
The impact and effectiveness of the general public wearing masks to reduce the spread of pandemics in the UK: a multidisciplinary comparison of single-use masks versus reusable face masks.
AI summary Read the abstract
Reusable fabric face masks and single-use surgical masks were compared for filtration efficiency and particle shedding, with single-use masks providing better protection against airborne pathogens but generating more plastic waste, while reusable cotton masks reduced waste but required proper washing protocols to maintain effectiveness.
Research digests by email
When a large batch of papers lands in the Atlas, we read through it and send a short write-up of what stood out.