Journal of Electrostatics 115 (2022) 103675

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Electrostatics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/elstat

Correlation of antibacterial performance to electrostatic field in melt-blown

polypropylene electret fabrics
Jianfeng Zhang a, Gangjin Chen a, b, *, Zhinan Zhou c, Changlin Huang d, Zengyuan Wang a,
Chen Chen a, Tingfang Ma d, Pengpeng Liu c
a
Lab. of Electret & its Application, Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou, China
b
Hangzhou Dianzi University Information Engineering School, Hangzhou, China
c
Zhejiang Fangyuan Testing Group Co., Ltd., Hangzhou, China
d
Hangzhou Wensli Silk Digital Printing Co., Ltd., Hangzhou, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Respirators have become popular personal protective equipment since the COVID-19 pandemic. The key material
Respirators in respirators is the melt-blown polypropylene electret fabric (MBPPEF). In this article, the filtering and inac­
Melt-blown polypropylene fabrics tivating effects of electrostatic fields in the respirator materials on Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) are studied.
Electret
As a typical airborne microorganism, S. aureus is often employed to evaluate the antibacterial performance of air
Antibacterial performance
Electrostatic field
filtration equipment. The results prove that the electrostatic field in MBPPEF plays the key role in filtrating
S. aureus. All MBPPEF from different charging method can have a filtering efficiency of more than 99% against
S. aureus. The inactivation rate of positive corona charged sample is the highest. The charging method will affect
the formation of electrostatic fields in the MBPPEF, thereby affecting their antibacterial performance.

1. Introduction
Respiratory tract infectious diseases caused by airborne microor­
ganisms have become an important factor of substantial morbidity and
mortality all around the world [1,2]. For example, the current pandemic
caused by COVID-19 and its variant strains α, β, γ and δ (included but not
limited) has led to more than 239 million confirmed cases and more than
4.87 million deaths worldwide up to 14 October 2021 [3]. Wearing
respirators is considered to be the most effective and regular means to
prevent respiratory infections [4–7] and respirator works mainly by
preventing virus carriers from transmitting the virus to the surroundings
[8]. The antibacterial performance including bacteria filtration and
inactivation has always been most concerned during the use of respi­
rators. Respirators currently used in medical scenes, such as N95 and
surgical respirators, are usually made of melt-blown polypropylene
electret fabric (MBPPEF) characterized by carrying quasi-permanent
electrostatic charges [9], which will lead to the generation of electro­
static field. Investigations on non-biological particles have shown that
the electrostatic field can provide an additional electrostatic filtration
mechanism, leading to higher filtration efficiency without increasing the
filtration resistance [9,10]. Airborne microorganisms are particles with
a specific size, so they can be filtered out by MBPPEF. However, it has
not been well understood whether the electrostatic field plays a special
role in the filtration of airborne microorganisms besides as airborne
particles, particularly whether there are differences in the performance
of filtering airborne microorganisms by the electrostatic field in respi­
rator materials obtained with different charging methods.
On the other hand, bacteria and viruses filtered out by the respirator
will accumulate on the surface and in the body of the respirator. These
accumulated pathogenic microorganisms may bring about a series of
health problems, such as the increasing risk of infection caused by the
secondary spread of pathogenic microorganisms and huge difficulty in
waste disposal for respirators. Therefore, it is particularly important for
respirator manufacturers and consumers to understand the growth and
survival of microorganisms in respirators and how much antibacterial
effect respirators have. Some studies have reported that moisture and
mineral dust from the environment may promote the growth of micro­
organisms in filtering nonwoven fabrics [11–13]. In addition, Majchr­
zycka et al. [14] found out that microorganisms can survive in filtering
nonwovens manufactured by different textile technologies (i.e.,
needle-punching, melt-blown, spun-bonding), and Jeong et al. [15,16]
evaluated the recovery rates of microorganisms in commercial

* Corresponding author. Lab. of Electret & its Application, Hangzhou Dianzi University Information Engineering School, Hangzhou, China.
E-mail address: cgjin@hdu.edu.cn (G. Chen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elstat.2022.103675
Received 15 November 2021; Received in revised form 5 January 2022; Accepted 5 January 2022
Available online 11 January 2022
0304-3886/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
J. Zhang et al.
Fig. 1. Schematic diagrams of charging methods; (a) the corona charging method, (b) the water charging method.
respirators and obtained the survival rates of microorganisms in each
layer of respirators by using bioaerosols. But these investigations paid no
attention to the electrostatic field existing in respirators. Moreover, re­
searchers have pointed out that the electrostatic field has the effect of
inactivating bacteria [17–20], which is owing to the destruction of the
connections between the components of the cell wall and the cyto­
plasmic membrane [21]. The inactivating effect of the electrostatic
precipitator, which is also used to purify air, on microorganisms has
been well known [22]. However, the effect of the electrostatic field in
respirator materials on bacteria activity has not been reported yet.
In summary, the filtering and inactivating effects on airborne mi­
croorganisms by respirator materials are very important. And, from the
current knowledge regarding respirators, the effects of the electrostatic
fields in respirator materials on the filtering and inactivating of airborne
microorganisms are unclear. Especially the characteristics of the elec­
trostatic field formed by different charging methods and their effects on
the antibacterial performance have not been reported yet.
As a typical airborne microorganism, Staphylococcus aureus
(S. aureus) is often employed to evaluate the antibacterial performance
of air filtration equipment [23–26]. Therefore, this study aims to verify
the filtering and inactivating effects of electrostatic fields in respirator
materials on S. aureus. The melt-blown polypropylene fabric, which is
currently the most widely used core material in respirator
manufacturing, is used to form the electrostatic fields with different
charging methods. The filtering effect of electrostatic field on S. aureus is
evaluated by filtration efficiency test. The inactivating effect of elec­
trostatic field on S. aureus is also evaluated by measuring the concen­
tration of viable bacteria before and after the application of electrostatic
field for a certain period of time. Finally, the electrostatic field charac­
teristics are analyzed by comparison of surface potential distribution
and filtration efficiency measurement. This study extends our under­
standing of the effects of the electrostatic fields in respirator materials on
filtering and inactivating airborne microorganisms. Results of this study
enable improvements in the protective performance of respirators.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Materials and the formation of electrets
The melt-blown polypropylene fabrics used in this paper come from
the market, and the basis weight is 25 g/m2. Through different charging
methods, melt-blown polypropylene fabrics are formed into electrets.
And four samples are obtained: the uncharged sample (US), the negative
and positive corona charged samples (named as NCCS and PCCS
respectively), and the water charged sample (WCS). The corona
charging method [27] is to use a corona charging device with an
adjustable electric field to form an electret, while the water charging
method [28] is spraying pure water with high pressure to fabric surface
vertically, and then dry it at elevated temperature to form an electret.
The schematic diagrams of charging methods are shown in Fig. 1.
Samples after charged are stored in a thermostat with a constant tem­
perature of 25 ◦ C and humidity of 50%.
2
Journal of Electrostatics 115 (2022) 103675
2.2. Measurement of particulate filtration efficiency
Particulate filtration efficiency is measured with an automatic
filtration tester manufactured by Zhejiang Zhaohui Filter Technology
Co. Ltd (China) at room temperature. The measured fabric area is 100
cm2. The particle size distribution for challenge aerosol generated from
a collision nebulizer is measured by a wide-range particle spectrometer.
The concentration of challenge aerosol is measured with a laser particle
counter, while the flow rate of challenge aerosol is controlled by a fre­
quency converter. A Kr85 sealed source is used to neutralize the aerosol
charge to a Boltzmann distribution. During the filtration efficiency test,
challenge aerosols enter the sample from the charging side. The filtra­
tion efficiency η is calculated as follows:
( )
C
η = 1 − d × 100% (1)
Cu
where Cu and Cd represent the concentrations of aerosol upstream and
downstream, respectively. The average value of filtration efficiency is
calculated by measuring the value of at least three samples. The ±95%
confidence interval is represented in the form of standard deviation.
2.3. Preparation of bacterial suspension
S. aureus (ATCC 6538) was separated into single colonies. And then
typical colonies were inoculated into the nutrient broth and incubated at
37 ◦ C for 24 h to obtain a fresh bacterial suspension. After that, the fresh
bacterial suspension was diluted with phosphate-buffered saline into a
bacterial suspension of test concentration.
2.4. Measurement of bacterial filtration efficiency
The bacterial filtration efficiency is measured as described by the
ASTM-F2101 [29] method. The bacteria aerosols enter the sample from
the charging side. A nebulizer is used to aerosolize S. aureus suspension
with a challenge level of 1700–2700 colony forming units per test. The
mean particle size of the bacterial aerosol is 3.0 ± 0.3 μm. The dual gas
path simultaneous contrast sampling method is adopted, that is, the
bacterial particles in the same aerosol are collected simultaneously in
the test group and the positive control group. The bacterial particles
passing through the samples are collected for 1 min with a 6-stage
Anderson sampler equipped with agar plates at a flow rate of 28.3
L/min. The bacterial particles in the agar plates are cultured at 37 ◦ C for
48 h, and then the colony-forming units formed by the bacterial particles
are counted. The bacterial filtration efficiency BFE is calculated as
presented below:
C− T
BFE = × 100% (2)
C
where C and T are the total number of colonies formed by the control
sample and the test sample, respectively. The average value of BFE is
calculated by repeating the experiment three times. The standard de­
viation of the bacterial filtration efficiency BFE is calculated to show the
difference between the maximum and minimum values of BFE.
J. Zhang et al. Journal of Electrostatics 115 (2022) 103675

Fig. 2. Measurement of surface potential distribution; (a) schematic diagram, (b) photograph.

2.5. Evaluation for antibacterial activity

Antibacterial activity for MBPP fabrics can be evaluated by two

methods: absorption method and shake flask method, which are
commonly used and suitable for various textiles. These two methods
differ briefly from first several steps described as follows:

(1) Absorption method: 0.40 g fabric was placed in a small capped

glass bottle, and 0.2 mL bacterial suspension was inoculated
dispersedly in the charging side of the fabric by using a pipette
and cultured for 18 h at 37 ◦ C. Then 20 mL Soya Casein Digest
Lecithin Polysorbate Broth was added to the glass bottle. Imme­
diately the glass bottle was tightly covered with the cap and
shaken by hand for 30 s (swing about 30 cm) to wash off the
bacteria. The obtained eluate is collected to be treated next.
(2) Shake flask method: 0.75 g fabric was cut into 2 cm × 2 cm square
pieces and added into a flask containing 70 mL phosphate-
buffered saline. Then 5 mL bacterial suspension was added into
the flask. And at 24 ◦ C the flask was shaken for 18 h at the speed
of 150 r/min. Then an eluate can also be obtained.
Fig. 3. Bacterial filtration efficiency of samples.

While accomplishing the above mentioned steps, the following steps

for these two methods are all the same. After diluting the as-prepared time for measuring a sample with an area of 4 cm × 4 cm is about 17
eluate to an appropriate multiple, 1 mL diluent was inoculated into a min. The sample’s potential does not change significantly during its
sterile plate by pour plate method, and then plate count agar at 45 ◦ C measurement.
was added. After solidification, the plate was turned upside down, and
the bacteria were incubated at 37 ◦ C for 48 h. And finally, the colony- 3. Results and discussion
forming units were counted. The inactivation rate is calculated as
3.1. Filtering effect of electrostatic field
Wt − Qt
Y= × 100% (3)
Wt In order to investigate the filtering effect of the electrostatic field of
MBPPEF on S. aureus, three samples of MBPPEF, which is negative and
where Wt and Qt are the concentrations of viable bacteria of the control
fabric and the test fabric after contaminated by bacteria for 18h,
respectively. The average value of Y is calculated by repeating the
experiment three times. The standard deviation of the antibacterial rate
Y is calculated. Only when the bacterial growth value F = lgWt－
lgW0≥1.5, the test is judged to be valid, otherwise it needs to be redone.
The symbol lg is the common logarithm. W0 is the average value of
viable bacteria concentrations of three control fabrics measured imme­
diately after inoculation (absorption method) or measured at zero con­
tact time (shake flask method).

2.6. Measurement of surface potential distribution

A non-contact electric field compensation electrometer (Trek Model

347, USA) is used to measure the surface potential of MBPPEF. The
distance between the measuring probe and the sample surface is 3 mm.
As shown in Fig. 2, for the sake of understanding the surface potential
distribution of samples, a automated movable platform is used to move
the sample regularly while measuring the surface potential. The elec­
trometer probe is fixed and does not move during the measurement. The
sample is fixed on the moveable platform which is motor driven. The
surface potential distribution measurement results are collected every Fig. 4. Filtration efficiency of samples at different flow rates of chal­
0.5 mm, and the data are recorded automatically on the computer. The lenge aerosol.

3
J. Zhang et al. Journal of Electrostatics 115 (2022) 103675

Fig. 5. Filtration efficiency of samples as a function of aerosol particle size; (a) the uncharged sample, (b) the charged samples.

positive corona charged sample (NCCS and PCCS) and water-charged

sample (WCS), are formed from uncharged sample (US). The results
displayed in Fig. 3 show that the bacterial filtration efficiency of the
charged NCCS, PCCS, and WCS samples exceed 99%, while the bacterial
filtration efficiency of the uncharged US is less than 70%. The standard
deviation of bacterial filtration efficiency of NCCS, PCCS and WCS is less
than 0.1. The results indicate that the electrostatic field of MBPPEF can
significantly enhance the filtration efficiency against S. aureus aerosols
no matter how it is charged.
The above results also demonstrate that the electrostatic field of
MBPPEF can have a prominent electrostatic filtration effect on S. aureus
aerosols as on non-biological particles. It means that non-biological
particles can also be applied to observe the filtering effect of the elec­
trostatic field instead of S. aureus for convenience. On the other hand,
bacteria and viruses in the air cannot exist alone and they often adhere
to particles. Thus in order to further understand the influence of aerosol
flow rates and aerosol particle sizes on the filtering effect of the elec­
trostatic field, the filtration efficiency of samples at different aerosol
flow rates and aerosol particle sizes are measured.
The filtration efficiency of samples at the aerosol flow rate of 85 L/
min and 32 L/min are illustrated in Fig. 4. The challenge aerosol is NaCl Fig. 6. Inactivation rates of samples contaminated by S. aureus for 18h.
with the aerosol particle size of 0.3–0.5 μm. It can be seen from Fig. 4
that the filtration efficiency of NCCS, PCCS, and WCS are significantly with different flow rates or different particle sizes, the filtering effect of
higher than that of US at different aerosol flow rates. It indicates that the the electrostatic field always works.
electrostatic field of samples can exert an electrostatic filtering effect on
aerosols at different flow rates. Incidentally, the relatively large stan­ 3.2. Inactivating effect of electrostatic field
dard deviation of US is due to the large error of the measuring instru­
ment in the low filtration efficiency test. It is worth noting that the For the sake of investigating the inactivating effect of the electro­
filtration efficiency of WCS is higher than that of the corona-charged static field of MBPPEF, the inactivation rates of samples contaminated
samples, and PCCS shows better filtration efficiency than NCCS. The by S. aureus for 18 h are measured by absorption method and shake flask
above observations are consistent at different aerosol flow rates. method respectively. In absorption method, bacteria are mainly in
The filtration efficiency at different aerosol particle sizes is displayed contact with the surface of MBPPEF, while in shake flask method, bac­
in Fig. 5. The challenge aerosol is diethyl hexyl sebacate (DEHS) with an teria are in contact with the entire MBPPEF, including its surface and its
aerosol flow rate of 32 L/min. It shows that the filtration efficiency of body. The results of inactivation rates are displayed in Fig. 6. The US is
three charged samples is significantly higher than that of the uncharged used as control fabric in equation (3) and the inactivation rate of the US
at various aerosol particle sizes. This implies that the electrostatic field is considered to be zero. Fig. 6 shows that for the two evaluation
of the charged samples can exert an electrostatic filtering effect on methods, the charged samples all exhibited a relatively obvious inacti­
aerosols with different particle sizes. Moreover, WCS exhibits the vating effect against S. aureus. The inactivation rates of samples
highest filtration efficiency, followed by NCCS. And PCCS shows the measured by the shake flask method are higher than that measured by
lowest among three charged samples for aerosols with particle sizes of the absorption method, because bacteria are in closer contact with
0.03–0.3 μm. charged fibers and are more strongly affected by the electrostatic field
In brief, the experimental results show that, no matter how it is during the measurement of shake flask method. No matter which
charged, the electrostatic field of the filtering material of the respirator method is used, the inactivation rate of PCCS is the highest, WCS is
can have an electrostatic filtering effect on aerosol droplets containing ranked second, and NCCS is the lowest. In general, the experimental
S. aureus, which significantly increases the filtering efficiency. The results indicate that the electrostatic field in the material has a certain
filtering performance of MBPPEF obtained by water charging method is inactivating effect on S. aureus.
better than that obtained by corona charging method. And for aerosols

4
J. Zhang et al. Journal of Electrostatics 115 (2022) 103675

Fig. 7. Surface potential distribution of MBPPEF; (a1) the charging side of NCCS, (a2) the reverse side of NCCS, (b1) the charging side of PCCS, (b2) the reverse side
of PCCS, (c1) the charging side of WCS, (c2) the reverse side of WCS. AV±SD means average value ± standard deviation.

3.3. Electrostatic field of MBPPEF deviations of samples with a size of 4 cm × 4 cm are shown in Fig. 7, in
which the change of the color scale represents the change of the surface
Surface potential testing technology is a common method to char­ potential. It can be seen from Fig. 7 that the surface potentials of the two
acterize the strength of the electrostatic field on the electret surface. sides of the three samples all exhibit the bipolar characteristic by
Under the same test conditions, the greater the absolute value of the different charging methods. That is to say, if the surface potential of one
surface potential, the stronger the electrostatic field. The surface po­ side is generally positive, then another side is always negative. In
tential distribution diagrams including average values and standard addition, the surface potentials of the three samples all have the char­
acteristic of unevenness. This may be the reason for the test deviation of
different samples.
Table 1 The average values of surface potential in Fig. 7 reflect the overall
Comparison results of filtration efficiency and surface electrostatic field. strength of the surface electrostatic fields of samples. It shows that PCCS
Comparative aspect Comparison result exhibits the largest surface potential on both sides, followed by NCCS,
while WCS exhibits the smallest surface potential. The results indicate
Filtration efficiency In Fig. 3 WCS > PCCS > NCCS
In Fig. 4 WCS > PCCS > NCCS
that PCCS exhibits the strongest surface electrostatic field, followed by
In Fig. 5 WCS > NCCS > PCCS NCCS, and WCS exhibits the weakest surface electrostatic field.
Surface electrostatic field In Fig. 7 PCCS > NCCS > WCS However, the surface potential can only evaluate the surface

5
J. Zhang et al.
electrostatic field characteristics of samples. Since the electrostatic field
on the surface and in the body can significantly improve the filtration
efficiency, the measurement of filtration efficiency can be used to reflect
the overall electrostatic field characteristics of samples including body
and its surface. By comparison of Figs. 3–5 with Fig. 7, the comparison
results are shown in Table 1, it can be concluded that the comparison
result of three charged samples in filtration efficiency is different from
that in the surface electrostatic field. WCS has the best filtration effi­
ciency, while PCCS has the strongest surface electrostatic field in the
three charged samples. This hints that samples obtained by different
charging methods may have different electrostatic field distribution.
However, this is only speculation from the results of filtration efficiency
and surface potential, and more substantive evidence is still needed.
Furthermore, the electrostatic field formed by the water charging
method is more conducive to enhance the filtering effect on bacteria,
while the electrostatic field formed by the positive corona charging
method is more conducive to enhance the inactivating effect on bacteria.
4. Conclusions
The electrostatic field in the MBPPEF has not only the filtering effect
but also the inactivating effect on S. aureus. The filtering effect is
attributed to the electrostatic filter mechanism due to the electrostatic
field. All MBPPEF from different charging method can have a filtering
efficiency of more than 99% against S. aureus. The inactivation rate of
PCCS is the highest, WCS is ranked second, and NCCS is the lowest. The
antibacterial performance including the filtering effect and inactivating
effect depends on the distribution of the electrostatic field in different
kinds of material by different charging methods. The charging method
will affect the formation of electrostatic fields in the MBPPEF. The
electrostatic field formed by the water charging method is more
conducive to enhance the filtering effect on bacteria, while the elec­
trostatic field formed by the positive corona charging method is more
conducive to enhance the inactivating effect on bacteria. It can be
inferred that the electrostatic field distribution of the material can be
regulated by an appropriate charging method so that the protective
performance of the respirator can be further improved. The results in
this paper provide new perspective for understanding the ability of
respirators to fight against airborne microorganisms, as well as new
insight on how to improve the protective performance of respirators.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] GBD 2017 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators, Global,
regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for
354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic
analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017, Lancet 392 (2018)
1789–1858, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32279-7.
[2] GBD 2017 Causes of Death Collaborators, Global, regional, and national age-sex-
specific mortality for 282 causes of death in 195 countries and territories, 1980-
2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017, Lancet
392 (2018) 1736–1788, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32203-7.
[3] World Health Organization (WHO), Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic,
World Health Organization, Geneva, https://www.who.int/emergencies/di
seases/novel-coronavirus-2019, Accessed 14 October 2021.
[4] K. Chaabna, S. Doraiswamy, R. Mamtani, S. Cheema, Facemask use in community
settings to prevent respiratory infection transmission: a rapid review and meta-
analysis, Int. J. Infect. Dis. 104 (2021) 198–206, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijid.2020.09.1434.
[5] J. Howard, A. Huang, Z. Li, Z. Tufekci, V. Zdimal, H.M. van der Westhuizen, A. von
Delft, A. Price, L. Fridman, L.H. Tang, V. Tang, G.L. Watson, C.E. Bax, R. Shaikh,
F. Questier, D. Hernandez, L.F. Chu, C.M. Ramirez, A.W. Rimoin, An evidence
review of face masks against COVID-19, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118 (2021),
e2014564118, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2014564118.
6
Journal of Electrostatics 115 (2022) 103675
[6] J. Brainard, N.R. Jones, I.R. Lake, L. Hooper, P.R. Hunter, Community use of face
masks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illness such as COVID-19: a rapid
scoping review, Euro Surveill. 25 (2020), 2000725, https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-
7917.ES.2020.25.49.2000725.
[7] N.H.L. Leung, D.K.W. Chu, E.Y.C. Shiu, K.H. Chan, J.J. McDevitt, B.J.P. Hau, H.
L. Yen, Y. Li, D.K.M. Ip, J.S.M. Peiris, W.H. Seto, G.M. Leung, D.K. Milton, B.
J. Cowling, Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face
masks, Nat. Med. 26 (2020) 676–680, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0843-
2.
[8] T. Czypionka, T. Greenhalgh, D. Bassler, M.B. Bryant, Masks and face coverings for
the lay public: a narrative update, Ann. Intern. Med. 174 (2021) 511–520, https://
doi.org/10.7326/M20-6625.
[9] H. Xiao, Y. Song, G. Chen, Correlation between charge decay and solvent effect for
melt-blown polypropylene electret filter fabrics, J. Electrost. 4 (2014) 311–314,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elstat.2014.05.006.
[10] J. Zhang, G. Chen, G.S. Bhat, H. Azari, H. Peng, Electret characteristics of melt-
blown polylactic acid fabrics for air filtration application, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 137
(2020) 48309, https://doi.org/10.1002/app.48309.
[11] K. Majchrzycka, M. Okrasa, A. Jachowicz, J. Szulc, B. Gutarowska, Microbial
growth on dust-loaded filtering materials used for the protection of respiratory
tract as a factor Affecting filtration efficiency, Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 15
(2018) 1902, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15091902.
[12] K. Majchrzycka, M. Okrasa, J. Szulc, B. Gutarowska, The impact of dust in filter
materials of respiratory protective devices on the microorganisms viability, Int. J.
Ind. Ergon. 58 (2017) 109–116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2017.02.008.
[13] K. Majchrzycka, M. Okrasa, J. Skóra, B. Gutarowska, Evaluation of the survivability
of microorganisms deposited on filtering respiratory protective devices under
varying conditions of humidity, Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 13 (2016) 98,
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13010098.
[14] K. Majchrzycka, M. Okrasa, J. Szulc, A. Jachowicz, B. Gutarowska, Survival of
microorganisms on nonwovens used for the construction of filtering facepiece
respirators, Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 16 (2019) 1154, https://doi.org/
10.3390/ijerph16071154.
[15] S.B. Jeong, K.J. Heo, H.S. Ko, J.P. Ahn, S.B. Lee, J.H. Jung, Evaluation of survival
rates of airborne microorganisms on the filter layers of commercial face masks,
Indoor Air 31 (2021) 1134–1143, https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12816.
[16] S.B. Jeong, H.S. Ko, S.C. Seo, J.H. Jung, Evaluation of filtration characteristics and
microbial recovery rates of commercial filtering facepiece respirators against
airborne bacterial particles, Sci. Total Environ. 682 (2019) 729–736, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.153.
[17] M. Qi, R. Zhao, Q. Liu, H. Yan, Y. Zhang, S. Wang, Y. Yuan, Antibacterial activity
and mechanism of high voltage electrostatic field (HVEF) against Staphylococcus
aureus in medium plates and food systems, Food Control 120 (2021), 107566,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107566.
[18] Z. Sun, Y. Yue, W. He, F. Jiang, C.H. Lin, D.Y.H. Pui, Y. Liang, J. Wang, The
antibacterial performance of positively charged and chitosan dipped air filter
media, Build. Environ. 180 (2020), 107020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2020.107020.
[19] M. Yao, G. Mainelis, H.R. An, Inactivation of microorganisms using electrostatic
fields, Environ. Sci. Technol. 39 (2005) 3338–3344, https://doi.org/10.1021/
es048808x.
[20] T. Ohshima, K. Okuyama, M. Sato, Effect of culture temperature on high-voltage
pulse sterilization of Escherichia coli, J. Electrost. 55 (2002) 227–235, https://doi.
org/10.1016/s0304-3886(01)00206-6.
[21] N. Boudjema, M. Kherat, N. Drouiche, N. Mameri, Investigation of the mechanisms
of Escherichia coli cells sterilization by the application of an electric field, Int. J.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 16 (2019) 6259–6266, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-
019-02218-5.
[22] A. Zukeran, H. Sawano, K. Ito, R. Oi, I. Kobayashi, R. Wada, J. Sawai, Investigation
of inactivation process for microorganism collected in an electrostatic precipitator,
J. Electrost. 93 (2018) 70–77, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elstat.2018.04.002.
[23] Y. Xiao, Y. Wang, W. Zhu, J. Yao, C. Sun, J. Militky, M. Venkataraman, G. Zhu,
Development of tree-like nanofibrous air filter with durable antibacterial property,
Separ. Purif. Technol. 259 (2021), 118135, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
seppur.2020.118135.
[24] S.W. Xiong, P. Fu, Q. Zou, L. Chen, M. Jiang, P. Zhang, Z. Wang, L. Cui, H. Guo, J.
G. Gai, Heat conduction and antibacterial hexagonal boron nitride/polypropylene
nanocomposite fibrous membranes for face masks with long-time wearing
performance, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 13 (2021) 196–206, https://doi.org/
10.1021/acsami.0c17800.
[25] A. Kozajda, K. Jeżak, A. Kapsa, Airborne Staphylococcus aureus in different
environments—a review, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26 (2019) 34741–34753,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06557-1.
[26] S.A. Sattar, B. Zargar, K.E. Wright, J.R. Rubino, M.K. Ijaz, Airborne pathogens
inside automobiles for domestic use: assessing in-car air decontamination devices
using Staphylococcus aureus as the challenge bacterium, Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
83 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00258-17 e00258-17.
[27] G. Chen, H. Xiao, X. Wang, Study on parameter optimization of corona charging for
melt-blown polypropylene electret nonwoven web used as air filter, in: 2009 IEEE
9th International Conference on the Properties and Applications of Dielectric
Materials, 2009, pp. 389–391, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPADM.2009.5252406.
[28] A. Angadjivand, M.E. Jones, D.E. Meyer, Method of Charging Electret Filter Media,
U. S. Patent, 1996. No.5496507.
[29] ASTM F-2101, Standard Test Method for Evaluating the Bacterial Filtration
Efficiency (BFE) of Medical Face Mask Materials, Using a Biological Aerosol of
J. Zhang et al. Journal of Electrostatics 115 (2022) 103675

Staphylococcus aureus, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2019, https://

doi.org/10.1520/F2101-19, 2003, www.astm.org.