ArticleSensors and actuators. B, Chemical2018
Microorganism-ionizing respirator with reduced breathing resistance suitable for removing airborne bacteria.
Article in Sensors and actuators. B, Chemical, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in Electrostatic Plasma Methods for Purification of Airborne Pathogenic Microbial Aerosols: Mechanism, Modeling and Application.Environment & health (Washington, D.C.) · 2024Review
- A Miniaturized Electrostatic Precipitator Respirator Effectively Removes Ambient SARS-CoV-2 Bioaerosols.Viruses · 2022Article
- Challenges and Perspectives for Biosensing of Bioaerosol Containing Pathogenic Microorganisms.Micromachines · 2021Review
- Survival of Microorganisms on Filtering Respiratory Protective Devices Used at Agricultural Facilities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this paper, we have demonstrated the feasibility of using microorganism-ionizing respirators with reduced breathing resistance to remove airborne bacteria. Using a miniaturized corona ionizer and two pairs of separator electrodes, airborne bacteria were ionized and removed from the airflow. Two microorganism-ionizing respirator designs were experimentally evaluated with flow rates ranging from ∼10 to 20 L/min and yielded airborne bacterial removal efficiencies of ∼75%-100%. Further, they were in close agreement with the analytical airborne particle removal efficiencies, at a similar range of flow rates. These flow rates also correspond to the breathing rates of standing and walking adults. More importantly, the breathing resistance could be reduced by more than 50% for flow rates of ∼200 L/min. Using manganese (IV) oxide coated mesh, the ozone concentration in the air outflow was reduced to less than 0.1 ppm, at a flow rate of ∼20 L/min, thus enabling safe use. The power consumption was less than 1 W.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.