Particle and aerosol research (한국입자에어로졸학회지)

Korean Association for Particle and Aerosol Research (한국입자에어로졸학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Performance and reusability of certified and uncertified face masks

보건용 마스크 초미세먼지 제거 성능 평가 및 재사용 연구

  • Lee, Haebum (National Leading Research Laboratory (Aerosol Technology and Monitoring Laboratory), School of Earth Science and Environmental Engineering, Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology (GIST)) ;
  • Kim, Seojeong (National Leading Research Laboratory (Aerosol Technology and Monitoring Laboratory), School of Earth Science and Environmental Engineering, Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology (GIST)) ;
  • Joo, HungSoo (Department of Environmental Engineering, Anyang University) ;
  • Cho, Hee-joo (National Leading Research Laboratory (Aerosol Technology and Monitoring Laboratory), School of Earth Science and Environmental Engineering, Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology (GIST)) ;
  • Park, Kihong (National Leading Research Laboratory (Aerosol Technology and Monitoring Laboratory), School of Earth Science and Environmental Engineering, Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology (GIST))
  • 이해범 (광주과학기술원 지구환경공학부) ;
  • 김서정 (광주과학기술원 지구환경공학부) ;
  • 주흥수 (안양대학교 환경공학부) ;
  • 조희주 (광주과학기술원 지구환경공학부) ;
  • 박기홍 (광주과학기술원 지구환경공학부)
  • Received : 2019.12.19
  • Accepted : 2019.12.30
  • Published : 2019.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, performance (particle removal efficiency and breathing resistance) of several commercially available face masks (electrostatic filter masks (KF80 certified), a nanofiber filter mask (KF80 certified), and an uncertified mask) with their filter structure and composition were evaluated. Also, effects of relative humidity (RH) of incoming air, water and alcohol exposure, and reusability on performance of face masks were examined. Monodisperse and polydisperse sodium chloride particles were used as test aerosols. Except the uncertified mask filter, PM2.5 removal efficiency was found to be higher than 90%, and the nanofiber filter mask had the highest quality factor due to the low pressure drop and high removal efficiency (nanofibers were arranged in a densely packed pore structure and contained a significant amount of fluorine in addition to carbon and oxygen). In the case of the KF80 certified mask, the removal efficiency was little affected when the RH of incoming air increased. When the mask filters were soaked in water, the removal efficiency of mask filters was degraded. In particular, the uncertified mask filter showed the highest removal efficiency degradation (26%). When the mask was soaked in alcohol, the removal efficiency also decreased with the greater degree than the water soaking case. The nanofiber mask filter showed the strongest resistance to alcohol exposure among tested mask filters. During evaluation of reusability of masks in real life, the removal efficiency of certified mask filter was less than 4% for 5 consecutive days (2 hours per day), while the removal efficiency of uncertified mask filter significantly decreased by 30% after 5 days.

Keywords

References

  1. Adhikari, A., Mitra A., Rashidi A., Ekpo I., Schwartz J., and Doehling J. (2018). Field Evaluation of N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirators on Construction Jobsites for Protection against Airborne Ultrafine Particles, International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health, 15(9), 1958. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15091958
  2. Alderman, S. L., Parsons, M. S., Hogancamp, K. U., and Waggoner C. A. (2008). Evaluation of the Effect of Media Velocity on Filter Efficiency and Most Penetrating Particle Size of Nuclear Grade High-Efficiency Particulate Air Filters, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 5, 713-720. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459620802383934
  3. Balazy, A., Toivola, M., Reponen T., Podgorski A., Zimmer A., and Grinshpun S. A. (2006). Manikin-Based Performance Evaluation of N95 Filtering-Facepiece Respirators Challenged with Nanoparticles, Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 50(3), 259-269. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mei058
  4. Bollinger, N. J., and Schutz R. H. (1987). NIOSH Guide to industrial respiratory protection.
  5. Cherrie, J. W., Apsley A., Cowie H., Steinle S., Mueller W., Lin C., Horwell C. J., Sleeuwenhoek A., and Loh M. (2018). Effectiveness of face masks used to protect Beijing residents against particulate air pollution, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 75(6), 446-452. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2017-104765
  6. Cho, H.-W., Yoon C.-S., Lee J.-H., Lee S.-J., Viner A., and Johnson E. W. (2011). Comparison of pressure drop and filtration efficiency of particulate respirators using welding fumes and sodium chloride, Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 55(6), 666-680. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mer032
  7. Cho, J., and Shin C. (2019). A Study on Indoor Sources- Outdoor Penetration Pathways and Performance Options on Products to Counter Against the Fine Dust Particle, Korean Journal of Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Engineering, 31(7), 332-341. https://doi.org/10.6110/KJACR.2019.31.7.332
  8. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2009). Air Quality Index: A guide to air quality and your health.
  9. Eshbaugh, J. P., Gardner P. D., Richardson A. W., and Hofacre K. C. (2008). N95 and P100 respirator filter efficiency under high constant and cyclic flow, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 6(1), 52-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459620802558196
  10. Huang, S.-H., Chen C.-W., Kuo Y.-M., Lai C.-Y., McKay R., and Chen C.-C. (2013). Factors affecting filter penetration and quality factor of particulate respirators, Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 13(1), 162-171. https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2012.07.0179
  11. Ikezaki, K., Iritani K., Nakamura T., and Hori T. (1995). Effect of charging state of particles on electrets, Journal of Electrostatics, 35, 41-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3886(95)00017-5
  12. Janssen, L., Johnson A. T., Johnson J. S., Mansdorf S., Meici O. R., Metzler R. W., Rehak T. R., Szalajda J. V. and Moore J. (2018). Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) respiratory protection handbook.
  13. Jung, C. H., Park, H.-S., and Kim, Y. P. (2013). Theoretical study for the most penetrating particle size of dust-loaded fiber filters, Separation and Purification Technology, 166, 248-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2013.05.045
  14. Kelly, W., and McMurry P. H. (1992). Measurement of particle density by inertial classification of differential mobility analyzer-generated monodisperse aerosols, Aerosol Science and Technology, 17(3), 199-212. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829208959571
  15. Langrish, J. P., Mills N. L., Chan J. K., Leseman D. L., Aitken R. J., Fokkens P. H., Cassee F. R., Li J., Donaldson K., Newby D. E., and Jiang L. (2009). Beneficial cardiovascular effects of reducing exposure to particulate air pollution with a simple facemask, Particle and Fibre Toxicology, 6, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-8977-6-8
  16. Li, L., Zuo, Z., Japuntich, D. A., and Pui, D. Y. H. (2012). Evaluation of filter media for paticle number, surface area and mass penetrations, Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 56(5), 581-594. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mes034
  17. Lolla, D., Lolla M., Abutaleb A., Shin H., Reneker D., and Chase G. (2016). Fabrication, polarization of electrospun polyvinylidene fluoride electret fibers and effect on capturing nanoscale solid aerosols, Materials, 9(8), 671. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma9080671
  18. Lowkis, B., and Motyl E. (2001). Electret properties of polypropylene fabrics. Journal of Electrostatics, 51, 232-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3886(01)00053-5
  19. Martin, S. B., and Moyer, E. S. (2000). Electrostatic Respirator Filter Media: Filter Efficiency and Most Penetrating Particle Size Effects, Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 15(8), 609-617. https://doi.org/10.1080/10473220050075617
  20. Miguel, A. (2003). Effect of air humidity on the evolution of permeability and performance of a fibrous filter during loading with hygroscopic and non-hygroscopic particles, Journal of Aerosol Science, 34(6), 783-799. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-8502(03)00027-2
  21. Mostofi, R., Bahloul A., Lara J., Wang B., Cloutier Y., and Haghighat F. (2011). Investigation of potential affecting factors on performance of N95 respirator, Journal of the International Society for Respiratory Protection, 28(1), 26-39.
  22. Motyl, E., and Lowkis B. (2006). Effect of air humidity on charge decay and lifetime of PP electret nonwovens, Fibres and Textiles in Eastern Europe, 14(5), 59.
  23. Newnum, J. D. (2010). The effects of relative humidity on respirator performance, MS thesis, University of Iowa.
  24. National Institute of Food and Drug Safety Evaluation (NIFDS) (2017). Guideline and standards for health masks.
  25. Ramirez, J. A. (2015). Evaluation of particle penetration and breathing resistance of N95 filtering face-piece respirators and uncertified dust masks, PhD thesis, University of Iowa.
  26. Rengasamy, A., Zhuang Z., and Berryann R. (2004). Respiratory protection against bioaerosols: literature review and research needs, American Journal of Infection Control, 32(6), 345-354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2004.04.199
  27. Rengasamy, S., BerryAnn R., and Szalajda J. (2013). Nanoparticle filtration performance of filtering facepiece respirators and canister/cartridge filters, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 10(9), 519-525. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2013.818229
  28. Rengasamy, S., Eimer B. C., and Shaffer R. E. (2009). Comparison of nanoparticle filtration performance of NIOSH-approved and CE-marked particulate filtering facepiece respirators, Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 53(2), 117-128. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/men086
  29. Roberge, R. J., Bayer E., Powell J. B., Coca A., Roberge M. R., and Benson S. M. (2010). Effect of exhaled moisture on breathing resistance of N95 filtering facepiece respirators, Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 54(6), 671-677. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/meq042
  30. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (2005). Determination of particulate filter penetration to test against solid particulates for negative pressure, air-purifying respirators standard testing procedure (STP).
  31. Shaffer, R. E., and Rengasamy S. (2009). Respiratory protection against airborne nanoparticles: a review, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11(7), 1661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-009-9649-3
  32. Wang, S., Zhao X., Yin X., Yu J., and Ding B. (2016). Electret polyvinylidene fluoride nanofibers hybridized by polytetrafluoroethylene nanoparticles for high-efficiency air filtration, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, 8(36), 23985-23994. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.6b08262
  33. Wang, S. C., and Flagan R. C. (1990). Scanning electrical mobility spectrometer, Aerosol Science and Technology, 13(2), 230-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829008959441
  34. Yang, H.-J., Kim S.-H., Jang A.-S., Kim S.-H., Song W.-J., Kim T.-B., Ye Y.-M., Yoo Y., Yu J., and Yoon J.-S. (2015). Guideline for the prevention and management ofparticulate matter/yellow dust-induced adversehealth effects on the patients with bronchial asthma, Journal of the Korean Medical Association, 58(11), 1034-1043. https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2015.58.11.1034
  35. Yang, S., and Lee G. W. (2005). Filtration characteristics of a fibrous filter pretreated with anionic surfactants for monodisperse solid aerosols, Journal of Aerosol Science, 36(4), 419-437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2004.10.002