Literature DB >> 11669385

Simulated workplace protection factor study of powered air-purifying and supplied air respirators.

H J Cohen1, L H Hecker, D K Mattheis, J S Johnson, A H Biermann, K L Foote.   

Abstract

A study protocol was developed to obtain simulated workplace protection factor (SWPF) data for eleven models of powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) and supplied-air respirators (SAR) with hoods and helmets. Respirators were tested in a chamber that allowed the simulation of 12 exercises, including 2 exercises of interest to the pharmaceutical industry. Each respirator was tested by 12 volunteers, and a total of 144 sets of test results were obtained for each device. The testing protocol allowed SWPFs up to 250,000 to be measured (limit of quantification). Median SWPFs for all respirators, except one SAR, were at or above this reporting limit. Lower fifth percentiles were above 100,000, except for one SAR previously noted. An assigned protection factor (APF) was estimated for each respirator by dividing the lower fifth percentile by a safety factor of 25. APFs ranged from 6000-10,000 for PAPRs (including one loose-fitting PAPR) and 3400-10,000 for SARs, with one exception. This SAR had a lower fifth percentile of less than 20 and an estimated APF of 1. Results indicated that most respirators tested could provide a high degree of protection for workers, although one National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health-approved SAR provided minimal, if any, protection. Direct testing in a simulated workplace seems the only method that will assure employers of choosing an adequate SAR. This may be true for other classes of respirators. Furthermore, the historical approach of establishing APFs for classes of respirators, rather than individual models, may not provide adequate protection to the wearer. This is also a serious problem for regulatory agencies seeking to promulgate respirator standard provisions such as APFs for classes of respirators.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11669385     DOI: 10.1080/15298660108984658

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AIHAJ        ISSN: 1529-8663


  7 in total

Review 1.  Respiratory protective equipment.

Authors:  R M Howie
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 4.402

2.  Protection factor for N95 filtering facepiece respirators exposed to laboratory aerosols containing different concentrations of nanoparticles.

Authors:  Samy Rengasamy; Gary Walbert; William Newcomb; Christopher Coffey; James Terrence Wassell; Jonathan Szalajda
Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg       Date:  2014-11-25

3.  Are quantitative fit factors predictive of respirator fit during simulated healthcare activities?

Authors:  Margaret Sietsema; Lisa M Brosseau
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 2.155

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

Authors:  Mike Bergman; Rohan Basu; Zhipeng Lei; George Niezgoda; Ziqing Zhuang
Journal:  J Int Soc Respir Prot       Date:  2017

5.  Assessment of Two Personal Breathing Recording Devices in a Simulated Healthcare Environment.

Authors:  Jintuo Zhu; Xinjian He; Steven Guffey; Michael S Bergman; Eun G Lee; Ziqing Zhuang
Journal:  J Int Soc Respir Prot       Date:  2018

6.  Breathing simulator of workers for respirator performance test.

Authors:  Hisashi Yuasa; Mikio Kumita; Takeshi Honda; Kazushi Kimura; Kosuke Nozaki; Hitoshi Emi; Yoshio Otani
Journal:  Ind Health       Date:  2014-11-08       Impact factor: 2.179

Review 7.  Evaluation of the rationale for concurrent use of N95 filtering facepiece respirators with loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirators during aerosol-generating medical procedures.

Authors:  Raymond J Roberge
Journal:  Am J Infect Control       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.918

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.