Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34149062›Full record

ReviewJournal of applied polymer science2021

Potential natural polymer-based nanofibres for the development of facemasks in countering viral outbreaks.

Vigneshwaran Shanmugam, Karthik Babu, Thomas F Garrison, Antonio J Capezza, Richard T Olsson, Seeram Ramakrishna, Mikael S Hedenqvist, Shuvra Singha, Mattia Bartoli, Mauro Giorcelli and 5 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of applied polymer science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Biodegradable Electrospun Nanofiber Membranes as Promising Candidates for the Development of Face Masks.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Vigneshwaran ShanmugamFaculty of Mechanical Engineering Saveetha School of Engineering, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences Chennai Tamil Nadu India.
Karthik BabuDepartment of Mechanical Engineering Centurion University of Technology and Management Sitapur Odisha India.
Thomas F GarrisonChemistry Department King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals Dhahran Saudi Arabia.
Antonio J CapezzaDepartment of Fibre and Polymer Technology, Polymeric Materials Division School of Engineering Sciences in Chemistry, Biotechnology and Health, KTH Royal Institute of Technology Sweden.
Richard T OlssonDepartment of Fibre and Polymer Technology, Polymeric Materials Division School of Engineering Sciences in Chemistry, Biotechnology and Health, KTH Royal Institute of Technology Sweden.
Seeram RamakrishnaDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering Center for Nanofibres and Nanotechnology Singapore Singapore.
Mikael S HedenqvistDepartment of Fibre and Polymer Technology, Polymeric Materials Division School of Engineering Sciences in Chemistry, Biotechnology and Health, KTH Royal Institute of Technology Sweden.
Shuvra SinghaDepartment of Fibre and Polymer Technology, Polymeric Materials Division School of Engineering Sciences in Chemistry, Biotechnology and Health, KTH Royal Institute of Technology Sweden.
Mattia BartoliDepartment of applied science and technology (DISAT) Politecnico di Torino Torino Italy.
Mauro GiorcelliDepartment of applied science and technology (DISAT) Politecnico di Torino Torino Italy.
Gabriel SasStructural and Fire Engineering Division, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering Luleå University of Technology Luleå Sweden.
Michael FörsthStructural and Fire Engineering Division, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering Luleå University of Technology Luleå Sweden.
Oisik DasStructural and Fire Engineering Division, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering Luleå University of Technology Luleå Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5474-1512
Ágoston RestásDepartment of Fire Protection and Rescue Control National University of Public Service Budapest Hungary.
Filippo BertoDepartment of Mechanical Engineering Norwegian University of Science and Technology Trondheim Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has rapidly increased the demand for facemasks as a measure to reduce the rapid spread of the pathogen. Throughout the pandemic, some countries such as Italy had a monthly demand of ca. 90 million facemasks. Domestic mask manufacturers are capable of manufacturing 8 million masks each week, although the demand was 40 million per week during March 2020. This dramatic increase has contributed to a spike in the generation of facemask waste. Facemasks are often manufactured with synthetic materials that are non-biodegradable, and their increased usage and improper disposal are raising environmental concerns. Consequently, there is a strong interest for developing biodegradable facemasks made with for example, renewable nanofibres. A range of natural polymer-based nanofibres has been studied for their potential to be used in air filter applications. This review article examines potential natural polymer-based nanofibres along with their filtration and antimicrobial capabilities for developing biodegradable facemask that will promote a cleaner production.

Indexed as

biodegradableelectrospinningfibers

Identifiers

PMID34149062
PMCPMC8206777

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.