ArticleScientific reports2022
Comparison of bacterial filtration efficiency vs. particle filtration efficiency to assess the performance of non-medical face masks.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Silk Microfiber-Reinforced Biomass Aerogel with Cobweb-like Pore Structure for Highly Efficient Eco-Friendly Air Filtration.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Measuring the fitted filtration efficiency of cloth masks, medical masks and respirators.PloS one · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the penetration capacity of bacteria through layers of different face mask types and wearing conditions.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Riboflavin based setup as an alternative method for a preliminary screening of face mask filtration efficiency.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Upscaling of Electrospinning Technology and the Application of Functionalized PVDF-HFP@TiOPolymers · 2023Article
- Electrospun nanofibers for medical face mask with protection capabilities against viruses: State of the art and perspective for industrial scale-up.Applied materials today · 2023Review
- Determining the filtration effectiveness of non-standard respiratory protective devices by an ad-hoc laboratory methodology.Atmospheric environment (Oxford, England : 1994) · 2023Article
- Filtration efficiency of medical and community face masks using viral and bacterial bioaerosols.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Particle filtration efficiency measured using sodium chloride and polystyrene latex sphere test methods.Scientific data · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As a result of the current COVID-19 pandemic, the use of facemasks has become commonplace. The performance of medical facemasks is assessed using Bacterial Filtration Efficiency (BFE) tests. However, as BFE tests, require specific expertise and equipment and are time-consuming, the performance of non-medical facemasks is assessed with non-biological Particle Filtration Efficiency (PFE) tests which are comparatively easier to implement. It is necessary to better understand the possible correlations between BFE and PFE to be able to compare the performances of the different types of masks (medical vs. non-medical). In this study BFE results obtained in accordance with the standard EN 14683 are compared to the results of PFE from a reference test protocol defined by AFNOR SPEC S76-001 with the aim to determine if BFE could be predicted from PFE. Our results showed a correlation between PFE and BFE. It was also observed that PFE values were higher than BFE and this was attributed to the difference in particle size distribution considered for efficiency calculation. In order to properly compare these test protocols for a better deduction, it would be interesting to compare the filtration efficiency for a similar granulometric range.
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.