4.5 Article

Nonwoven characteristics effective for blood-resistant particulate filtration for healthcare application

期刊

JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL TEXTILES
卷 51, 期 4_SUPPL, 页码 6377S-6402S

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1528083720955202

关键词

filter; coverweb; pore size; wettability; blood resistance; oily aerosol; comfort; healthcare

资金

  1. Creative-Pioneering Researchers Program through Seoul National University
  2. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korea government (MIST) [NRF-2020R1F1A1074295]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed the effects of different coverweb materials on blood penetration resistance, finding that both surface wettability and physical parameters have an impact. When the coverweb and filter web become hydrophobic, the filtration efficiency against oily aerosols can be enhanced without compromising comfort properties.
The epidemic virus such as COVID-19 can spread via bioaerosol or droplets, and the use of filtering facepiece is crucial in reducing the opportunity of infection. For healthcare application of filters, the fluid penetration resistance is an additional benefit. In this study, nonwoven characteristics that affect the blood penetration resistance were analyzed, using different coverweb materials including electrospun and spunbond webs. The web properties were varied in the basis weight, porosity, and wettability. The blood penetration resistance was tested using the horse blood and human blood simulant at the stream velocity of 2.83 m/s. The blood resistance was affected by both the surface wettability and the physical parameters. When the coverweb and the filter web were hydrophobized, filtration efficiency against oily aerosol was enhanced, without interfering comfort properties. This study is novel in that the comprehensive effects of physical and wetting properties were investigated in terms of fluid penetration resistance, comfort properties and filtration performance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据