Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017;34(1):40-57.

Development of a Manikin-Based Performance Evaluation Method for Loose-Fitting Powered Air-Purifying Respirators

Mike Bergman  1 , Rohan Basu  1 , Zhipeng Lei  1 , George Niezgoda  1 , Ziqing Zhuang  1
Affiliations

Development of a Manikin-Based Performance Evaluation Method for Loose-Fitting Powered Air-Purifying Respirators

Mike Bergman et al. J Int Soc Respir Prot. 2017.

Abstract

Objective: Loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) are increasingly being used in healthcare. NIOSH has previously used advanced manikin headforms to develop methods to evaluate filtering facepiece respirator fit; research has now begun to develop methods to evaluate PAPR performance using headforms. This preliminary study investigated the performance of PAPRs at different work rates to support development of a manikin-based test method.

Methods: Manikin penetration factors (mPF) of three models of loose-fitting PAPRs were measured at four different work rates (REST: 11 Lpm, LOW: 25 Lpm, MODERATE: 48 Lpm, and HIGH: 88 Lpm) using a medium-sized NIOSH static advanced headform mounted onto a torso. In-mask differential pressure was monitored throughout each test. Two condensation particle counters were used to measure the sodium chloride aerosol concentrations in the test chamber and also inside the PAPR facepiece over a 2-minute sample period. Two test system configurations were evaluated for returning air to the headform in the exhalation cycle (filtered and unfiltered). Geometric mean (GM) and 5th percentile mPFs for each model/work rate combination were computed. Analysis of variance tests were used to assess the variables affecting mPF.

Results: PAPR model, work rate, and test configuration significantly affected PAPR performance. PAPR airflow rates for the three models were approximately 185, 210, and 235 Lpm. All models achieved GM mPFs and 5th percentile mPFs greater than their designated Occupational Safety and Health Administration assigned protection factors despite negative minimum pressures observed for some work rate/model combinations.

Conclusions: PAPR model, work rate, and test configuration affect PAPR performance. Advanced headforms have potential for assessing PAPR performance once test methods can be matured. A manikin-based inward leakage test method for PAPRs can be further developed using the knowledge gained from this study. Future studies should vary PAPR airflow rate to better understand the effects on performance. Additional future research is needed to evaluate the correlation of PAPR performance using advanced headforms to the performance measured with human subjects.

Keywords: NIOSH-approved respirator; PAPR; powered air-purifying respirator; respirator performance.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. PAPR Models.
a.) Sentinel XLTM with S-2019-10 hood (one size only) b.) 3M Air-MateTM with model BE-12 facepiece (size Regular) (3M Company, St. Paul, MN) c.) MaxAir® 78SP-36 cuff system with disposable cuff (size ML) (Bio-Medical Devices, Inc., Irvine, CA) (credits for all photos: NIOSH)
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Experimental set up for PAPR inward leakage testing.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.. Placement of in-mask sampling tubes.
a. Sample tube extending into facepiece for particle sampling. The inlet was located ~1 cm from the headform’s surface at the point midway between the bottom of the nose and upper lip. b. Sample tube extending into facepiece for differential pressure measurement. The inlet was located ~2.5 cm in front of mouth opening (photo credit: NIOSH).
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Airflow Test System for a) Loose-fitting hood and facepiece style PAPRs and b) Loose-fitting helmet style PAPRs.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Summary of Mean In-mask Pressures.
Figure 6.
Figure 6.
Summary of Minimum In-mask Pressures.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Adams WC (1993). Measurement of breathing rate and volume in routinely performed daily activities. Final report. California Air Resources Board, California Environmental Protection Agency: Contract No. A033–205.
    1. Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Herrmann SD, et al. (2011) 2011 Compendium of Physical Activities: a second update of codes and MET values. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 43(8): 1575–1581. - PubMed
    1. Anderson NJ, Casidy PE, Janssen LL, et al. (2006). Peak inspiratory flows of adults exercising at light, loderate and heavy work Loads. J. Int. Soc. Resp. Protect. 23(Spring-Summer): 53–63.
    1. Bergman M, He X, Joseph M, et al. (2015). Correlation of respirator fit measured on human subjects and a static advanced headform. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 12(3): 163–171. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bergman M, Zhuang Z, Hanson D, et al. (2014). Development of an advanced respirator fit-test headform. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 11(2): 117–125. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources