Mask Filter Report

June 17, 2020

Goal
In this observational study, we compared the ability of a mask-mimicking apparatus to absorb water droplets. The apparatus, shown in
the images below, consisted of a filter layer sandwiched between two cloth squares. The following filters were used:
 Clorox disinfecting wipes
 Cheesecloth
 EZ wipe
 Computer screen cleaning wipe
 Kirkland Baby wipes
 Hydrogen peroxide wipes
 Interfacing
 Cloth (control
This specific apparatus was used to minimize the number of layers in the mask. Once an effective filter was found, we can reduce the
number of cloth layers

Procedure
We cut out two 1 inch by 1 inch squares for each filter and arranged them as shown in the schematic above. We mixed 1.5mL of water
with 3 drops of blue food coloring (dye) to observe the movement of water through each fabric. We used a dropper and held it around
an inch above the fabric and squeezed until a single drop was placed onto the fabric squares. The amount of time needed for the fabric
to fully absorb the droplet was recorded. The table on which the apparatus was set on was lightly tapped every second to mimic
walking (or taking steps). We then took images of the droplet absorption at each of the three layers and the excess liquid (the
apparatus was turned over a pressed onto a piece of printer paper to see how much of the droplet could not be absorbed.
Results

Filter Time 1st layer (cloth) 2nd layer (filter) 3rd layer (cloth) Excess
Material (sec)
Disinfecting 10
wipe

Cheesecloth 95

EZ wipe 45

Computer 16
screen wipe
Baby wipe 5

Hydrogen 115
peroxide
wipe

Interfacing 62

Cloth 33
(Green/blue)
3 layers
A second control was used to mimic the mask. The apparatus consisted of four layers of cloth.

Filter Time (sec) 1st layer 2nd layer 3rd layer 4th layer Excess
Material (cloth) (cloth) (cloth) (cloth)
No filter – 4 37
layers of cloth

Conclusion
In the previous study, it was found that the interfacing, EZ wipe, and cheesecloth were hydrophobic (the droplet was not absorbed).
Here, these three took relatively longer to absorb than the other fabrics. The only exception was the hydrogen peroxide wipe filter,
which we found surprising. In the previous study, it was able to absorb the droplet, but left a large amount of excess when rubbed onto
the printer paper. This means that although the hydrophobic filters prevented the droplet from penetrating past the first cloth layer, it
took longer to absorb and left more excess since the cloth was unable to absorb everything, which can foster issues with
contamination.
The baby wipes sample took the least amount of time to absorb, but penetrated into the third layer. The hydrogen peroxide wipe,
which performed the best in the previous study, took the second shortest time to absorb. The droplet was fully absorbed by the filter
and did not penetrate into the third layer.
The controls consisted of three and four layers of cloth. It took a relatively mediocre amount of time to absorb, but the droplet was
able to penetrate past even four layers. This makes it reasonable to conclude that a mask with only cotton layers will be less effective
and harder to breathe through.
Immediate future work
We are working on the breathability test to assess the passage of oxygen through the filter as well as an inverted cup test to assess the
passage of water vapor. We hope to discuss these results in the next lab report.

Thank you.

Report submitted to: Mrs. Laura Crawford

Report prepared by: Laboni Santra