Londonchiropracter.com

This domain is available to be leased

Menu
Menu

Why vacuum cleaner bags make the most effective face masks

Posted on November 21, 2020 by admin

You have probably become used to wearing a face mask in public. And you probably wear a fabric one, as we’ve been urged to save N95, FFP3, and other “clinical grade” masks for healthcare workers. This is despite science not knowing how well fabric masks work.

To overcome this, a team that I am part of at the University of Cambridge decided to test various fabrics to see how well they would protect the wearer and the public when used in face masks. One element of fabric mask efficacy can be discovered by looking at how well various materials block virus-sized particles (from 0.2 to 1.0 micrometers).

While some research had already investigated the ability of fabric to act as a filter, this previous work looked at only a small selection of fabrics and household materials, such as dish towels, scarves, and T-shirts. However, these early studies showed that fabrics could be promising as mask materials. For example, a 2013 study found that a cotton T-shirt was able to filter 69% of particles during normal breathing.

Nonetheless, these studies left those making and buying fabric masks with only limited guidance. Fabric comes in all sorts of fibers and types. Which is best for face masks? If you layer two fabrics that each filter with 40% efficacy, will this protect you from 80% of virus particles?

These studies also failed to assess a fabric’s virus-blocking ability in the types of situation where viruses are most likely to be spread, such as coughing. While a sick individual may emit some virus while breathing normally, they’re likely to expel a much higher number of particles when coughing or sneezing, where air travels at a much higher speed. If a fabric mask is to effectively protect you or others, it needs to block particles at much higher velocities than previously tested.

[Read: Neural’s market outlook for artificial intelligence in 2021 and beyond]

Simulating coughing

So, our team devised an experiment to examine how well 20 commonly available fabrics and household materials could filter virus-sized particles at coughing speed. We designed an apparatus to hold a fabric sample that was one inch in diameter. Air was then passed through this sample at approximately 16.5 meters per second – the average speed of an adult cough as it leaves the mouth.

Two particle counters then measured the concentration of small particles in the air before and after it crossed the fabric. We then compared these concentrations to derive the filtration efficiency of the material. We did this ten times for each fabric. For the sake of comparison, an N95 mask and a surgical mask were also tested.

A man wearing a mask coughing
Masks need to catch particles when air is expelled at high speed, such as when coughing or sneezing. Drazen Zigic/Shutterstock

We also ran an additional test to see whether fabrics would show a performance drop when wet. Seven millilitres of water, about the amount exhaled in an hour, was sprayed onto some of the fabric samples. These samples were then tested five more times while wet.

While knowing the filtration efficiency of individual fabric types is useful, most fabric masks are made of at least two layers of fabric. We also wanted to know how layering fabric affects filtration. So after individual layers of fabric were tested, we then layered fabric into possible mask combinations for further testing.

Material differences

Our study showed that every mask, whether it is an N95 mask or a fabric mask, filters fewer small particles when exposed to high-speed air (coughing/sneezing) compared with normal-speed air (regularly breathing). During the high velocities of coughing, even N95 masks filtered only 53% of small particles. Surgical masks filtered less than this, about 48%.

Bar chart showing the filtering efficiencies of different materials: purpose built masks and vacuum cleaners show high efficiency, other materials less efficiency
The relative efficiencies of materials when tested as single sheets. Author provided

Heavy fabrics with low permeability, such as denim, provided the best protection; however, they proved difficult to breathe through and are thus not ideal for masks. Our tests indicated that more suitable fabrics included felted wool, with 36% filtration efficiency, and quilting cotton, with 35% efficiency. Fabrics that did not perform well included cotton jersey knit (25% efficiency), stretch Lycra (21%) and lightweight T-shirts (11%).

We also tested vacuum cleaner bags, which are designed to capture small particles and are readily available during the pandemic. Those we tested were highly effective at filtering particles. A disposable HEPA filter bag was 61% efficient and a washable filter bag 44% efficient. While these show tremendous promise, whether it’s safe to cover your face with these materials is not yet known.

When wet, N95 and surgical masks suffered a notable decrease in filtration efficiency – down seven and five percentage points respectively. The fabrics and vacuum bags did not show as great a decrease, and some materials even improved their performance when wet, possibly due to shrinkage of fibers or a change in electrostatic properties.

A vacuum cleaner and vacuum cleaner bags
Because they’re made to filter dust, vacuum cleaner bags are effective at catching virus-sized particles. jonanderswiken/Shutterstock

Finally, we found we achieved much higher filtration efficiencies by layering fabrics. Fusible interfacing – material primed with glue that’s stuck onto other fabrics to stiffen them, for example in collars and cuffs – proved a helpful addition. For instance, a mask with one layer of quilting cotton, one layer of thick quilt batting, and two layers of fusible interfacing was able to filter particles with about 60% efficiency. That was more than the N95 mask!

But remember: just because a fabric or combination of fabrics can filter particles well doesn’t mean it will work as well for use in a mask. The fabrics and fabric layers tended to be more difficult to breathe through than N95 mask material, and this may make a mask made from them more likely to leak and/or more difficult to fit. Furthermore, all of these percentages represent only the ability of the fabric to filter particles, and don’t take into account the effect of a mask’s fit, which is central to properly protect yourself, and others.The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation by Eugenia O’Kelly, PhD Candidate, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Source

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts

  • LG Electronics and Nvidia are in talks on robotics, AI data centres, and mobility
  • Sequoia is giving away the hardware for an AI project it cannot invest in. That is the point.
  • Trump says Anthropic Pentagon deal is ‘possible’, weeks after blacklisting the company as a national security risk
  • Samsung and IKEA just made the $6 smart home real, and your TV is already the hub
  • OpenAI recruits Cognizant and CGI to take Codex into enterprise software shops worldwide

Recent Comments

    Archives

    • April 2026
    • March 2026
    • February 2026
    • January 2026
    • December 2025
    • September 2025
    • August 2025
    • July 2025
    • June 2025
    • May 2025
    • April 2025
    • March 2025
    • February 2025
    • January 2025
    • December 2024
    • November 2024
    • October 2024
    • September 2024
    • August 2024
    • July 2024
    • June 2024
    • May 2024
    • April 2024
    • March 2024
    • February 2024
    • January 2024
    • December 2023
    • November 2023
    • October 2023
    • September 2023
    • August 2023
    • July 2023
    • June 2023
    • May 2023
    • April 2023
    • March 2023
    • February 2023
    • January 2023
    • December 2022
    • November 2022
    • October 2022
    • September 2022
    • August 2022
    • July 2022
    • June 2022
    • May 2022
    • April 2022
    • March 2022
    • February 2022
    • January 2022
    • December 2021
    • November 2021
    • October 2021
    • September 2021
    • August 2021
    • July 2021
    • June 2021
    • May 2021
    • April 2021
    • March 2021
    • February 2021
    • January 2021
    • December 2020
    • November 2020
    • October 2020

    Categories

    • Uncategorized

    Meta

    • Log in
    • Entries feed
    • Comments feed
    • WordPress.org
    ©2026 Londonchiropracter.com | Design: Newspaperly WordPress Theme