ArticleViruses2022
A Miniaturized Electrostatic Precipitator Respirator Effectively Removes Ambient SARS-CoV-2 Bioaerosols.
Article in Viruses, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Applying negative ions and an electric field to countermeasure droplets/aerosol transmission without hindering communication.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Performance evaluation of an electrostatic precipitator with a copper plate using an aerosolized SARS-CoV-2 surrogate (bacteriophage phi 6).Environmental technology & innovation · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The inhalation of ambient SARS-CoV-2-containing bioaerosols leads to infection and pandemic airborne transmission in susceptible populations. Filter-based respirators effectively reduce exposure but complicate normal respiration through breathing zone pressure differentials; therefore, they are impractical for long-term use.
objectivesWe tested the comparative effectiveness of a prototyped miniaturized electrostatic precipitator (mEP) on a filter-based respirator (N95) via the removal of viral bioaerosols from a simulated, inspired air stream. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsThe mEP respirator removed particles (96.5 ± 0.4%), approximating efficiencies of the N95 (96.9 ± 0.6%). The mEP respirator similarly decreased SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA (99.792%) when compared to N95 removal (99.942%), as a function of particle removal from the airstream distal to the breathing zone of each respirator.
conclusionsThe mEP respirator approximated the performance of a filter-based N95 respirator for particle removal and viral RNA as a constituent of the SARS-CoV-2 bioaerosols generated for this evaluation. In practice, the mEP respirator could provide equivalent protection from ambient infectious bioaerosols as the N95 respirator without undue pressure drop to the wearer, thereby facilitating its long-term use in an unobstructed breathing configuration.
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.