Selection of homemade mask materials for preventing transmission of COVID-19: A laboratory study

  1. Dijia Wang
  2. Yanjun You
  3. Xiaoli Zhou
  4. Zhiyong Zong
  5. Hao Huang
  6. Hui Zhang
  7. Xin Yong
  8. Yifan Cheng
  9. Liu Yang
  10. Qiong Guo
  11. Youlin Long
  12. Yan Liu
  13. Jin Huang
  14. Liang Du

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1371/journal.pone.0240285
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.06.20093021: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Selection of homemade mask materials: We searched the PubMed and EMBASE databases systematically and obtained 6 studies (11, 12, 15-18)on civilian homemade mask materials under the epidemic of H5N1 and SARS, including T-shirts, scarves, tea towels, pillowcases, antibacterial pillowcases, vacuum cleaner dust bags, linen, silk, etc(S1 Table).
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    EMBASE
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations concerning this study are as follows: the study did not test the flame retardant properties, skin irritation, and delayed-type hypersensitivity of the materials. Samples tested in the study were only the original materials rather than the masks made of these materials. Most of the tested materials were purchased from local supermarkets, thus testing results of these materials could be greatly affected by their types, batches, and manufacturers. The performance of the mask on wearing time, wearing frequency, and environment were not tested because no molded masks were made. All of the data were based on laboratory testing while its actual effectiveness in the protection of the crowd, wearing comfort, adverse reactions still need to be verified by human trials and real-world studies.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.06.20093021 on medRxiv