Workplace protection factors for an N95 filtering facepiece respirator

This study evaluated the workplace performance of an N95 filtering facepiece, air-purifying respirator in a steel foundry. Air samples were collected inside and outside respirators worn by workers who were properly trained and qualitatively fit tested. For most workers, three or four pairs of air samples were collected on each of 2 days. The 49 valid sample sets were analyzed for iron, silicon, and zirconium. Only iron was present in sufficient concentrations to perform workplace protection factor (WPF) calculations. Individual WPF measurements ranged from 5 to 753. The geometric mean of the distribution was 119 with a lower 5th percentile value of 19. Time-weighted average WPFs (WPF(TWA)) were also calculated for each day for each worker as an estimate of the protection an individual might receive with daily respirator use. The WPF(TWA) values ranged from 15 for the worker with the single WPF value of 5, to a high of 684. The distribution of WPF(TWA) had a geometric mean of 120 and a lower 5th percentile of 22. Both data treatments indicate this respirator's performance was consistent with the assigned protection factor of 10 typically used for half facepiece respirators. The respirator provided adequate protection as used in this study. All contaminant concentrations inside the respirator were well below the relevant occupational exposure limits. Data collected also illustrate the dynamic nature of faceseal leakage in the workplace.     

Respiratory protection from isocyanate exposure in the autobody repair and refinishing industry

This study, part of the Survey of Painters and Repairers of Auto bodies by Yale (SPRAY), evaluated the effectiveness of respiratory protection against exposure to aliphatic polyisocyanates. A total of 36 shops were assessed for respiratory protection program completeness; 142 workers were measured for respirator fit factor (FF) using PortaCount Plus respirator fit tester. Twenty-two painters from 21 shops were sampled using NIOSH method 5525 to determine the workplace protection factor (WPF) of negative pressure, air-purifying half-facepiece respirators equipped with organic vapor cartridges and paint prefilters during spray-painting and priming activities. Only 11 shops (30%) had written respiratory protection programs. Eighty percent of all fit tested workers passed the test on the first try with FF >or= 100, and 92% passed the second test after respirator use training. Overall geometric mean (GM) FF was 1012 for all fit tested workers. Significant differences on pass rate (92% vs. 72%) and on FF (1990 vs. 736) were found between previously fit tested workers vs. nontested workers. Twenty-nine WPF samples were collected. The outside facepiece GM concentration of total isocyanate group (NCO) was 378.4 micro g NCO/m(3) with 96% concentrations exceeding the U.K. short-term exposure limit, 70 micro g NCO/m(3), but no in-facepiece concentrations exceeded the limit. The GM WPF of total NCO was 319 (GSD 4) and the 5th percentile was 54. WPF of total NCO was positively correlated with the duration of painting task. FF positively correlated with WPF when FF was 450. We conclude that negative pressure, air-purifying half-facepiece respirators equipped with organic vapor cartridges and paint prefilters provide effective protection against isocyanate exposure in spray and priming operations if workers are properly trained and fitted.     

Performance of a full facepiece, air-purifying respirator against lead aerosols in a workplace environment

This study evaluated workplace performance of a full facepiece, negative pressure, air-purifying respirator with P100 filters in a lead refining plant. Air samples for lead were collected inside and outside the respirators worn by workers who were properly trained and quantitatively fit tested. Trained observers assisted in the study to ensure sample validity. Three to four pairs of air samples per day were collected from each worker for a total of 52 valid sample sets. Lead was found on all the outside samples, and concentrations were below the detection limit for all but one of the inside samples. The single measurable inside sample yielded a workplace protection factor (WPF) of 297. WPFs for the rest of the samples were estimated using the assumption that lead was present at the detection limit for the in-facepiece samples. Calculated WPFs were rounded down to the nearest 100 then subjected to a rank and percentile function. The 5th percentile WPF was approximately 900 using this approach. These WPFs exceed the assigned protection factor (APF) of 50 for this respirator class recommended by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and listed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. These results support the APF of 50 for this respirator and indicate the respirator provided adequate protection as used in this study.     

Correlation between quantitative fit factors and workplace protection factors measured in actual workplace environments at a steel foundry

Past studies have found little or no correlation between workplace protection factors (WPFs) and quantitative fit factors (FFs). This study investigated the effect of good- and poor-fitting half-facepiece, air-purifying respirators on protection in actual workplace environments at a steel foundry and the correlation between WPFs and FFs. Fifteen burners and welders, who wore respirators voluntarily, and chippers participated in this study. Each subject was fit-tested with two respirator models each with three sizes, for a total of six fit-tests. Models and sizes were assigned this way to provide a wide range of FFs among study participants. Each worker donned the respirator twice per day (at the beginning of the shift and following the lunch break) for 2 days. Quantitative FFs were first obtained for each donning using the PortaCount Plus trade mark in a separate room. Without redonning the respirators, workers performed normal work for 1 to 2 hours, and WPFs were measured by collecting ambient and in-facepiece samples simultaneously. A second fit-test was conducted without disturbing the respirator. FFs were obtained by averaging the results from the first and second fit-tests. The resulting FFs had a geometric mean (GM) of 400 (range=10-6010) and a geometric standard deviation (GSD) of 6.1. Of the 55 valid donnings, 43 were good fitting (FFs> or =100) and 12 were poor fitting (FFs<100). The WPFs had a GM of 920 (range=13-230,000) and a GSD of 17.8. The WPFs were found to be significantly correlated with the FFs (R(2)=.55 and p-value=.0001). Therefore, FF was shown to be a meaningful indicator of respirator performance in actual workplace environments.     

Statistical issues with respect to workplace protection factors for respirators

A workplace protection factor (WPF) for a respirator wearer is the measured concentration of a contaminant outside the respirator divided by the simultaneous concentration of that contaminant inside the respirator. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposed an assigned protection factor (APF) of 10 to negative-pressure, half-facepiece, air-purifying respirators (HFAPR), based on the criterion that the 5th percentile of WPF for HFAPR be larger than the APF. This class of half-facepiece respirators includes both filtering facepiece and elastomeric half-mask respirators. Nicas and Neuhaus developed a statistical model for log-normally distributed WPF that separated between-wearer and within-wearer variation. Using results from applying this model to seven studies of HFAPR, they proposed an APF of 5 for this class of respirator, based on the criterion that the 5th percentile of the 5th percentile of individual worker WPF distributions be larger than the APF. In this article, two reasons are suggested for these differing proposals: (1) the Nicas and Neuhaus criterion is inherently more conservative than that of OSHA, and (2) substantially different databases were used to evaluate the two criteria. The Nicas and Neuhaus model is expanded to allow for differences in WPF distributions for different types of HFAPR and different contaminants and for separately estimating within-wearer variation and variation due to measurement error. Appropriate statistical methods are illustrated for implementing these models when some of inside-the-respirator measurements are nondetects. Results from applying this expanded model to two new WPF studies suggest that an APF of 10 would be sufficiently protective in these studies using the OSHA criterion but more marginally so using the Nicas and Neuhaus criterion.     

Comparison of workplace protection factors for different biological contaminants

This study compared workplace protection factors (WPFs) for five different contaminants (endotoxin, fungal spores, (1→3)-β-D-glucan, total particle mass, and total particle number) provided by an N95 elastomeric respirator (ER) and an N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR). We previously reported size-selective WPFs for total particle numbers for the ER and FFR, whereas the current article is focused on WPFs for bioaerosols and total particle mass. Farm workers (n = 25) wore the ER and FFR while performing activities at eight locations representing horse farms, pig barns, and grain handling facilities. For the determination of WPFs, particles were collected on filters simultaneously inside and outside the respirator during the first and last 15 min of a 60-min experiment. One field blank per subject was collected without actual sampling. A reporting limit (RL) was established for each contaminant based on geometric means (GMs) of the field blanks as the lowest possible measurable values. Depending on the contaminant type, 38-48% of data points were below the RL. Therefore, a censored regression model was used to estimate WPFs (WPF(censored)). The WPF(censored) provided by the two types of respirators were not significantly different. In contrast, significant differences were found in the WPF(censored) for different types of contaminants. GMs WPFs(censored) for the two types of respirators combined were 154, 29, 18, 19, and 176 for endotoxin, fungal spore count, (1→3)-β-D-glucan, total particle mass, and total particle number, respectively. The WPF(censored) was more strongly associated with concentrations measured outside the respirator for endotoxin, fungal spores, and total particle mass except for total particle number. However, when only data points with outside concentrations higher than 176×RL were included, the WPFs increased, and the association between the outside concentrations and the WPFs became weaker. Results indicate that difference in WPFs observed between different contaminants may be attributed to differences in the sensitivity of analytical methods to detect low inside concentrations, rather than the nature of particles (biological or non-biological).     

Determination of program protection factors for half-mask respirators used at a mineral sands separation plant.

A study was conducted at a mineral sands separation plant to evaluate the workplace performance of half-mask filter cartridge respirators. Inhalation exposure was estimated by measuring the dust and radioactivity concentration inside the respirator while it was worn or hanging around the worker's neck. The program protection factor was determined by simultaneously measuring inside-mask and ambient (outside-mask) concentrations. A total of 27 tests were conducted, covering three brands of half-mask respirators; facial hair on test subjects ranged from clean-shaven to bearded. Program protection factors varied from 1.8 to 13 for dust exposure and 2.5 to 21 for radioactivity exposure. The geometric mean program protection factor over all tests was 5.1 (geometric standard deviation [GSD] = 1.7) for dust exposure and 7.5 (GSD = 1.7) for radioactivity exposure. A minimum program protection factor of 3.5 could be applied to ambient airborne concentration data to obtain a conservative, but more realistic, estimate of inhalation exposure on a worker category basis.     

The effects of strapped spectacles on the fit factors of three manufactured brands of full facepiece negative pressure respirators.

A study was conducted to determine the effects of strapped spectacles on the fit factors obtained during quantitative fit testing on three different brands of full facepiece negative pressure respirators. The three brands of respirators were evaluated with and without strapped spectacles worn by the test subjects. A total of 180 quantitative fit testing trials were conducted on ten male test subjects. For each test subject, three quantitative fit testing trials were performed with each brand of respirator with and without the spectacles. The average of the fit testing trials for each subject with each respirator was used for statistical analysis. The results demonstrated that the fit factor values were significantly lower during use of the spectacles (p < 0.05). The estimated percentage of test subjects who failed the American National Standards Institute pass/fail criteria for quantitative fit testing (1000) increased by 15-36% when spectacles were worn.     

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.     

典型呼吸防护用品对工作场所空气中不同金属颗粒物的防护能力研究

目的 通过测定焊接工人佩戴的不同呼吸防护用品(respiratory protection equipment,RPE)对不同金属的工作场所防护因数(workplace protection factor,WPF),比较不同类型RPE对不同金属颗粒物的防护能力。方法 选择上海某船厂焊接岗位工人18人(17名男性和1名女性)为研究对象,根据工人日常工作实际佩戴的RPE类型,确定相应的RPE测试,其中5人佩戴过滤式半面罩(RPE1),13人佩戴三折折叠式防颗粒物口罩(RPE2),采用改良的美国WPF测试方法分别测试RPE内、外的金属颗粒物浓度,计算WPF值并进行对数转换,组间相关性采用Pearson相关分析,组间比较采用两因素非参数Scheirer-Ray-Hare检验。结果 锰颗粒和铁颗粒的WPF值符合对数正态分布,呼吸防护用品对锰颗粒和铁颗粒的WPF第5百分位数(WPF_5%)分别为15.01和13.60,几何均数(GM)分别为114.76和82.37,RPE1和RPE2的WPF_5%分别为11.25和22.28,GM分别为86.49和123.0...     

Workplace performance of a hood-style supplied-air respirator

This study evaluated the workplace performance of a hood-style supplied-air respirator during aircraft sanding operations. Air samples were collected inside and outside the respirators worn by workers during normal work activities. The samples were analyzed for chromium, strontium, and magnesium. These contaminants were not detected on any inside sample from the valid sample sets. Program protection factors (PPFs) were estimated for the valid sample sets using the limit of detection as the inside sample mass. When it was possible, PPF estimates were made using each element individually and a combination of all three elements. The PPF estimates were in the range of >11000 to >65000 regardless of the elements used in the calculation. Examination of the PPF estimates for different elements reveals the differences are largely artificial. The results indicate the tested respirator performed well above its assigned protection factor of 1000. No worker was overexposed to chromium, strontium, or magnesium during the study. This study also illustrates the difficulty in locating workplaces with sufficient contaminant concentration and duration to measure the capabilities of high-performing respirators.     

Real-Time Fit of a Respirator during Simulated Health Care Tasks

Fit is an important but difficult-to-predict feature of respirator performance. This study examined a new approach to measuring respirator performance using two continuous direct-reading particle-counting instruments in a simulated health care workplace. A pilot test was conducted with eight experienced health care professionals who passed a traditional quantitative fit test before performing three randomized 10-min health care scenarios (patient assessment [PA], IV treatment [IV], and wound care [WC]). Two TSI Portacount Plus (Model 8020) with N95 Companion (Model 8095) instruments were used to continuously measure 1-sec ambient particle concentrations inside and outside the respirator facepiece. A simulated workplace protection factor (SWPF) was calculated by dividing outside by inside concentrations. Data were log transformed and examined using analysis of variance (ANOVA) between subjects, scenario types, and scenario order. The GM SWPF for the eight subjects, three scenarios per subject, ranged from 172 to 1073 (GSD 1.7 to 3.5) and was significantly different for each subject. A multi-way analysis of variance showed no difference between the three scenario types (PA, IV, WC). There were differences by the order in which scenarios were performed: the third scenario SWPF was significantly different and higher than that of the first and second scenarios. All subjects passed the initial quantitative fit test with a fit factor of at least 100. Five subjects had fit factors greater than 200 and GM scenario SWPFs greater than 400. Three participants with initial fit factors less than 200 had GM scenario SWPFs ranging from 132 to 326. This pilot test demonstrates that it is possible to evaluate instantaneous respirator fit using two quantitative fit test instruments in a simulated health care environment. Results suggest that an initial fit test may be predictive of fit during simulated tasks and that one scenario may be adequate for measuring a simulated workplace protection factor. [Supplementary materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene for the following free supplemental resource: a video for subject D activities overlaid with simulated workplace protection factor data.].     

Criteria for the Collection of Useful Respirator Performance Data in the Workplace

Workplace protection factors (WPFs) are intended to measure the ability of a respiratory protective device (RPD) to reduce contaminant exposure when used in the context of an effective respiratory protection program. In 1992, members of the American Industrial Hygiene Association Respiratory Protection Committee (RPC) published a review of important issues and considerations for measuring respirator performance in the workplace. The RPC recognized that respirator testing in workplaces can have a variety of objectives and endpoints, and that not all workplace measurements are WPFs. That paper addressed concerns in the general categories of 1) study objectives; 2) site selection; 3) subject selection and preparation; 4) sampling and analytical methods; and 5) data analysis. No specific protocol for measuring WPFs was recommended by the RPC, and attempts to reach a U.S. consensus on a WPF protocol since 1992 have not succeeded. Numerous studies have implemented the principles for WPF measurement described in the RPC paper. Modifications to the original recommendations have been made to reflect the current state of the art. This article describes what has been learned in recent years in each of the five categories identified in the 1992 discussion. Because of the wide variety of workplaces and work activities, contaminants and respiratory protective devices, a strict protocol is not appropriate for collecting WPF data. Rather, the minimum requirements for the collection and presentation of meaningful respirator performance data in the workplace are described. Understanding of these principles will permit useful RPD performance data to be generated.     

Laboratory study to assess causative factors affecting temporal changes in filtering facepiece respirator fit: part I - pilot study

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is conducting a first-of-its-kind study that will assess respirator fit and facial dimension changes as a function of time and improve the scientific basis for decisions on the periodicity of fit testing. A representative sample of 220 subjects wearing filtering-facepiece respirators (FFR) will be evaluated to investigate factors that affect changes in respirator fit over time. The objective of this pilot study (n = 10) was to investigate the variation in fit test data collected in accordance with the study protocol. Inward leakage (IL) and filter penetration were measured for each donned respirator, permitting the calculation of face seal leakage (FSL) and fit factor (FF). The study included only subjects who (a) passed one of the first three fit tests (FF ≥ 100), and (b) demonstrated through a series of nine donnings that they achieved adequate fit (90th percentile FSL was ≤ 0.05). Following the respirator fit tests, 3-D scans of subjects were captured, and height, weight, and 13 traditional anthropometric facial dimensions were measured. The same data were collected 2 and 4 weeks after baseline. The mean change in FSL for the 10 subjects was 0.044% between Visits 1 and 2, and was 0.229% between Visits 1 and 3. Technicians achieved at least moderate reliability for all manual measurements except nose protrusion. Filter penetration was generally less than 0.03%. Geometric mean fit factors were not statistically different among the three visits. The large variability was observed with different respirator samples for the same model, between subjects (inter), and within each subject (intra). Although variability was observed, adequate fit was maintained for all 10 subjects. Pilot scans collected show subject faces remained the same over the 4 weeks. The consistent results during the pilot study indicate that the methods and procedures are appropriate for the 3-year main study. In addition, this baseline fit change data will be compared with future fit changes to determine if the changes are meaningful.     

Performance of two respiratory protective devices used by home-attending health care workers (a pilot study)

Objectives: This pilot study aimed at determining the Workplace Protection Factor (WPF) for respiratory protective devices widely used by health care workers to reduce exposure to potentially hazardous aerosols when attending patients in their homes. Two devices were tested, an N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) and a surgical mask (SM).

Methods: Three home-attending health care workers were recruited, medically cleared and fit tested. At the workplace, the aerosol concentrations outside (C_out) and inside (C_in) of the tested respiratory protective device worn by a subject were measured using two simultaneously operating P-Trak condensation particle counters within the particle size range of approximately 20–1,000 nm. Real-time and integrated (time-weighted average, TWA) values of WPF = C_out/C_in were determined.

Results: This pilot study demonstrated that the WPF of the tested N95 FFR consistently exceeded that of the SM. The WPF_TWA(C) values calculated for the entire test time (based on the TWA aerosol concentration values) ranged from 29 to 40 and 2 to 9, respectively. In all cases, the N95 FFR provided protection above the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) assigned protection factor of 10, whereas the SM often offered little or essentially no protection against the measured sub-micrometer aerosol particles. For both devices, the protection level was found to depend on activity. For example, the WPF_TWA(C) for one subject wearing the N95 FFR was 56 during normal activity but fell almost 70% during tracheal suctioning. It is explicable considering that different procedures implemented by health care workers in homes generate particles of different sizes and require different body movements; both factors are anticipated to affect the WPF.

Conclusions: Wearing an N95-certified respirator helps significantly reduce the aerosol inhalation exposure of home-attending health care workers. An SM offers much lower protection. The WPF depends on several factors, including, but not limited to, the health care worker's activity and/or body movements; the WPF varies from one worker to another.     

The effect of subject characteristics and respirator features on respirator fit

A recent study was conducted to compare five fit test methods for screening out poor-fitting N95 filtering-facepiece respirators. Eighteen models of NIOSH-certified, N95 filtering-facepiece respirators were used to assess the fit test methods by using a simulated workplace protection factor (SWPF) test. The purpose of this companion study was to investigate the effect of subject characteristics (gender and face dimensions) and respirator features on respirator fit. The respirator features studied were design style (folding and cup style) and number of sizes available (one size fits all, two sizes, and three sizes). Thirty-three subjects participated in this study. Each was measured for 12 face dimensions using traditional calipers and tape. From this group, 25 subjects with face size categories 1 to 10 tested each respirator. The SWPF test protocol entailed using the PortaCount Plus to determine a SWPF based on total penetration (face-seal leakage plus filter penetration) while the subject performed six simulated workplace movements. Six tests were conducted for each subject/respirator model combination with redonning between tests. The respirator design style (folding style and cup style) did not have a significant effect on respirator fit in this study. The number of respirator sizes available for a model had significant impact on respirator fit on the panel for cup-style respirators with one and two sizes available. There was no significant difference in the geometric mean fit factor between male and female subjects for 16 of the 18 respirator models. Subsets of one to six face dimensions were found to be significantly correlated with SWPFs (p < 0.05) in 16 of the 33 respirator model/respirator size combinations. Bigonial breadth, face width, face length, and nose protrusion appeared the most in subsets (five or six) of face dimensions and their multiple linear regression coefficients were significantly different from zero (p < 0.05). Lip length was found in only one subset. The use of face length and lip length as the criteria to define the current half-facepiece respirator fit test panel may need to be reconsidered when revising the panel. Based on the findings from this and previous studies, face length and face width are recommended measurements that should be used for defining the panel for half-facepiece respirators.     

Prototype sampling system for measuring workplace protection factors for gases and vapors

A prototype sampling system for measuring respirator workplace protection factors (WPFs) was developed. Methods for measuring the concentration of contaminants inside respirators have previously been described; however, these studies have typically involved continuous sampling of aerosols. Our work focuses on developing an intermittent sampling system designed to measure the concentration of gases and vapors during inspiration. This approach addresses two potential problems associated with continuous sampling: biased results due to lower contaminant concentrations and high humidity in exhaled air. The system consists of a pressure transducer circuit designed to activate a pair of personal sampling pumps during inspiration based on differential pressure inside the respirator. One pump draws air from inside the respirator while the second samples the ambient air. Solid granular adsorbent tubes are used to trap the contaminants, making the approach applicable to a large number of gases and vapors. Laboratory testing was performed using a respirator mounted on a headform connected to a breathing machine producing a sinusoidal flow pattern with an average flow rate of 20 L/min and a period of 3 seconds. The sampling system was adjusted to activate the pumps when the pressure inside the respirator was less than -0.1 inch H(2)O. Quantitative fit-tests using human subjects were conducted to evaluate the effect of the sampling system on respirator performance. A total of 299 fit-tests were completed for two different types of respirators (half- and full-facepiece) from two different manufacturers (MSA and North). Statistical tests showed no significant differences between mean fit factors for respirators equipped with the sampling system versus unmodified respirators. Field testing of the prototype sampling system was performed in livestock production facilities and estimates of WPFs for ammonia were obtained. Results demonstrate the feasibility of this approach and will be used in developing improved instrumentation for measuring WPFs.     

Assessing real-time performances of N95 respirators for health care workers by simulated workplace protection factors

To assess performances of N95 respirators for Health Care Workers (HCWs) in a simulated health-care setting, we measured the Simulated Workplace Protection Factors (SWPFs) in real-time from the volunteers. A total of 49 study subjects, wearing 3 M respirator Model N95 1860 and 1860S, were fit tested using the OSHA Exercise Regimen. The test subjects were asked to perform simulated scenarios, including patient assessments, suction, and intravenous injection (IV) treatment. Two TSI PortaCount instruments continuously measured concentrations in the respirator and the room concentration. For Quantitative Fit Testing (QNFT), 36 out of 49 (73.5%) passed the fit factor (FF) criteria set at 100 and 13 (26.5%) failed. The results of QNFT were found to have a low correlation with SWPF, with R²=0.32. The geometric means (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD) of SWPF were 68.8 (1.1) for those subjects who passed and 39.6 (1.3) for those who failed. Real-time assessments of SWPF showed that lower SWPFs were; moving head up and down, and bending at the waist. This study identifies the needs for providing different sizes of respirators for HCWs and the importance of performing fit tests for HCWs regularly. And particular movements were identified as attributing factors affecting more on SWPFs.     

Assessment of the effectiveness of respirator usage in coke oven workers

This program protection factor study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of filter cartridge respirators while coke oven workers performed their normal work. Benzene soluble fraction (BSF) of total particulate concentrations was measured inside and outside the respirators of nine coke oven workers who worked on the top of the battery of one older coke oven plant and who reported regular use of respirators. The measurements were taken for 3 consecutive days. Excluding two undetectable measurements inside the respirator, it was found that the outside respirator BSF concentrations (25 sets) ranged from 87 to 807 microg/m3, whereas the inside respirator BSF concentrations ranged from 16 to 509 microg/m3. A program protection factor (PPF) for each set of observations was calculated as the ratio of outside to inside air BSF concentrations. The mean PPF was 2.5 with a range of 1.1 to 9.6, and 12 of the 25 measurements (48%) were below 2.0. Although the workers claimed they regularly wore their respirators, the wide range and the low PPF findings suggest that worker behavior and respirator fit may influence the level of protection provided by the respirator.     

Review of respirator performance testing in the workplace: issues and concerns.

Performance capability of respirators has traditionally been evaluated by testing components of the respirator (e.g., filter efficiency), facepiece fit, total inward leakage, or some other measure of performance evaluated under laboratory conditions. In recent years, increased emphasis has been placed on development of test methods suitable for evaluating respirator performance in the workplace. The goal of such testing is to evaluate the level of protection provided by respirators in the work environment. The AIHA Respiratory Protection Committee believes that workplace testing of respirators has the potential to be an excellent tool for increasing knowledge about the effectiveness of respiratory protection. However, a number of technical issues remain to be addressed before optimal test protocols and data analysis methods can be defined. The progress made to date in workplace testing will be reviewed, and broader discussion about key elements that must be considered when developing guidelines for testing respirators in the workplace will be initiated.