Simulated workplace protection factors for half-facepiece respiratory protective devices
- PMID: 17474032
- DOI: 10.1080/15459620701346925
Simulated workplace protection factors for half-facepiece respiratory protective devices
Abstract
This study investigates two different methods (random effects model and 5th percentile) for determining the performance of three types of respiratory protective devices (elastomeric N95 respirators, N95 filtering-facepiece respirators, and surgical masks) during a simulated workplace test. This study recalculated the protection level of three types of respiratory protective devices using the random effects model, compared the two methods with each other and the APF of 10 for half-facepiece respirators, and determined the value of each of the fit test protocols in attaining the desired level of simulated workplace protection factor (SWPF). Twenty-five test subjects with varying face sizes tested 15 models of elastomeric N95 respirators, 15 models of N95 filtering-facepiece respirators, and 6 models of surgical masks. Simulated workplace testing was conducted using a TSI PORTACOUNT Plus model 8020 and consisted of a series of seven exercises. Six simulated workplace tests were performed with redonning of the respirator/mask occurring between each test. Each of the six tests produced an SWPF. To determine the level of protection provided by the respiratory protective devices, a 90% lower confidence limit for the simulated workplace protection factor (SWPF(LCL90%)) and the 5th percentile of simulated workplace protection factor were computed. The 5th percentile method values could be up to seven times higher than the SWPF(LCL90%) values. Without fit testing, all half-facepiece N95 respirators had a 5th percentile of 4.6 and an SWPF(LCL90%) value of 2.7. N95 filtering-facepiece respirators as a class had values of 3.3 and 2.0, respectively, whereas N95 elastomeric respirators had values of 7.3 and 4.6, respectively. Surgical masks did not provide any protection, with values of 1.2 and 1.4, respectively. Passing either the Bitrex, saccharin, or Companion fit test resulted in the respirators providing the expected level of protection with 5th percentiles greater than or equal to 10 except when passing the Bitrex test with N95 filtering-facepiece respirators, which resulted in a 5th percentile of only 7.9. No substantial difference was seen between the three fit tests. All of the SWPF(LCL90%) values after passing a fit test were less than 10. The random model method provides a more conservative estimate of the protection provided by a respirator because it takes into account both between- and within-wearer variability.
Similar articles
-
Comparison of performance of three different types of respiratory protection devices.J Occup Environ Hyg. 2006 Sep;3(9):465-74. doi: 10.1080/15459620600829211. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2006. PMID: 16857645
-
Fitting characteristics of eighteen N95 filtering-facepiece respirators.J Occup Environ Hyg. 2004 Apr;1(4):262-71. doi: 10.1080/15459620490433799. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2004. PMID: 15204866
-
Comparison of five methods for fit-testing N95 filtering-facepiece respirators.Appl Occup Environ Hyg. 2002 Oct;17(10):723-30. doi: 10.1080/10473220290107002. Appl Occup Environ Hyg. 2002. PMID: 12363214
-
Field performance measurements of half-facepiece respirators: developing probability estimates to evaluate the adequacy of an APF of 10.Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1998 Nov;59(11):796-801. doi: 10.1080/15428119891010983. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1998. PMID: 9830088 Review.
-
Review of respirator performance testing in the workplace: issues and concerns.Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1992 Nov;53(11):705-12. doi: 10.1080/15298669291360409. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1992. PMID: 1442561 Review.
Cited by
-
The protective performance of reusable cloth face masks, disposable procedure masks, KN95 masks and N95 respirators: Filtration and total inward leakage.PLoS One. 2021 Oct 6;16(10):e0258191. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258191. eCollection 2021. PLoS One. 2021. PMID: 34614026 Free PMC article.
-
Particle sizes of infectious aerosols: implications for infection control.Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Sep;8(9):914-924. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30323-4. Epub 2020 Jul 24. Lancet Respir Med. 2020. PMID: 32717211 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Particle Size-Selective Assessment of Protection of European Standard FFP Respirators and Surgical Masks against Particles-Tested with Human Subjects.J Healthc Eng. 2016;2016:8572493. doi: 10.1155/2016/8572493. J Healthc Eng. 2016. PMID: 27195721 Free PMC article.
-
Health effects of wildfire smoke in children and public health tools: a narrative review.J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2021 Feb;31(1):1-20. doi: 10.1038/s41370-020-00267-4. Epub 2020 Sep 20. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2021. PMID: 32952154 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Air seal performance of personalized and statistically shaped 3D-printed face masks compared with market-available surgical and FFP2 masks.Sci Rep. 2021 Sep 29;11(1):19347. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-98963-0. Sci Rep. 2021. PMID: 34588584 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical