SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2026
The filtration performance of fabrics against particles of viral size: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWearing a mask is part of the comprehensive strategy to suppress transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and respiratory tract infections. Despite available COVID-19 vaccines, wearing a mask has remained one of the simplest and most effective ways. There was, however, little data available regarding the filtration of fabrics in masks against infectious aerosols or particles of viral size. This study reviewed the filtration performance of fabrics against virus-sized particles.
methodsThe systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 statement. The literature search started with seven electronic databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Institute of Science Index, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, SciFinder) and two preprints, then manual search. Quality assessment was performed on all included studies using an adaptive tool for in vitro studies.
resultsEighteen studies were finally included. Cotton was most commonly investigated, followed by polymers and nanofibers. A study reported filtration performance as droplet blocking efficiency (%), and materials with the highest blocking efficiency comprised polypropylene (99.7 [95.2-99.9]), cotton (98.9 [96.8-99.8]), silk (98.7 [81.1-99.8]), and polyester/polyamide (98.2 [90-99.8]). Other studies reported filtration efficiency (%). Fabrics showing highest filtration efficiency were polymers (polypropylene, polyethylene, spunbond/meltblown/spunbond) (100, 94.4, 93.9, respectively), nanofibers (nanofiber-fabric-layered composite, polyvinyl alcohol/nylon-taffeta composite) (99.8 ± 0.24, 97.3, respectively), cotton (cotton/chiffon, cotton quilt, cotton/flannel, cotton/silk) (97 ± 2, 96 ± 2, 95 ± 2, 94 ± 2, respectively). Quality assessment showed that most of the studies were adequate to evaluate the filtration performance against aerosol or virus particles.
conclusionSome fabrics showed effectiveness in protective applications for respiratory infections; particularly nanofibers and polymers were promising materials for specialized masks or respirators.
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.