Cynthia Danisile Vuma1,2, Jeanneth Manganyi2,3, Kerry Wilson2,3, David Rees2,3. 1. Department of Labour, Inspections and Enforcement Services, Mpumalanga Provincial Office, Witbank, South Africa. 2. Division of Occupational Health, School of Public Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. 3. National Institute for Occupational Health, National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) are widely used in healthcare to reduce transmission of airborne infectious diseases. These respirators are generally described as single use or limited reuse devices, but cost and operational issues mean that they may be donned and doffed multiple times. There is scant research on the effect of this practice on adequacy of fit. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to measure the effect on respirator fit of multiple donning and doffing of N95 FFRs. METHODS: This was an experiment in which 16 women and 9 men employed by the National Institute for Occupational Health (NIOH), Johannesburg, donned their same N95 FFR six times. All 25 were trained in the correct wearing of the devices before the experiment. Four models of respirators were used: the six who did not use respirators at work (novice subjects) were issued a 3M 1860 FFR and the others used their currently supplied one. During the experiment subjects donned their respirators under the supervision of the tester. Quantitative fit testing was done in the NIOH Occupational Hygiene laboratory after each donning according to the OSHA-Accepted Fit Test Protocol using the TSI PortaCount Pro+ Model 8038 Respirator Fit Tester. During the test, fit was measured after each of seven exercises and then an overall fit factor was computed. Only individuals who achieved an initial overall fit factor of ≥100 were allowed to continue participation in the study. Median overall fit factors were calculated for the 25 subjects for each donning and changes across them was examined using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Men and women and frequent and infrequent users were compared across the six tests. Infrequent use was defined as subjects who wore respirators ≤ once per week, and novice subjects. RESULTS: Two subjects (8%) had an overall fit factor <100 at fit Test 2, 6 (24%) at Test 3, and 8 (32%) at Tests 4, 5, and 6. Thirteen respirator users (52%) achieved ≥100 throughout the fit testing, so 12 had at least one failure at either Tests 2-6. Five of the 12 subjects with at least one failure showed persistent failures on all subsequent donnings. Six subjects out of 12 (50%) who failed a fit test achieved an overall fit factor >100 at a subsequent test. There was a significant difference between the median first and sixth overall fit factors (195 versus 150; P = 0.0271), but not between the second and sixth (161 versus 150; P = 0.3584). Men and women had similar overall fit factors, but infrequent users had larger average overall fit factors than frequent users after all six donnings. CONCLUSION: Forty-eight percent of study subjects failed at least one fit test after re-donning an N95 FFR. The fit test data suggest that donning practices probably accounted for the fit test failures. The 50% of subjects who produced overall fit factors ≥100 after a test of <100 supports this contention.
BACKGROUND: N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) are widely used in healthcare to reduce transmission of airborne infectious diseases. These respirators are generally described as single use or limited reuse devices, but cost and operational issues mean that they may be donned and doffed multiple times. There is scant research on the effect of this practice on adequacy of fit. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to measure the effect on respirator fit of multiple donning and doffing of N95 FFRs. METHODS: This was an experiment in which 16 women and 9 men employed by the National Institute for Occupational Health (NIOH), Johannesburg, donned their same N95 FFR six times. All 25 were trained in the correct wearing of the devices before the experiment. Four models of respirators were used: the six who did not use respirators at work (novice subjects) were issued a 3M 1860 FFR and the others used their currently supplied one. During the experiment subjects donned their respirators under the supervision of the tester. Quantitative fit testing was done in the NIOH Occupational Hygiene laboratory after each donning according to the OSHA-Accepted Fit Test Protocol using the TSI PortaCount Pro+ Model 8038 Respirator Fit Tester. During the test, fit was measured after each of seven exercises and then an overall fit factor was computed. Only individuals who achieved an initial overall fit factor of ≥100 were allowed to continue participation in the study. Median overall fit factors were calculated for the 25 subjects for each donning and changes across them was examined using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Men and women and frequent and infrequent users were compared across the six tests. Infrequent use was defined as subjects who wore respirators ≤ once per week, and novice subjects. RESULTS: Two subjects (8%) had an overall fit factor <100 at fit Test 2, 6 (24%) at Test 3, and 8 (32%) at Tests 4, 5, and 6. Thirteen respirator users (52%) achieved ≥100 throughout the fit testing, so 12 had at least one failure at either Tests 2-6. Five of the 12 subjects with at least one failure showed persistent failures on all subsequent donnings. Six subjects out of 12 (50%) who failed a fit test achieved an overall fit factor >100 at a subsequent test. There was a significant difference between the median first and sixth overall fit factors (195 versus 150; P = 0.0271), but not between the second and sixth (161 versus 150; P = 0.3584). Men and women had similar overall fit factors, but infrequent users had larger average overall fit factors than frequent users after all six donnings. CONCLUSION: Forty-eight percent of study subjects failed at least one fit test after re-donning an N95 FFR. The fit test data suggest that donning practices probably accounted for the fit test failures. The 50% of subjects who produced overall fit factors ≥100 after a test of <100 supports this contention.
Authors: David H Ballard; Udayabhanu Jammalamadaka; Kathleen W Meacham; Mark J Hoegger; Broc A Burke; Jason A Morris; Alexander R Scott; Zachary O'Connor; Connie Gan; Jesse Hu; Karthik Tappa; Richard L Wahl; Pamela K Woodard Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2020-11-21 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Malia McAvoy; Ai-Tram N Bui; Christopher Hansen; Deborah Plana; Jordan T Said; Zizi Yu; Helen Yang; Jacob Freake; Christopher Van; David Krikorian; Avilash Cramer; Leanne Smith; Liwei Jiang; Karen J Lee; Sara J Li; Brandon Beller; Michael Short; Sherry H Yu; Arash Mostaghimi; Peter K Sorger; Nicole R LeBoeuf Journal: medRxiv Date: 2020-07-26
Authors: Anne M Grillet; Martin B Nemer; Steven Storch; Andres L Sanchez; Edward S Piekos; Jonathan Leonard; Ivy Hurwitz; Douglas J Perkins Journal: Exp Biol Med (Maywood) Date: 2020-12-16
Authors: Ronald Check; Brian Kelly; Kathleen McMahon; Vamsi Balakrishnan; Leah Rivard; Johnathan Pester; Donald Jeanmonod; Rebecca K Jeanmonod Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2021-04-19
Authors: Benjamin E Steinberg; Kazuyoshi Aoyama; Mark McVey; David Levin; Asad Siddiqui; Farrukh Munshey; Neil M Goldenberg; David Faraoni; Jason T Maynes Journal: Can J Anaesth Date: 2020-07-27 Impact factor: 6.713
Authors: Abirami Kirubarajan; Shawn Khan; Tiffany Got; Matthew Yau; Jennifer M Bryan; Steven Marc Friedman Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-11-27 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Shadman Aziz; Yaseen M Arabi; Waleed Alhazzani; Laura Evans; Giuseppe Citerio; Katherine Fischkoff; Jorge Salluh; Geert Meyfroidt; Fayez Alshamsi; Simon Oczkowski; Elie Azoulay; Amy Price; Lisa Burry; Amy Dzierba; Andrew Benintende; Jill Morgan; Giacomo Grasselli; Andrew Rhodes; Morten H Møller; Larry Chu; Shelly Schwedhelm; John J Lowe; Du Bin; Michael D Christian Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2020-06-08 Impact factor: 41.787