Literature DB >> 17474032

Simulated workplace protection factors for half-facepiece respiratory protective devices.

Matthew G Duling1, Robert B Lawrence, James E Slaven, Christopher C Coffey.   

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.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17474032     DOI: 10.1080/15459620701346925

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg        ISSN: 1545-9624            Impact factor:   2.155


  15 in total

1.  A comparison of total inward leakage measured using sodium chloride (NaCl) and corn oil aerosol methods for air-purifying respirators.

Authors:  Samy Rengasamy; Ziqing Zhuang; George Niezgoda; Gary Walbert; Robert Lawrence; Brenda Boutin; Judith Hudnall; William P Monaghan; Michael Bergman; Colleen Miller; James Harris; Christopher Coffey
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 2.155

2.  The history of the evaluation of particulate respirator fitting characteristics in U.S. approval requirements.

Authors:  Christopher Coffey; Colleen Miller; Jonathan Szalajda
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2021-10-14       Impact factor: 3.359

Review 3.  Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jeffrey D Smith; Colin C MacDougall; Jennie Johnstone; Ray A Copes; Brian Schwartz; Gary E Garber
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2016-03-07       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  The Respirator Fit Capability Test: Enhancing the Efficacy of Filtering Facepiece Respirators.

Authors:  Christopher Coffey; Colleen Miller
Journal:  Synergist (Akron)       Date:  2019-08

5.  A technique to measure respirator protection factors against aerosol particles in simulated workplace settings using portable instruments.

Authors:  Evanly Vo; Matthew Horvatin; Michael Bergman; Bingbing Wu; Ziqing Zhuang
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2020-04-03       Impact factor: 3.359

6.  Comparison of Simulated Workplace Protection Factors Offered by N95 and P100 Filtering Facepiece and Elastomeric Half-Mask Respirators against Particles of 10 to 400 nm.

Authors:  Xinjian He; Evanly Vo; M Horvatin; Y Liu; M Bergman; Z Zhuang
Journal:  J Nanotechnol Mater Sci       Date:  2015-09-07

7.  The Respiratory Protection Effectiveness Clinical Trial (ResPECT): a cluster-randomized comparison of respirator and medical mask effectiveness against respiratory infections in healthcare personnel.

Authors:  Lewis J Radonovich; Mary T Bessesen; Derek A Cummings; Aaron Eagan; Charlotte Gaydos; Cynthia Gibert; Geoffrey J Gorse; Ann-Christine Nyquist; Nicholas G Reich; Maria Rodrigues-Barradas; Connie Savor-Price; Ronald E Shaffer; Michael S Simberkoff; Trish M Perl
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2016-06-02       Impact factor: 3.090

8.  The education and practice program for medical students with quantitative and qualitative fit test for respiratory protective equipment.

Authors:  Jun-Pyo Myong; JunSu Byun; YounMo Cho; Hye-Kyung Seo; Jung-Eun Baek; Jung-Wan Koo; Hyunwook Kim
Journal:  Ind Health       Date:  2015-11-03       Impact factor: 2.179

9.  The use of respirators to reduce inhalation of airborne biological agents.

Authors:  Larry Janssen; Harry Ettinger; Stephan Graham; Ronald Shaffer; Ziqing Zhuang
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 2.155

10.  Particle Size-Selective Assessment of Protection of European Standard FFP Respirators and Surgical Masks against Particles-Tested with Human Subjects.

Authors:  Shu-An Lee; Dong-Chir Hwang; He-Yi Li; Chieh-Fu Tsai; Chun-Wan Chen; Jen-Kun Chen
Journal:  J Healthc Eng       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 2.682

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.