Next Article in Journal
Study on the Construction of a Nonlinear Creep Constitutive Model of Salt-Gypsum Rock in the Bayan Deep and the Critical Value of Wellbore Shrinkage Liquid Column Pressure
Previous Article in Journal
Power Spot Market Clearing Optimization Based on an Improved Low-Load Generation Cost Model of Coal-Fired Generator
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Processes
Volume 13
Issue 9
10.3390/pr13092746
processes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Filtration Performance Differences Between Single-Layer rGO Composite Materials and Commonly Used Combination Double-Layer Air Filter Materials Under Low-Carbon Targets

by
Wei Wei
1,2,
Fumin Xu
2,* and
Xin Zhang
3,4,*
1
School of Economics and Management, Xi’an Jiaotong University City College, Xi’an 710018, China
2
Farabi Business School, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty 050040, Kazakhstan
3
State Key Laboratory of Green Building, Xi’an University of Architecture & Technology, Xi’an 710055, China
4
College of Architecture and Energy Engineering, Wenzhou University of Technology, Wenzhou 325000, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Processes 2025, 13(9), 2746; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13092746
Submission received: 28 July 2025 / Revised: 14 August 2025 / Accepted: 26 August 2025 / Published: 28 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Process Analysis of Pollutants in Fiber Filtration, Adsorption, and Purification)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Air filtering is one of the most effective methods to enhance indoor air quality, and the filtration performance and usage form are the main parameters that affect its widespread promotion. In this paper, we compare the filtration performance of single-layer rGO composite materials with commonly used combination double-layer air filter materials. The results showed that the filtration performance of the single-layer filter material was lower than that of the combined double-layer filter material, with differences of only 7.18%, 4.97%, and 4.54% in filtration efficiency for PM10, PM2.5, and PM1.0. For particle sizes below 0.65 μm, however, the counting filtration efficiency of single-layer filter materials is 20.57% higher than that of combined double-layer filter materials. The resistance is significantly lower than the total resistance of the combined double-layer filter material, with a difference of 21.5–40.2 Pa. At the optimal filtration velocity, the QF values of single-layer filter materials for PM10, PM2.5, and PM1.0 are 0.0017 Pa−1, 0.0009 Pa−1, and 0.0005 Pa−1 higher than those of combined double-layer filter materials. In addition, the thickness of single-layer filter materials is 19.14 mm less than that of combined double-layer filter materials, and the volume is reduced by 70.89% under the same size conditions. Overall, single-layer rGO composite materials exhibit more advantages than their combined double-layer counterparts. The results presented herein lay the foundation for the development of filter materials and are of certain reference value.

1. Introduction

The data from relevant literature sources [1,2] indicate that humans spend the majority of their time indoors; the quality of air in indoor environments therefore has a significant impact on human health and quality of life. Complex air pollution has remained a key concern for mankind [3]. High concentrations of particulate matter, harmful gases, and microorganisms can cause varying degrees of harm and even death to work personnel [4]. With the continuous improvement of people’s living standards [5], there is an urgent need to create a healthy indoor environment.
To improve indoor air quality and ensure that people remain in good health, air filtering has become an extremely effective method [6]. Air filters can filter out harmful substances such as pollutants, bacteria, viruses, pollen, etc., in the air through filtration and adsorption, significantly improving indoor air quality and providing people with a healthy and comfortable indoor environment [7]. At present, most air conditioning systems adopt a combination filter format [8]. The commonly used combination filters include primary filters and medium filters [9], which are mainly used in everyday environments such as offices, shopping malls, and other locations. Primary filters usually contain materials such as nylon meshes and metal wire meshes to filter large particles of dust, hair, fibers, and other impurities in the air [10]; in comparison, medium filters often contain materials such as non-woven fabric and glass fiber, which can filter particles of 1–5 μm [11]. The primary filter first removes large particle impurities and reduces the burden on the medium-efficiency filter and extends its service life. The combination of a primary filter, a medium-efficiency filter, and a high-efficiency filter [12] is suitable for environments with high requirements for air cleanliness, such as hospital operating rooms, electronic clean rooms, etc. Among the available filters, high-efficiency filters contain materials such as glass fiber filter paper, and their efficiency in filtering for particles larger than 0.3 μm can reach over 99.97% [13]. Primary and medium-efficiency filters are first pre-treated to reduce the impurity content in the air, avoid premature clogging of high-efficiency filters, and ensure their high filtration performance and long service life. In addition, depending on the specified environment, primary filters and activated carbon filters can also be used [14], which are used to remove odors and harmful gases (such as formaldehyde, benzene, etc.) from the air and suitable for locations with odor control requirements, such as hotel rooms, conference rooms, laboratories, etc. With the continuous improvement of control requirements, the available literature on air filters has also been constantly updated. At present, a considerable amount of performance research and new material development have been carried globally, such as MOFs [15], composite filter materials [16,17,18], etc., which have always been a key research topic. In addition, at present, the type of combination air filter is mainly selected based on multiple factors such as filtration efficiency, equipment protection, energy consumption cost, and specific requirements [19]. The selected form may therefore vary slightly according to the needs of different functional areas.
In addition, traditional combination air filters also have the following shortcomings: in terms of volume, they occupy a large space: combination filters are usually composed of multiple filter units, which are the superposition of different filter materials or the combination of multiple filter function modules. Their volume is relatively large, meaning that they occupy a considerable amount of installation space, and their use in space-constrained environments will also be limited [20]. In some environments with stringent spatial layout requirements, it is difficult to find a suitable location for installation. Even if the filter can be installed, it may affect the placement of surrounding equipment and personnel operations. In order to achieve multiple filtration functions, the thickness of the combined filter is usually relatively large [21]. Its large size may result in the inability to install it in some locations with limited installation space or severely affect the airflow inside the pipeline after installation, in some cases even affecting the overall structure of the system, impacting the installation and normal operation of other components. Due to the inclusion of multiple filtering technologies and materials, in addition to the relatively complex structure, the production process requirements for combination filters are high, and the raw material and manufacturing costs are also relatively high [22]. Their market price is therefore usually much higher than that of single-function filters, which will increase the initial purchase cost for users. Concurrently, maintenance costs will also be increased. In light of the above, there is an urgent need to develop a new type of filter that can replace combination filters. In order to meet multiple combination requirements, it is necessary to achieve the characteristics of small size, simple structure, and convenient installation and operation, thereby making the air filters more user friendly and efficient [23].
For this reason, scholars both domestically and internationally have conducted extensive research on air filters [24,25,26,27] and achieved promising results. Researchers in this field have mainly focused on improving filtration efficiency [24], the application environment of filters [25], combination effects [26], the research and development of new filter materials [28,29,30], etc. However, the impact of the post-pandemic era has brought about a more urgent demand for equipment with sterilization functions [31]. Research on new filter materials has always been a key research direction. At present, porous media are commonly used as raw materials for synthesizing new materials [32], such as graphene materials [33,34], carbon nanotube materials, etc. [35]. Although there have been in-depth studies on new materials, as reported in related papers, more emphasis is placed on testing the properties of graphene itself and composite materials [16], focusing on graphene batteries [36] and graphene capacitors [37], in addition to research on water treatment [38], environmental governance, and other aspects. In addition, related papers have also been published on air filtration research [39], focusing on filtration efficiency, the adsorption of organic pollutants [40], etc. At present, however, there is a lack of comparative research on the performance of single-layer rGO filter materials and existing composite double-layer filter materials, and there is also insufficient research on the usage forms and comprehensive comparison of the two materials. particularly in the context of low-carbon targets, there exists almost no research that includes factors such as filtration performance and volume of materials in the evaluation scope. A comprehensive comparison between the two is therefore more practical, with the results being beneficial for changing traditional filtering combination formats and promoting new materials, providing reference materials and data support for creating a suitable and cost-effective indoor environment [41].
In this paper, we aim to address the above practical issues by comparing the filtration performance of single-layer rGO filter materials with commonly used combination double-layer air filter materials, comprehensively analyzing the overall filtration performance of the two materials on particulate matter under different working conditions and providing a solid theoretical basis and data support for the rational selection of air filter materials in building ventilation systems under low-carbon targets.

2. Methods

2.1. Selection of Materials

The two-stage combination form filter is currently one of the most commonly used combination forms [9]; choosing this commonly used combination form on the market as the research object therefore provides greater representativeness. The specific form is a primary filter G4 + medium filter F6, and the coarse and medium filter materials are shown in Figure 1. We selected the medium-efficiency filter material F6 as the background material, immersed and oxidized it with graphene material, and then used ascorbic acid for reduction treatment. After drying, the reduced oxidized graphene filter material was obtained, as shown in Figure 2.

2.2. Performance Formula

Filtration efficiency was calculated using Equation (1) [24]:
η = C 1 − C 2 C 1 × 100 %
where η is the filtration efficiency (%); C1 is the concentration of particulate matter before filtration (μg/m3); and C2 is the concentration of particulate matter after filtration (μg/m3).
Counting efficiency was calculated using Equation (2) [24]:
η i = ( 1 − N 2 i N 1 i ) × 100 %
where η i is the counting efficiency (%); N 1 i is the average counting concentration of a certain particle size in a segment before filtration (particle/L); and N 2 i is the average counting concentration of a certain particle size in a segment after filtration (particle/L).
The filtration resistance can be expressed as the static pressure difference and was calculated using Equation (3) [24].
Δ P = P 2 − P 1
where P1 and P2 are the static pressures before and after filtration (Pa).
The quality factor value (QF) can be used to measure the comprehensive filtration performance of air filters. The quality factor value (QF) can be calculated using Equation (4) [7].
Q F = − ln 1 − η Δ p
where η is the filtration efficiency of air filters, %, and Δ P is the filtration resistance, Pa.

2.3. Testing Equipment

We built an experimental platform based on the experimental requirements and standards, as shown in Figure 3. The GRIMM1.109 portable aerosol particle size spectrometer was supplied by Beijing Saak-Mar Environmental Instrument Co., Ltd., Beijing, China. The HD2114P.0 differential pressure gauge and HD37AB1347 Indoor Air Quality Monitor were supplied by DeltaOHM Co., Ltd., Torino, Italy. A Nanfu battery served as the external power supply.
A GRIMM1.109 portable aerosol spectrometer was used to measure concentrated particles before and after the filters were used. The concentration count limit was 2,000,000 P/L. In total, there were 31 channels (from 0.25 to 32 μm particles) with 5% repeatability. An HD2114P.0 portable micromanometer was used to measure filter resistance, with a ±2% reading +0.1 m/s measuring accuracy and ±0.4% F.S. pressure range. An HD37AB1347 indoor air quality monitor was used to measure velocity, with a ±3% accuracy range. To reduce errors, 10 min average concentrations were recorded before and after the test on the filter.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Relevant Parameters of Materials

The changes in fiber diameter, filling rate, porosity, and other parameters of single-layer rGO filter materials and commonly used combination double-layer air filter materials are shown in Table 1.
From Table 1, it can be seen that, excluding the influence of the shell and combination spacing, the thickness of the single-layer rGO filter material is relatively low. The thickness of the single-layer filter material is 19.14 mm less than that of the composite double-layer filter material, and the volume is reduced by 70.89% under the same size conditions. In addition, it was found through parameters such as filling rate and porosity that the structure of the single-layer rGO filter material undergoes significant changes. This structural change is the result of the encapsulation phenomenon during the synthesis process, which has been confirmed in previous studies [42]. Moreover, there is a filling of reduced graphene oxide between fibers, which is consistent with the results noted in the relevant literature [43], verifying the validity of the results presented in this paper. From the above findings, it is evident that further in-depth research is required to assess the filtration performance of the two forms.

3.2. Distribution of Atmospheric Particulate Matter Concentration

In order to make the experimental results more consistent with the actual environment, outdoor atmospheric particulate matter was used as the dust source for testing in this study, and its particle size distribution is shown in Figure 4.
During the experiment, the average temperature was 21.7~26.3 °C, and the average humidity was 43.6~52.7%.
The results presented in Figure 4 reflect the distribution of particle size in the outdoor atmosphere during the testing period, and it can be clearly seen that the proportion of small-sized particles is relatively high. It can be seen that particles with a diameter of 0–1.0 μm account for the vast majority, about 99.77%, of which particles with a diameter between 0 and 0.54 μm account for 99.13%. From these results, it can be concluded that the atmosphere in Xi’an is mainly composed of particles smaller than 0.54 μm. Sources in the relevant literature demonstrate that these small-sized particles are more likely to cause serious harm to the human body [44], with them entering the bloodstream and triggering disease development and even death. In the post-pandemic era, improving purification efficacy for small particle sizes is therefore the focus of current solutions.

3.3. The Impact of Filtration Velocity

The filtration efficiency changes in the single-layer rGO filter material and commonly used combination double-layer air filter material at different filtration velocities are shown in Figure 5.
From Figure 5, it can be seen that as the filtration velocity increases, the filtration efficiency of both the combination double-layer filter material and the single-layer rGO filter material shows a trend of first increasing and then decreasing. The main factor responsible may be the fact that the filtration velocity range at this time is in the joint action area of the interception effect and the inertia effect [24]. Therefore, as the filtration velocity increases, the inertia effect and interception effect also increase accordingly, and the capture efficiency of particulate matter increases. When the filtration velocity increases to a certain value, the inertia force of the particles increases, causing the particles intercepted by the fibers to fall off and the capture efficiency to decrease.
It can be seen that the combined double-layer filter material has a filtration efficiency range of 47.35% to 58.21% for PM10, 25.59% to 38.28% for PM2.5, and 17.36% to 30.83% for PM1.0. The filtration efficiency range of the single-layer rGO filter material for PM10 is 40.17% to 53.96%, the filtration range for PM2.5 is 22.19% to 34.69%, and the filtration range for PM1.0 is 15.17% to 26.36%. At a filtration velocity of 0.8 m/s, the filtration efficiencies of the combined double-layer filter material and single-layer rGO filter material reached their maximum, with filtration efficiencies of 58.21% and 53.96% for PM10, respectively. The filtration efficiencies for PM2.5 are 38.28% and 34.69%, respectively. The filtration efficiencies for PM1.0 are 30.83% and 26.36%, respectively. The filtration performance of the single-layer rGO filter material is slightly lower than that of the composite double-layer filter material, with the maximum filtration efficiency differences of only 7.18%, 4.97%, and 4.54% for PM10, PM2.5, and PM1.0. This is because the porosity of the single-layer rGO filter material is relatively small, while the synthesized single-layer rGO filter material increases the collision probability between particles and fibers due to the increased roughness of the fiber surface. Therefore, the difference in filtration efficiency between the two is not significant, which also proves the reliability of the performance of the new material. The results presented in the relevant literature are similar to the test results presented in this paper [24], thus verifying the validity of our results.

3.4. Differences in Filtration Efficiency Under Different Particle Sizes

The counting filtration efficiency of the single-layer rGO filter material and combined double-layer air filter material at the optimal filtration velocity is shown in Figure 6.
The results presented in Figure 6 illustrate the filtration efficiency of the single-layer rGO filter material and combined double-layer air filter material for different particle sizes at a filtration velocity of 0.8 m/s. It can be seen that both forms of filtration efficiency increase with the increase in particle size, and the smaller the particle size, the greater the difference and vice versa. For particles smaller than 1.0 μm, the filtration efficiency of the single-layer rGO filter material is higher than that of the combined double-layer air filter material, with a difference in filtration efficiency between 0.80% and 20.57%. At this time, for particles smaller than 0.65 μm, the filtration efficiency difference is significant, and that of the single-layer rGO filter material is 20.57% higher than that of the combined double-layer filter material, with the main factor responsible for this difference being that Brownian motion plays a dominant role in small particle size filtration [24]; in comparison, the porosity of single-layer rGO filter materials is relatively small. Under the same conditions, when dusty airflow passes through, a denser fiber structure will increase the probability of particle capture. The results presented in the relevant literature verify the validity of our findings [24].
For particles larger than 1.0 μm, there is little difference in filtration efficiency between the two forms, which is due to the inertia and interception effects of the fibers, increasing the capture efficiency of the particles. From these results, it can be concluded that the single-layer rGO filter material mainly improves the capture efficiency of particles with a diameter below 0.65 μm, which is of great importance for ensuring higher air quality.

3.5. Differences in Resistance

The difference in resistance between the single-layer rGO filter material and composite double-layer air filter material is shown in Figure 7.
From Figure 7, it can be seen that the resistance and filtration velocity of the single-layer rGO filter material and composite double-layer air filter material both show an increasing trend, which is basically consistent with the theoretical situation [19]. Within the tested filtration velocity range, the resistance range of the single-layer rGO filter material is 33.5–165.8 Pa, and the resistance range of the combined double-layer air filter material is 55.0–206.0 Pa. The resistance of the single-layer rGO filter material is significantly lower than the total resistance of the combined filter material, with a difference of 21.5–40.2 Pa. The main reason is the fact that the porosity of the single-layer rGO filter material decreases, which affects the uniformity of the airflow velocity field. In addition, the spacing between combined double-layer air filter materials also affects the influence of dusty airflow, which is consistent with the conclusions presented in the literature [45]. Therefore, the resistance range of double-layer air filter materials is relatively larger. Based on the experimental data, linear fitting was performed, and the fitting results showed that both forms of filter fiber materials had good resistance characteristics. The resistance correlation R2 of the single-layer new reduced graphene oxide filter material and the commonly used combination double-layer air filter material are 0.9801 and 0.9638, respectively.

3.6. Differences in Quality Factor

In practical use, the matching relationship between filtration efficiency and resistance should be comprehensively considered [7], and selection should be made based on actual conditions. Therefore, the quality factor difference between the single-layer rGO filter material and the composite double-layer air filter material at the optimal filtration velocity is shown in Figure 8.
From Figure 8, it can be seen that the overall QF value of the single-layer rGO filter material is higher than that of the combined double-layer air filter material. Within the speed range, the QF range values of the single-layer rGO filter material for PM10, PM2.5, and PM1.0 are 0.0036–0.0117 Pa−1, 0.0021–0.0054 Pa−1, and 0.0014–0.0035 Pa−1, respectively. The QF range values of the combination double-layer air filter material for PM10, PM2.5, and PM1.0 are 0.0040–0.0153 Pa−1, 0.0022–0.0075 Pa−1, and 0.0015–0.0049 Pa−1, respectively. At the optimal filtration velocity, the QF values of the single-layer rGO filter material for PM10, PM2.5, and PM1.0 are 0.0017 Pa−1, 0.0009 Pa−1, and 0.0005 Pa−1 higher than those of the combination double-layer filter material. It can be seen that the filtration performance is directly proportional to the quality factor: the larger the quality factor, the better the filtration performance [46].
After a comprehensive comparison of filtration performance, resistance, quality factor, thickness, volume, and other related parameters, the single-layer rGO filter material evidently exhibits better performance. In this paper, we provide a solid theoretical basis and data support for the rational selection of air filter materials in building ventilation systems under low-carbon targets, which can help improve indoor air quality, reduce building energy consumption, and contribute to achieving low-carbon development targets.
In addition, with the continuous development of underground space, ensuring the differentiation of the underground environment is also one of the current development trends and a key research direction [47,48,49]. It is therefore necessary to develop and utilize air filters in a more diversified way to meet the actual needs of different environments.

4. Conclusions

In this paper, we compare and analyze the filtration performance of a single-layer rGO filter material with commonly used combination double-layer air filter materials, and the following preliminary conclusions were obtained:
1. From our results, it is evident that the thickness of the single-layer rGO filter material is 19.14 mm less than that of the composite double-layer filter material, and the volume is reduced by 70.89% under the same size.
2. The atmosphere in Xi’an is mainly composed of particles smaller than 0.54 μm in size. The filtration performance of single-layer rGO filter materials is slightly lower than that of composite double-layer filter materials, with differences of only 7.18%, 4.97%, and 4.54% in filtration efficiency for PM10, PM2.5, and PM1.0. For particles below 0.65 μm in size, however, there is a significant difference in filtration efficiency, with that of single-layer rGO filter materials being 20.57% higher than that of combined double-layer filter materials.
3. The resistance of single-layer rGO filter materials is significantly lower than the total resistance of composite filter materials, with a difference of 21.5–40.2 Pa.
4. At the optimal filtration velocity, the QF values of single-layer rGO filter materials for PM10, PM2.5, and PM1.0 are 0.0017 Pa−1, 0.0009 Pa−1, and 0.0005 Pa−1 higher than those of composite double-layer filter materials. The comprehensive evaluation shows that the single-layer rGO filter material exhibits more advantages, thus providing a solid theoretical basis and data support for the rational selection of air filter materials in building ventilation systems under low-carbon targets. Concurrently, it also provides reference value for changing the format of existing combination filters and promoting new materials, thereby realizing the advantages of small filter volume, simple structure, and convenient installation and operation, making them more user friendly and simplified.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.W. and X.Z.; methodology, X.Z.; investigation, F.X. and W.W.; data curation, W.W.; writing—original draft preparation, X.Z. and F.X.; writing—review and editing, X.Z. and F.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Shaanxi Provincial Department of Science and Technology Project (No. 2024JC-YBQN-0733), the Natural Science Basic Research Program of Shaanxi Province (No. 2024JC-YBQN-0453), the Independent Research and Development project of State Key Laboratory of Green Building (Project No. LSZZ-Y202422), the Key Scientific Research Project of CCCC Second Highway Engineering Co., Ltd. (No. 2021X-5-21), the Shaanxi Provincial Department of Education Service Local Special Plan Project (No. 24JC050), and XI’AN JIANDA INSTITUTE OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN CO., LTD (Program No. X20240067).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Kaydi, N.; Jorfi, S.; Takdastan, A.; Haghighifard, N.J.; Khafaie, M.A. Morphological and chemical analysis of indoor airborne microplastics: Implications for human health in Ahvaz, Iran. Environ. Geochem. Health 2025, 47, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gilbert, J.A.; Hartmann, E.M. The indoors microbiome and human health. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2024, 22, 742–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Fan, H.; Zhao, C.; Yang, Y.; Yang, X. Rapid reduction of air pollution and short-term exposure risks in China. J. Environ. Sci. 2025, 149, 126–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bagheri, G.; Schlenczek, O.; Turco, L.; Thiede, B.; Stieger, K.; Kosub, J.M.; Clauberg, S.; Pöhlker, M.L.; Pöhlker, C.; Moláček, J.; et al. Size, concentration, and origin of human exhaled particles and their dependence on human factors with implications on infection transmission. J. Aerosol Sci. 2023, 168, 106102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wang, Q.; Du, Z. Exploring the Coexistence Between New Quality Productive Force Developments, Human Capital Level Improvements and Time Poverty from a Time Utilization Perspective. Sustainability 2025, 17, 930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zacharias, N.; Haag, A.; Brang-Lamprecht, R.; Gebel, J.; Essert, S.M.; Kistemann, T.; Exner, M.; Mutters, N.T.; Engelhart, S. Air filtration as a tool for the reduction of viral aerosols. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 772, 144956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Asaoka, R.; Umishio, W.; Kagi, N.; Hayashi, M.; Sawachi, T.; Ueno, T. Office environments and worker satisfaction with thermal and air environments during and after the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan. Build. Environ. 2025, 268, 112349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bao, Y.Q.; Song, X.R.; Su, H.L.; Yu, Z.C.; Sun, Q.H.; Wang, Z.D. Optimal scheduling of combined air conditioner and fresh air system for price-based demand response. Sustain. Energy Grids 2025, 42, 101637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhou, Z.; You, T.; Wang, D.; Pan, Z.; Xu, G.; Liang, Y.; Tang, M. Conformal build-up of functionalized air filters with improved air cleaning and bioprotective traps. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2024, 34, 2306777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Berry, G.; Beckman, I.; Cho, H. A comprehensive review of particle loading models of fibrous air filters. J. Aerosol Sci. 2023, 167, 106078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yeganeh, F.; Chiewchan, N.; Chonkaew, W. Cellulose nanofiber/polyimide composites for highly-efficient air filters. Cellulose 2023, 30, 4421–4436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tian, X.; Ou, Q.; Pei, C.; Li, Z.; Liu, J.; Liang, Y.; Pui, D.Y. Effect of main-stage filter media selection on the loading performance of a two-stage filtration system. Build. Environ. 2021, 195, 107745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Keyvani, S.; Golbabaei, F.; Neisiany, R.E.; Das, O.; Pourmand, M.R.; Kalantary, S. Filtration Performance of Biodegradable Electrospun Nanofibrous Membrane for Sub-Micron Particles: A Systematic Review. Macromol. Mater. Eng. 2025, 310, 2400323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Garfansa, M.P.; Zalizar, L.; Husen, S.; Triwanto, J.; Iswahyudi, I.; Bakhtiar, A.; Lasaksi, P.; Ekalaturrahmah, Y.A.C. Addition of biochar based-activated carbon into sand filtration columns to improved removal efficiency microplastic from water. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2025, 30, 102099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gao, N.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, R.; Zhao, Y.; Li, X.P.; Li, H.; Shao, J.; Gao, J.; He, X.; Shi, B.; et al. Fully-biodegradable and self-powered intelligent filter assembled by fibrous cellulose and MOF-functionalized poly (lactic acid) core–shell nanofibers for active PM capturing and passive respiratory sensing. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2025, 31, 144118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pi, P.; Ren, Z.; Pan, L.; Lin, Y.; Yang, Y.; Li, Y. Composite dimensional structure superhydrophilic-underwater superoleophobic material for efficient separation of oil-in-water emulsions. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2025, 362, 131623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Nie, J.; Sun, B.; Jiao, T.; Liao, J.; Zhang, M.; Yang, R.; Li, Y. Biodegradable air filter with electrospun composite nanofibers and cellulose fibers dual network: Enhanced electrostatic adsorption, humidity resistance, and extended service life. J. Hazard. Mater. 2025, 489, 137557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yan, N.; Gao, T.; Hua, L.; Xie, F.; Liu, R.X.; Hu, D.G.; Lu, Z.Q. Highly electrostatic cellulose acetate materials assisted by copper ion coordination for air filtration. Chem. Eng. J. 2025, 505, 159848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wu, Z.-T.; Chen, X.; Li, G.-X.; Tian, L.; Wang, Z.; Xiong, X.-Q.; Yang, C.; Zhou, Z.-J.; Pan, X.-C. Attributable risk and economic cost of hospital admissions for mental disorders due to PM2.5 in Beijing. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 718, 137274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bian, Y.; Niu, Z.-L.; Wang, S.-J.; Pan, Y.; Zhang, L.; Chen, C. Removal of Size-Dependent Submicron Particles Using Metal–Organic Framework-Based Nanofiber Air Filters. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2022, 14, 23570–23576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Xu, C.; Jiang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Zhu, G.; Zhu, X.; Zhao, Y.; Li, X.P.; Zhang, S.; Li, H.; Xu, L.; et al. Lotus leaf-inspired poly (lactic acid) nanofibrous membranes with enhanced humidity resistance for superefficient PM filtration and high-sensitivity passive monitoring. J. Hazard. Mater. 2025, 488, 137516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Abbas, W.A.; Shaheen, B.S.; Ghanem, L.G.; Badawy, I.M.; Abodouh, M.M.; Abdou, S.M.; Zada, S.; Allam, N.K. Cost-Effective Face Mask Filter Based on Hybrid Composite Nanofibrous Layers with High Filtration Efficiency. Langmuir 2021, 37, 7492–7502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chen, C.; Shen, L.; Wang, B.; Lu, X.; Raza, S.; Xu, J.; Li, B.; Lin, H.; Chen, B. Environmental applications of metal–organic framework-based three-dimensional macrostructures: A review. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2025, 54, 2208–2245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhang, X.; Ma, J.Y.; Nie, X.X.; Fan, Y.S.; Wang, H.; Cui, Y. Establishment of air fiber filtration model based on fractal theory and analysis of filtration performances. Mater. Today Commun. 2023, 34, 105301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lin, X.; Sun, W.; Lin, M.; Chen, T.; Duan, K.; Lin, H.; Zhang, C.; Qi, H. Bicomponent core/sheath melt-blown fibers for air filtration with ultra-low resistance. RSC Adv. 2024, 14, 14100–14113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Meng, H.; Liu, J.; Shang, W.; Xu, J.; Jia, L. Multi-Agent Distributed Control Method for Clean Air-Conditioning Systems: Balancing Cleanliness, Pressure and Energy Consumption. J. Build. Eng. 2025, 107, 112806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Park, S.S.; Lee, Y.S.; Lee, S.W.; Repo, E.; Kim, T.H.; Park, Y.; Hwang, Y. Facile Surface Treatment of 3D-Printed PLA Filter for Enhanced Graphene Oxide Doping and Effective Removal of Cationic Dyes. Polymers 2023, 15, 269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Shi, S.; Bai, W.; Chen, X.; Si, Y.; Zhi, C.; Wu, H.; Su, Y.; Cai, W.; Fei, B.; Kan, C.W.; et al. Advances in nanofiber filtration membranes: From principles to intelligent applications. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2025, 35, 2423284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Jepleting, A.; Mecha, A.C.; Sombei, D.; Moraa, D.; Chollom, M.N. Potential of low-cost materials for biogas purification, a review of recent developments. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2025, 210, 115152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mortazavi, B. Recent advances in machine learning-assisted multiscale design of energy materials. Adv. Energy Mater. 2025, 15, 2403876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Grubman-Nowak, M.; Szafran-Dobrowolska, J.; Jeżewska, M.; Renke, M. Quality of life, well-being and job satisfaction of people working at sea: Analysis of working conditions pre and post COVID-19 pandemic. Int. Marit. Health Found. 2025, 76, 20. [Google Scholar]
  32. Zhang, T.; Lv, J.J.; Dang, Y.; Gao, Z.; Wang, H.; Cao, J.W.; Zhang, G.H.; Rao, H.; Pan, F.P.; Chen, K.J. High-throughput computational screening-driven porous material discovery for benchmark propylene/propane separation. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2025, 35, 2412457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Behroozi, A.H.; Meunier, L.; Mirahsani, A.; Champagne, P.; Koupaie, E.H. Graphene-based materials and technologies for the treatment of PFAS in water: A review of recent developments. J. Hazard. Mater. Adv. 2025, 17, 100626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yu, Y.; Liu, X.; Lu, D.; Liu, T.; Li, Y.; Wu, Z. Recent progress in graphene based materials for high-performance electromagnetic shielding. Carbon 2025, 236, 120093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Guo, E.; Zhang, W.; Lai, J.; Hu, H.; Xue, F.; Su, X. Enhancement of Cement-Based Materials: Mechanisms, Impacts, and Applications of Carbon Nanotubes in Microstructural Modification. Buildings 2025, 15, 1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sun, Z.; Wang, Y.; Jiang, X.; Bando, Y.; Wang, X. 3D network of graphene materials for alkali metal ion batteries. EnergyChem 2025, 7, 100149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Feng, W.; Sui, X.; Zhu, J.; Meng, C.; Li, Y.; Guo, X.; Wu, B.; Wang, Z. Bifunctional surface engineering of reduced graphene oxides to overcome electrode mismatch in sodium-ion hybrid capacitors. J. Power Sources 2025, 644, 237155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Nassar, A.A.; Mubarak, M.F.; El-Sawaf, A.K.; Zayed, M.A.; Hemdan, M. Efficient lead ion removal from aqueous solutions for wastewater treatment using a novel cross-linked alginate-rice husk ash-graphene oxide-chitosan nanocomposite. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2025, 284, 137983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Demir, G.; Gezmis-Yavuz, E.; Zembat, A.A.; Koseoglu-Imer, D.Y.; Cansoy, C.E. Fabrication of electrospun graphene-oxide embedded polyacrylonitrile composite nanofibers for air filtration. J. Macromol. Sci. A 2025, 62, 371–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kanchana, V.; Vasanthan, S.; Mayavan, L.; Kistan, A. A novel mesoporous Al2O3@ Graphene composite as photocatalyst for organic pollutant removal. J. Electron. Mater. 2025, 54, 2122–2134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wong, S.J.; Tan, H.; Kek, H.Y.; Othman, M.H.D.; Woon, K.S.; Wang, X.C.; Samad, W.M.A.W.A.; Wong, K.Y. Optimizing indoor air quality: Evaluating the synergistic impact of filter integration and botanical solutions. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2025, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Liu, S.; Dun, C.; Jiang, Q.; Xuan, Z.; Yang, F.; Guo, J.; Urban, J.J.; Swihart, M.T. Challenging thermodynamics: Combining immiscible elements in a single-phase nano-ceramic. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Li, H.; Bi, S.; Cai, J.; Chu, X.; Hou, G.; Zhang, J.; Wu, T. Reduced graphene oxide/nonwoven fabric filled honeycomb composite structure for broadband microwave absorption. Carbon 2024, 223, 119005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wu, X.; Zhang, X.; Yu, X.; Liang, H.; Tang, S.; Wang, Y. Exploring the association between air pollution and the incidence of liver cancers. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2025, 290, 117437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Tajik, S.; Jahangir, M.H. Innovative design, fabrication, and evaluation of an integrated smart green facade and photovoltaic: A double-layer air circulation system for air retention time expose to plants and PV cooling to enhance air purification. Energy Rep. 2025, 13, 4015–4033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Shafagh, S.G.; Kaatuzian, H.; Danaie, M. Design and analysis of optical devices with ultra-high quality factor based on a plasmonic photonic hybrid structure. Eng. Res. Express 2025, 7, 015356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wu, S.; Zhang, Z.; Chen, J.; Yao, Y.; Li, D. Characterisation of stress corrosion durability and time-dependent performance of cable bolts in underground mine environments. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2023, 150, 107292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wang, X.; Qiu, Z.; Gu, Q.; Wang, H.; Guo, J.; Li, X.; Deng, K.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, C.; Jiang, H.; et al. Wear failure of pipelines transporting cemented paste backfill: A review. Physics of Fluids. 2025, 37, 071309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wu, S.; Ma, X.; Zhang, X.; Chen, J.; Yao, Y.; Li, D. Investigation into hydrogen induced fracture of cable bolts under deep stress corrosion coupling conditions. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2024, 147, 105729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Processes 13 02746 g001
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the combination form.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the combination form.
Processes 13 02746 g001
Processes 13 02746 g002
Figure 2. Experimental operation diagram.
Figure 2. Experimental operation diagram.
Processes 13 02746 g002
Processes 13 02746 g003
Figure 3. Experimental system.
Figure 3. Experimental system.
Processes 13 02746 g003
Processes 13 02746 g004
Figure 4. Outdoor atmospheric particle size distribution.
Figure 4. Outdoor atmospheric particle size distribution.
Processes 13 02746 g004
Processes 13 02746 g005
Figure 5. Filtration efficiency at different filtration velocities. (A) Combination double-layer materials. (B) Single-layer rGO materials.
Figure 5. Filtration efficiency at different filtration velocities. (A) Combination double-layer materials. (B) Single-layer rGO materials.
Processes 13 02746 g005
Processes 13 02746 g006
Figure 6. Counting filtration efficiency of different filter materials.
Figure 6. Counting filtration efficiency of different filter materials.
Processes 13 02746 g006
Processes 13 02746 g007
Figure 7. Resistance changes in different filter materials.
Figure 7. Resistance changes in different filter materials.
Processes 13 02746 g007
Processes 13 02746 g008
Figure 8. QF values of different filter materials.
Figure 8. QF values of different filter materials.
Processes 13 02746 g008
Table 1. Summary of material-related parameters.
Table 1. Summary of material-related parameters.
Sample Size (cm) Fiber Diameter (μm) Filling Rate (%) Porosity (%)
G425 × 25 × 20.0032.12 ± 0.021.87 ± 0.0298.13 ± 0.02
F625 × 25 × 7.0027.64 ± 0.033.91 ± 0.0396.09 ± 0.03
rGO25 × 25 × 7.8621.86 ± 0.035.74 ± 0.0394.26 ± 0.03
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wei, W.; Xu, F.; Zhang, X. Filtration Performance Differences Between Single-Layer rGO Composite Materials and Commonly Used Combination Double-Layer Air Filter Materials Under Low-Carbon Targets. Processes 2025, 13, 2746. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13092746

AMA Style

Wei W, Xu F, Zhang X. Filtration Performance Differences Between Single-Layer rGO Composite Materials and Commonly Used Combination Double-Layer Air Filter Materials Under Low-Carbon Targets. Processes. 2025; 13(9):2746. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13092746

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wei, Wei, Fumin Xu, and Xin Zhang. 2025. "Filtration Performance Differences Between Single-Layer rGO Composite Materials and Commonly Used Combination Double-Layer Air Filter Materials Under Low-Carbon Targets" Processes 13, no. 9: 2746. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13092746

APA Style

Wei, W., Xu, F., & Zhang, X. (2025). Filtration Performance Differences Between Single-Layer rGO Composite Materials and Commonly Used Combination Double-Layer Air Filter Materials Under Low-Carbon Targets. Processes, 13(9), 2746. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13092746

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop