Literature DB >> 27717300

Comparison of qualitative and quantitative fit-testing results for three commonly used respirators in the healthcare sector.

Chun-Yip Hon1,2, Quinn Danyluk3, Elizabeth Bryce4, Bob Janssen5, Mike Neudorf3, Annalee Yassi6, Hui Shen6, George Astrakianakis6.   

Abstract

N95 filtering facepiece respirators are used by healthcare workers when there is a risk of exposure to airborne hazards during aerosol-generating procedures. Respirator fit-testing is required prior to use to ensure that the selected respirator provides an adequate face seal. Two common fit-test methods can be employed: qualitative fit-test (QLFT) or quantitative fit-test (QNFT). Respiratory protection standards deem both fit-tests to be acceptable. However, previous studies have indicated that fit-test results may differ between QLFT and QNFT and that the outcomes may also be influenced by the type of respirator model. The aim of this study was to determine if there is a difference in fit-test outcomes with our suite of respirators, 3M - 1860S, 1860, AND 1870, and whether the model impacts the fit-test results. Subjects were recruited from residential care facilities. Each participant was assigned a respirator and underwent sequential QLFT and QNFT fit-tests and the results (either pass or fail) were recorded. To ascertain the degree of agreement between the two fit-tests, a Kappa (Κ) statistic was conducted as per the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) respiratory protection standard. The pass-fail rates were stratified by respirator model and a Kappa statistic was calculated for each to determine effect of model on fit-test outcomes. We had 619 participants and the aggregate Κ statistic for all respirators was 0.63 which is below the suggested ANSI threshold of 0.70. There was no statistically significant difference in results when stratified by respirator model. QNFT and QLFT produced different fit-test outcomes for the three respirator models examined. The disagreement in outcomes between the two fit-test methods with our suite of N95 filtering facepiece respirators was approximately 12%. Our findings may benefit other healthcare organizations that use these three respirators.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Healthcare workers; Kappa statistic; N95 filtering facepiece respirator; respirator fit-testing

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27717300     DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2016.1237030

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


  13 in total

1.  Improving the fit of filtering facepiece respirators.

Authors:  Kamini Shah; Stefan Serban; Gail V A Douglas
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2022-08-05       Impact factor: 2.727

2.  Frame to Improve the Fit of N95 Filtering Face Mask Respirators.

Authors:  Daniel Stemen; Marshall Ge; Darryl Hwang; Burhan Qaddoumi; Mark Roden; Neha Nanda; Elisabeth Ference
Journal:  J Occup Environ Med       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 2.306

3.  Fit Testing Retrofitted Full-Face Snorkel Masks as a Form of Novel Personal Protective Equipment During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Authors:  Stephanie Toigo; Michel Jacques; Tarek Razek; Ewa Rajda; Sidney Omelon; Frederic Dankoff; Rami Tohme; Patricia Lefebvre; Dan L Deckelbaum
Journal:  Disaster Med Public Health Prep       Date:  2021-04-30       Impact factor: 1.385

4.  Characterization of small-to-medium head-and-face dimensions for developing respirator fit test panels and evaluating fit of filtering facepiece respirators with different faceseal design.

Authors:  Yi-Chun Lin; Chen-Peng Chen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-11-27       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Subject validation of reusable N95 stop-gap filtering facepiece respirators in COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  William C K Ng; Arnaud Romeo Mbadjeu Hondjeu; Andrew Syrett; Rebecca Caragata; Dmitry Rozenberg; Zixuan Xiao; Vahid Anwari; Jessica Trac; Azad Mashari
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-11-13       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  The critical importance of mask seals on respirator performance: An analytical and simulation approach.

Authors:  Mingxin Xu; Peter Lee; David Collins
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-02-17       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Comparing the quantitative fit-testing results of half-mask respirators with various skin barriers in a crossover study design: a pilot study.

Authors:  R S Trehan; E P McDonnell; J V McCoy; P A Ohman-Strickland; C Donovan; T R Quinoa; D S Morrison
Journal:  J Hosp Infect       Date:  2021-02-15       Impact factor: 3.926

8.  Evaluation of N95 respirators, modified snorkel masks and low-cost powered air-purifying respirators: a prospective observational cohort study in healthcare workers.

Authors:  D Clinkard; A Mashari; K Karkouti; L Fedorko
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2021-01-20       Impact factor: 12.893

9.  Do Various Respirator Models Fit the Workers in the Norwegian Smelting Industry?

Authors:  Solveig Foereland; Oeystein Robertsen; Marit Noest Hegseth
Journal:  Saf Health Work       Date:  2019-06-19

Review 10.  Rapid Review of SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 Viability, Susceptibility to Treatment, and the Disinfection and Reuse of PPE, Particularly Filtering Facepiece Respirators.

Authors:  José G B Derraik; William A Anderson; Elizabeth A Connelly; Yvonne C Anderson
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-08-22       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.