Comparison of performance of three different types of respiratory protection devices

Respiratory protection is offered to American workers in a variety of ways to guard against potential inhalation hazards. Two of the most common ways are elastomeric N95 respirators and N95 filtering-facepiece respirators. Some in the health care industry feel that surgical masks provide an acceptable level of protection in certain situations against particular hazards. This study compared the performance of these types of respiratory protection during a simulated workplace test that measured both filter penetration and face-seal leakage. A panel of 25 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. The results of these tests produced a simulated workplace protection factor (SWPF). The geometric mean (GM) and the 5th percentile values of the SWPFs were computed by category of respiratory protection using the six overall SWPF values. The level of protection provided by each of the three respiratory protection types was compared. The GM and 5th percentile SWPF values without fit testing were used for the comparison, as surgical masks were not intended to be fit tested. The GM values were 36 for elastomeric N95 respirators, 21 for N95 filtering-facepiece respirators, and 3 for surgical masks. An analysis of variance demonstrated a statistically significant difference between all three. Elastomeric N95 respirators had the highest 5th percentile SWPF of 7. N95 filtering-facepiece respirators and surgical masks had 5th percentile SWPFs of 3 and 1, respectively. A Fisher Exact Test revealed that the 5th percentile SWPFs for all three types of respiratory protection were statistically different. In addition, both qualitative (Bitrex and saccharin) and quantitative (N95-Companion) fit testing were performed on the N95 filtering- and elastomeric-facepiece respirators. It was found that passing a fit test generally improves the protection afforded the wearer. Passing the Bitrex fit test resulted in 5th percentile SWPFs of 11.1 and 7.9 for elastomeric and filtering-facepiece respirators, respectively. After passing the saccharin tests, the elastomeric respirators provided a 5th percentile of 11.7, and the filtering-facepiece respirators provided a 5th percentile of 11.0. The 5th percentiles after passing the N95-Companion were 13.0 for the elastomeric respirators and 20.5 for the filtering-facepiece respirators. The data supports fit testing as an essential element of a complete respiratory protection program.     

Respiratory protection against Mycobacterium tuberculosis: quantitative fit test outcomes for five type N95 filtering-facepiece respirators

In preparing to fit test a large workforce, a respirator program manager needs to initially choose respirators that will fit the greatest proportion of employees and achieve the best fits. This article discusses our strategy in selecting respirators from an initial array of seven NIOSH-certified Type N95 filtering-facepiece devices for a respiratory protection program against Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M. tb) aerosol. The seven respirators were screened based on manufacturer-provided fit test data, comfort, and cost. From these 7 devices, 5 were chosen for quantitative fit testing on 40 subjects who were a convenience sample from a cohort of approximately 30,000 workers scheduled to undergo fit testing. Across the five brands, medium/regular-size respirators fit from 8% to 95% of the subjects; providing another size of the same brand improved the pass rates slightly. Gender was not found to significantly affect fit test pass rates for any respirator brand. Among test panel members, an Aearo Corporation respirator (TC 84A-2630) and a 3M Company respirator (TC 84A-0006) provided the highest overall pass rates of 98% and 90%, respectively. We selected these two brands for fit testing in the larger worker cohort. To date, these two respirators have provided overall pass rates of 98% (1793/1830) and 88% (50/57), respectively, which are similar to the test panel results. Among 1850 individuals who have been fit tested, 1843 (99.6%) have been successfully fitted with one or the other brand. In a separate analysis, we used the test panel pass rates to estimate the reduction in M. tb infection risk afforded by the medium/regular-size of five filtering-facepiece respirators. We posed a low-exposure versus a high-exposure scenario for health care workers and assumed that respirators could be assigned without conducting fit testing, as proposed by many hospital infection control practitioners. Among those who would pass versus fail the fit test, we assumed an average respirator penetration (primarily due to faceseal leakage) of .04 and 0.3, respectively. The respirator with the highest overall pass rate (95%) reduced M. tb infection risk by 95%, while the respirator with the lowest pass rate (8%) reduced M. tb infection risk by only 70%. To promote the marketing of respirators that will successfully fit the highest proportion of wearers, and to increase protection for workers who might use respirators without the benefit of being fit tested, we recommend that fit testing be part of the NIOSH certification process for negative-pressure air-purifying respirators with tightly fitting facepieces. At a minimum, we recommend that respirator manufacturers generate and provide pass rate data to assist in selecting candidate respirators. In any event, program managers can initially select candidate respirators by comparing quantitative fit tests for a representative sample of their employee population.     

Effects of a powered air-purifying respirator intervention on indium exposure reduction and indium related biomarkers among ITO sputter target manufacturing workers

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) worn by the workers, and to investigate the effect of this application on exposure and preclinical effects in terms of workplace measuring and biomarker monitoring in ITO sputter target manufacturing plants and workers, respectively. Fifty-four workers were recruited and investigated from 2010–2012, during which PAPRs were provided to on-site workers in September 2011. Each worker completed questionnaires and provided blood and urine samples for analysis of biomarkers of indium exposure and preclinical effects. Area and personal indium air samples were randomly collected from selected worksites and from participants. The penetration percentage of the respirator (concentration inside respirator divided by concentration outside respirator) was 6.6%. Some biomarkers, such as S-In, SOD, GPx, GST, MDA, and TMOM, reflected the decrease in exposure and showed lower levels, after implementation of PAPRs. This study is the first to investigate the efficacy of PAPRs for reducing indium exposure. The measurement results clearly showed that the implementation of PAPRs reduces levels of indium-related biomarkers. These findings have practical applications for minimizing occupational exposure to indium and for managing the health of workers exposed to indium.     

Simulated workplace protection factors for half-facepiece respiratory protective devices

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.     

Respirator Use Among US Farm Operators: Evidence from the 2006 Farm and Ranch Safety Survey

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study was to estimate the national prevalence of respirator use among primary farm operators in the United States. The authors analyzed the 2006 Farm and Ranch Safety Survey data collected for 12,278 actively farming primary farm operators. Weighted prevalence and adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs) of respirator use were calculated by farm operator characteristics, farm characteristics, and selected exposures/hazards. Of the estimated 2.1 million farm operators, 37.2% used a respirator on their farm. Respirator use prevalence was significantly higher among operators aged 16–34 years than those aged ≥65 years (46.9% vs. 30.0%; PR = 1.6); male than female operators (39.0% vs. 24.4%; PR = 1.6); operators managing crop farms than operators managing livestock farms (40.9% vs. 33.7%; PR = 1.2); and operators managing farms with value of sales ≥$100,000 than operators managing farms with value of sales ≤$9999 (57.4% vs. 31.4%; PR = 1.8). Of the operators who used a respirator, 69.9% used while working in a dusty environment, 22.6% used while applying/handling pesticides, and 30.4% used while doing other farm-related activities. These results show that an estimated one third of operators used respirators in 2006, and respirator use is most frequent among operators working in a dusty environment. Additional research identifying specific exposures for which respirators or dust masks are used, barriers to respirator or dust mask use, motivators for wearing respirators, and opportunities to increase the use of respiratory protection among farm operators, particularly on smaller farms, is needed.     

Recommendations for TB respiratory protection

After a long decline, tuberculosis is making a comeback. Because of this risk, several government agencies have developed in-depth recommendations designed to minimize the transmission of tuberculosis. 1990 CDC guidelines have formed the basis for most current recommendations, but those guidelines are undergoing revision. Great controversy surrounds the recommendations, particularly in the area of respiratory protection. According to NIOSH, the inability to adequately fit-test and fit-check disposable respirators is a major flaw that could compromise their ability to protect the wearer. OSHA has been enforcing guidelines for occupational exposure to TB under several existing standards, especially its respiratory protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134), and is currently enforcing the use of dust/mist/fume respirators. The agency can be expected to issue a National Compliance Directive upgrading required respiratory protection to HEPA filters. The author recommends implementing recommendations for appropriate administrative and engineering controls and using low-maintenance, reusable, half-face elastomeric respirators with disposable filter cartridges for employees in identified high-risk, exposure situations.     

Transfer of bacteriophage MS2 and fluorescein from N95 filtering facepiece respirators to hands: Measuring fomite potential

Contact transmission of pathogens from personal protective equipment is a concern within the healthcare industry. During public health emergency outbreaks, resources become constrained and the reuse of personal protective equipment, such as N95 filtering facepiece respirators, may be needed. This study was designed to characterize the transfer of bacteriophage MS2 and fluorescein between filtering facepiece respirators and the wearer's hands during three simulated use scenarios. Filtering facepiece respirators were contaminated with MS2 and fluorescein in droplets or droplet nuclei. Thirteen test subjects performed filtering facepiece respirator use scenarios including improper doffing, proper doffing and reuse, and improper doffing and reuse. Fluorescein and MS2 contamination transfer were quantified. The average MS2 transfer from filtering facepiece respirators to the subjects' hands ranged from 7.6–15.4% and 2.2–2.7% for droplet and droplet nuclei derived contamination, respectively. Handling filtering facepiece respirators contaminated with droplets resulted in higher levels of MS2 transfer compared to droplet nuclei for all use scenarios (p = 0.007). MS2 transfer from droplet contaminated filtering facepiece respirators during improper doffing and reuse was greater than transfer during improper doffing (p = 0.008) and proper doffing and reuse (p = 0.042). Droplet contamination resulted in higher levels of fluorescein transfer compared to droplet nuclei contaminated filtering facepiece respirators for all use scenarios (p = 0.009). Fluorescein transfer was greater for improper doffing and reuse (p = 0.007) from droplet contaminated masks compared to droplet nuclei contaminated filtering facepiece respirators and for improper doffing and reuse when compared improper doffing (p = 0.017) and proper doffing and reuse (p = 0.018) for droplet contaminated filtering facepiece respirators. For droplet nuclei contaminated filtering facepiece respirators, the difference in MS2 and fluorescein transfer did not reach statistical significance when comparing any of the use scenarios. The findings suggest that the results of fluorescein and MS2 transfer were consistent and highly correlated across the conditions of study. The data supports CDC recommendations for using proper doffing techniques and discarding filtering facepiece respirators that are directly contaminated with secretions from a cough or sneeze.     

Fitting characteristics of eighteen N95 filtering-facepiece respirators

Four performance measures were used to evaluate the fitting characteristics of 18 models of N95 filtering-facepiece respirators: (1) the 5th percentile simulated workplace protection factor (SWPF) value, (2) the shift average SWPF value, (3) the h-value, and (4) the assignment error. The effect of fit-testing on the level of protection provided by the respirators was also evaluated. The respirators were tested on a panel of 25 subjects with various face sizes. Simulated workplace protection factor values, determined from six total penetration (face-seal leakage plus filter penetration) tests with re-donning between each test, were used to indicate respirator performance. Five fit-tests were used: Bitrex, saccharin, generated aerosol corrected for filter penetration, PortaCount Plus corrected for filter penetration, and the PortaCount Plus with the N95-Companion accessory. Without fit-testing, the 5th percentile SWPF for all models combined was 2.9 with individual model values ranging from 1.3 to 48.0. Passing a fit-test generally resulted in an increase in protection. In addition, the h-value of each respirator was computed. The h-value has been determined to be the population fraction of individuals who will obtain an adequate level of protection (i.e., SWPF >/=10, which is the expected level of protection for half-facepiece respirators) when a respirator is selected and donned (including a user seal check) in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions without fit-testing. The h-value for all models combined was 0.74 (i.e., 74% of all donnings resulted in an adequate level of protection), with individual model h-values ranging from 0.31 to 0.99. Only three models had h-values above 0.95. Higher SWPF values were achieved by excluding SWPF values determined for test subject/respirator combinations that failed a fit-test. The improvement was greatest for respirator models with lower h-values. Using the concepts of shift average and assignment error to measure respirator performance yielded similar results. The highest level of protection was provided by passing a fit-test with a respirator having good fitting characteristics.     

Comparison of pressure drop and filtration efficiency of particulate respirators using welding fumes and sodium chloride

Respirators are used to help reduce exposure to a variety of contaminants in workplaces. Test aerosols used for certification of particulate respirators (PRs) include sodium chloride (NaCl), dioctyl phthalate, and paraffin oil. These aerosols are generally assumed to be worst case surrogates for aerosols found in the workplace. No data have been published to date on the performance of PRs with welding fumes, a hazardous aerosol that exists in real workplace settings. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of respirators and filters against a NaCl aerosol and a welding fume aerosol and determine whether or not a correlation between the two could be made. Fifteen commercial PRs and filters (seven filtering facepiece, two replaceable single-type filters, and six replaceable dual-type filters) were chosen for investigation. Four of the filtering facepiece respirators, one of the single-type filters, and all of the dual-type filters contained carbon to help reduce exposure to ozone and other vapors generated during the welding process. For the NaCl test, a modified National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health protocol was adopted for use with the TSI Model 8130 automated filter tester. For the welding fume test, welding fumes from mild steel flux-cored arcs were generated and measured with a SIBATA filter tester (AP-634A, Japan) and a manometer in the upstream and downstream sections of the test chamber. Size distributions of the two aerosols were measured using a scanning mobility particle sizer. Penetration and pressure drop were measured over a period of aerosol loading onto the respirator or filter. Photos and scanning electron microscope images of clean and exposed respirators were taken. The count median diameter (CMD) and mass median diameter (MMD) for the NaCl aerosol were smaller than the welding fumes (CMD: 74 versus 216 nm; MMD: 198 versus 528 nm, respectively). Initial penetration and peak penetration were higher with the NaCl aerosol. However, pressure drop increased much more rapidly in the welding fume test than the NaCl aerosol test. The data and images clearly show differences in performance trends between respirator models. Therefore, general correlations between NaCl and weld fume data could not be made. These findings suggest that respirators certified with a surrogate test aerosol such as NaCl are appropriate for filtering welding fume (based on penetration). However, some respirators may have a more rapid increase in pressure drop from the welding fume accumulating on the filter. Therefore, welders will need to choose which models are easier to breathe through for the duration of their use and replace respirators or filters according to the user instructions and local regulations.     

In vivo protective performance of N95 respirator and surgical facemask

BACKGROUND: The SARS outbreak in 2003 has spawned a major controversy concerning protective performance facemasks for healthcare workers. This study reports a study on in-vivo protective performance of surgical masks and N95 respirators. METHODS: Typical surgical masks and N95 respirators used in Hong Kong hospitals were tested in comparison with those treated with nano-functional materials (called nano-masks) on various physical properties and in-vivo wear filtration efficiency, as well as usability test in hospitals for surgical masks. RESULTS: Tests on physical properties showed that N95 respirators had significantly lower air permeability and water vapor permeability than surgical masks. The in-vivo filtration tests illustrated that N95 respirators filtered out 97% of potassium chloride (KCl) solution, while surgical masks filtered out 95% of KCl solution. Nano-masks show stronger water repellency and antibacterial activities, but no difference in usability, comparing with normal N95 and surgical masks. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical masks can provide in-vivo filtration protection of 95% filtration efficiency. N95 respirators provide higher in-vivo filtration efficiency of 97% with significant reduction of air permeability and water vapor permeability. Compared to normal surgical masks/respirators, the nano-masks can provide additional protective functions in stopping capillary diffusion and antibacterial activities.     

Particle release from respirators, part I: determination of the effect of particle size, drop height, and load

In late 2001, some U.S. Postal Service workers and a few members of Congress were exposed to anthrax spores. This led to an increased effort to develop employable methods to protect workers from exposure to anthrax. Some investigations focused on selection and use of respirators to protect workers against airborne anthrax. The present study evaluated the potential for several types of half-mask respirators to release deposited particles. Four brands of the most commonly used filtering facepiece respirators (hereafter termed masks) were loaded with 0.59-μm, 1.0-μm, and 1.9-μm polystyrene latex (PSL) microspheres (nominally 0.6, 1.0, and 2.0 μm) and then dropped onto a rigid surface. The load conditions were 10, 20, or 40 million particles, and drop heights were 0.15, 0.76, and 1.37 m. For the average conditions of 0.76 m, 1.15 μm size and 22 million particles loaded, the average particle release was 0.604 particles per 10,000 (95% CI: .552, .662) particles loaded for all of the filtering facepieces tested. The averaging of conditions is a useful tool to provide generalized information and is also useful when making risk estimates. For most filtering facepiece respirators, particle release tended to increase with drop height and particle size, and there appeared to be a slight inverse relationship with particle load. Two brands of reusable elastomeric half-mask respirators with P100 high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter cartridges were also evaluated. Results of these tests were inconclusive. Part II in this issue addresses the release of particles when simulating removal of a filtering facepiece from a wearer's head.     

Aerosol penetration through filtering facepieces and respirator cartridges.

Air-purifying respirators must be certified following the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) filter test criteria (30 CFR 11). The criteria specify a range for the mean particle size and the measure of spread permissible for the test aerosol. The authors' experiments have shown that aerosol penetration as a function of particle size differs considerably among certified respirators of the same type. Filtering facepieces (disposable respirators) and cartridges of the dust-mist, dust-mist-fume, and high-efficiency particulate air type were tested. The respirators were sealed to mannequins in a test chamber. The aerosol concentrations inside and outside the respirator were measured by an aerodynamic particle sizer and a laser aerosol spectrometer over a particle size range of 0.1 to 15 microns. Five flow rates ranging from 5 to 100 L/min were used to study flow dependency. The aerosol penetration through the filters is presented as a function of particle size. Aerosol penetration and pressure drop are combined to express the performance of each filter in terms of "quality factor." Under the same test conditions, the quality factor of one respirator may be as much as 6.6 times more than that of another respirator of the same type. The filter quality factor has a greater aerosol size dependency as airflow and aerosol size increase. In general, cartridges have a larger surface area than filtering facepieces but not necessarily lower filter penetration or higher filter quality.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

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

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.     

Characteristics of face seal leakage in filtering facepieces.

Several studies have found that aerosol size, testing method, leak size, leak position, sampling probe location, and the mixing condition inside the respirator affect the results of fit factor measurements. This study focuses on the effect of leak shape and filter resistance because leaks have been reported to vary in shape from circular to slit-like. Four leaks of different shape but the same cross-sectional area were used to study their effect on aerosol penetration. Dust-mist and high-efficiency particulate air filtering facepieces provided different filter resistances. An aerodynamic particle sizer and a laser aerosol spectrometer were used to measure the particle size-dependent aerosol concentrations inside and outside the respirators. The filtering facepieces were sealed to a mannequin and artificial leaks were inserted near the right cheek. Aerosol penetration was measured for five flow rates ranging from 5 to 100 L/min. The pressure drop across the mask was monitored with an inclined manometer. At a given pressure differential, a slit-like leak and multiple circular leaks have been found to pass less aerosols than a single circular leak of equal cross-sectional area because the leak flow decreases with an increase in leak shape complexity. If there is substantial lack of face seal fit and the breathing rate is low, a HEPA respirator may provide less protection than a dust-mist respirator because the pressure drop is considerably higher for a HEPA respirator, resulting in more aerosol flow through the leak.     

Filter penetration and breathing resistance evaluation of respirators and dust masks

The primary objective of this study was to compare the filter performance of a representative selection of uncertified dust masks relative to the filter performance of a set of NIOSH-approved N95 filtering face-piece respirators (FFRs). Five different models of commercially available dust masks were selected for this study. Filter penetration of new dust masks was evaluated against a sodium chloride aerosol. Breathing resistance (BR) of new dust masks and FFRs was then measured for 120 min while challenging the dust masks and FFRs with Arizona road dust (ARD) at 25°C and 30% relative humidity. Results demonstrated that a wide range of maximum filter penetration was observed among the dust masks tested in this study (3–75% at the most penetrating particle size (p < 0.001). The breathing resistances of the unused FFRs and dust masks did not vary greatly (8–13 mm H₂O) but were significantly different (p < 0.001). After dust loading there was a significant difference between the BR caused by the ARD dust layer on each FFR and dust mask. Microscopic analysis of the external layer of each dust mask and FFR suggests that different collection media in the external layer influences the development of the dust layer and therefore affects the increase in BR differently between the tested models. Two of the dust masks had penetration values < 5% and quality factors (0.26 and 0.33) comparable to those obtained for the two FFRs (0.23 and 0.31). However, the remaining three dust masks, those with penetration > 15%, had quality factors ranging between 0.04–0.15 primarily because their initial BR remained relatively high. These results indicate that some dust masks analysed during this research did not have an expected very low BR to compensate for their high penetration.     

Respirator Use Among US Farm Operators With Asthma: Results From the 2011 Farm and Ranch Safety Survey

Objective: The purpose of this study was to estimate the national prevalence of respirator use among farm operators with farm work–related asthma and factors associated with respirator use. Methods: The authors examined the 2011 Farm and Ranch Safety Survey, a national survey collected from 11,210 actively farming farm operators in the United States. Adjusted prevalence ratios (aPORs) of respirator use were calculated by demographic characteristics, farm characteristics, asthma characteristics, and selected exposures and hazards. Results: Among the estimated 2.2 million farm operators in 2011, 35.7% reported using a respirator in the past 12 months. Respirator use was significantly (P < .05) associated with age, marital status, sex, smoking status, farm value of sales, farm type, farm acreage, and geographic region. Operators who work with pesticides were 3.5 times more likely to use respirator than those who did not work with pesticides (P < .0001). Among those with current asthma, 60.8% of operators with farm work–related asthma used respirators compared with 44.4% of operators with non–farm work–related asthma (P = .03). Farm operators with farm work–related asthma who had an asthma attack at work were 11.3 times more likely to report respirator use than those who did not have an asthma attack at work (P = .03). Conclusions: Personal protective equipment, including respirators, is an approach to reducing respiratory exposures in agricultural settings, in particular among those with farm work–related asthma. Education for respirator use and evaluation for respirator tolerance should be considered.     

Evaluation of the efficiency of respiratory protective equipment based on the biological monitoring of styrene in fibreglass reinforced plastics industries

The purpose of the present study was to determine the efficiency of respiratory protective equipment in a fibreglass reinforced plastic factory by comparing results of environmental and biological monitoring of exposure to styrene. Five factories including 39 workers were investigated. Three types of respiratory protective equipment were tested: one was a half-mask air-purifying respirator equipped with a cartridge for organic solvents, another was a disposable gauze respirator impregnated with charcoal filter, and the third was a dust-proof respirator. The frequency of cartridge exchange of a half-mask respirator was twice a day only at one factory, and that was less than once a month at other factories. The site concentrations exceeded 20 ppm at 10 of the 82 sampling points (12.2%), and 22 of the 39 workers' (56.4%) personal exposure exceeded 20 ppm which is the current occupational exposure limit recommended by the Japan Society for Occupational Health. The efficiency of disposable gauze respirators and dust-proof respirators was low or rather zero. The average efficiency of half-mask respirators in which cartridges were exchanged twice a day and once a month was 83.6% and 46.6%, respectively. There was a significant disparity in the efficiency of the respirator depending on the frequency of cartridge exchange (p<0.05). Overall this study showed that even though a half-mask respirator is used and its cartridge is exchanged every half a day, workers exposed to a styrene concentration at or over 122 ppm are expected to inhale more than 20 ppm of styrene.     

Temporal changes in filtering-facepiece respirator fit

A three-year study examined changes in N95 filtering-facepiece respirator (FFR) fit at six-month intervals and the relationship between fit and changes in weight for 229 subjects. During each visit, subjects performed a total of nine fit tests using three samples of the same FFR model. Inward leakage and filter penetration were measured for each donned respirator to determine face seal leakage (FSL). A total of 195 subjects completed the second visit and 134 subjects completed all seven visits. Acceptable fit was defined as 90th percentile FSL ≤ 5% and at least one fit factor ≥ 100. An unacceptable fit was observed for 14, 10, 7, 12, 15, and 16% of subjects on Visits 2–7, respectively. The predicted risk of an unacceptable fit increased with increasing length of time between fit tests, from 10% at Year 1 to 20% at Year 2 and to 25% at Year 3. Twenty-four percent of subjects who lost ≥ 20 lb had an unacceptable fit; these percentages ranged from 7–17% for subjects with lower weight losses or any degree of weight gain. Results support the current OSHA requirement for annual fit testing and suggest that respirator users who lose more than 20 lb should be re-tested for respirator fit.     

Exploring respiratory protection practices for prominent hazards in healthcare settings

The use of respiratory protection, an important component of personal protective equipment (PPE) in healthcare, is dependent on the hazard and environmental conditions in the workplace. This requires the employer and healthcare worker (HCW) to be knowledgeable about potential exposures and their respective protective measures. However, the use of respirators is inconsistent in healthcare settings, potentially putting HCWs at risk for illness or injury. To better understand respirator use, barriers, and influences, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Health and Safety Practices Survey of Healthcare Workers provided an opportunity to examine self-reported use of respirators and surgical masks for targeted hazards. The hazards of interest included aerosolized medications, antineoplastic drugs, chemical sterilants, high-level disinfectants, influenza-like illness (ILI), and surgical smoke. Of the 10,383 HCWs who reported respiratory protection behaviors, 1,904 (18%) reported wearing a respirator for at least one hazard. Hazard type, job duties, site characteristics, and organizational factors played a greater role in the likelihood of respirator use than individual factors. The proportion of respirator users was highest for aerosolized medications and lowest for chemical sterilants. Most respondents reported using a surgical mask for at least one of the hazards, with highest use for surgical smoke generated by electrosurgical techniques and ILI. The high proportion of respirator non-users who used surgical masks is concerning because HCWs may be using a surgical mask in situations that require a respirator, specifically for surgical smoke. Improved guidance on hazard recognition, risk evaluation, and appropriate respirator selection could potentially help HCWs better understand how to protect themselves at work.     

Manikin-based size-resolved penetrations of CE-marked filtering facepiece respirators

The purpose of this manikin-based study was to determine the percentage penetrations of nine CE-marked filtering facepiece respirator models (two samples from each) from filtering classes FFP1, FFP2, and FFP3 and to demonstrate by an independent measurement method the disadvantages and shortcomings of the currently valid European Norm (EN 149:2001) for filtering facepieces. All of the filtering facepieces were evaluated size-selectively in an experimental chamber using charge-neutralized monodisperse ammonium sulfate in 9 sizes ranging from 20–400 nm of count median diameter (CMD) under flowrate of 95 L/min. The results were then compared to the previous study concerning penetrations of 47-mm diameter filters cut from the filtering material of identical filtering facepieces. Although these two experimental methods for measuring penetrations of filtering materials from filtering facepieces are in good agreement (R² = 0.91), the results show within-respirator variations in all three filtering classes (5.5–19.3% for all FFRs in FFP1, 2.8–8.5% in FFP2, and 0.1–2.8% in FFP3). The most penetrating particle size (MPPS) in this study was found to be in the range of 25–65 nm (CMD), which is in agreement with the range of 30–60 nm found in the previous study. Moreover, 7 out of 9 FFR models reached higher penetrations from manikin-based respirator measurements than during measurements of filters from the respective respirators. Furthermore, penetration levels increased up to ～50% when the respirator was not sealed around the face of the manikin, indicating that the real protection level provided by these filtering facepieces may be even lower if the respirator does not fit perfectly. Considering that poor filtration efficiency and poor fit may increase under real work conditions, the particle penetration is even higher than was found in this study. Therefore, the CE-marked respirators examined in this study may not be efficient in providing the expected level of protection for workers exposed to nanoparticles.