Errors associated with three methods of assessing respirator fit

Three fit test methods (Bitrex, saccharin, and TSI PortaCount Plus with the N95-Companion) were evaluated for their ability to identify wearers of respirators that do not provide adequate protection during a simulated workplace test. Thirty models of NIOSH-certified N95 half-facepiece respirators (15 filtering-facepiece models and 15 elastomeric models) were tested by a panel of 25 subjects using each of the three fit testing methods. Fit testing results were compared to 5th percentiles of simulated workplace protection factors. Alpha errors (the chance of failing a fit test in error) for all 30 respirators were 71% for the Bitrex method, 68% for the saccharin method, and 40% for the Companion method. Beta errors (the chance of passing a fit test in error) for all 30 respirator models combined were 8% for the Bitrex method, 8% for the saccharin method, and 9% for the Companion method. The three fit test methods had different error rates when assessed with filtering facepieces and when assessed with elastomeric respirators. For example, beta errors for the three fit test methods assessed with the 15 filtering facepiece respirators were < or = 5% but ranged from 14% to 21% when assessed with the 15 elastomeric respirators. To predict what happens in a realistic fit testing program, the data were also used to estimate the alpha and beta errors for a simulated respiratory protection program in which a wearer is given up to three trials with one respirator model to pass a fit test before moving onto another model. A subject passing with any of the three methods was considered to have passed the fit test program. The alpha and beta errors for the fit testing in this simulated respiratory protection program were 29% and 19%, respectively. Thus, it is estimated, under the conditions of the simulation, that roughly one in three respirator wearers receiving the expected reduction in exposure (with a particular model) will fail to pass (with that particular model), and that roughly one in five wearers receiving less reduction in exposure than expected will pass the fit testing program in error.     

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.     

Effect of test exercises and mask donning on measured respirator fit

Quantitative respirator fit test protocols are typically defined by a series of fit test exercises. A rationale for the protocols that have been developed is generally not available. There also is little information available that describes the effect or effectiveness of the fit test exercises currently specified in respiratory protection standards. This study was designed to assess the relative impact of fit test exercises and mask donning on respirator fit as measured by a controlled negative pressure and an ambient aerosol fit test system. Multiple donnings of two different sizes of identical respirator models by each of 14 test subjects showed that donning affects respirator fit to a greater degree than fit test exercises. Currently specified fit test protocols emphasize test exercises, and the determination of fit is based on a single mask donning. A rationale for a modified fit test protocol based on fewer, more targeted test exercises and multiple mask donnings is presented. The modified protocol identified inadequately fitting respirators as effectively as the currently specified Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) quantitative fit test protocol. The controlled negative pressure system measured significantly (p < 0.0001) more respirator leakage than the ambient aerosol fit test system. The bend over fit test exercise was found to be predictive of poor respirator fit by both fit test systems. For the better fitting respirators, only the talking exercise generated aerosol fit factors that were significantly lower (p < 0.0001) than corresponding donning fit factors.     

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.     

Parameters that bias the measurement of airborne concentration within a respirator

This paper describes the theoretical basis upon which a test system has been set up to evaluate the sampling error associated with in-facepiece sampling on half-mask respirators. The in-facepiece sampling technique evaluated in this study is the one currently used in the U.S. to conduct quantitative facepiece fit testing. An experimental design was developed to study the sampling bias associated with in-facepiece sampling when selected parameters of the man/respirator system were varied. The results indicated that significant errors can be made in estimating concentration within a respirator when the current in-facepiece sampling technique is employed. Sampling bias was determined when in-facepiece samples were collected only during the inhalation phase of the respiratory cycles. They were found to range from greater than -99% to greater than +98%. The mean sampling bias was -17 +/- 38%. When measured in-facepiece concentrations were used to calculate a fit factor the resulting range was 44 to 4728 even though the actual fit factor was only 87. Based upon the data presented, it was hypothesized that faceseal leakage was streamlining within the respirator cavity. As a result, quantitative facepiece fit data on half-mask respirators may be biased by the large measurement error.     

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.     

Comparison of five methods for fit-testing N95 filtering-facepiece respirators

Five fit-testing methods (Bitrex, ambient aerosol condensation nuclei counter using the TSI PortaCount Plus, saccharin, modified ambient aerosol condensation nuclei counter using the TSI PortaCount Plus with the N95-Companion, and generated aerosol using corn oil) were evaluated for their ability to identify poorly fitting N95 filtering-facepiece respirators. Eighteen models of NIOSH-certified, N95 filtering-facepiece respirators were tested by a panel of 25 subjects using each fit-testing method. The penetration of the corn oil and the ambient aerosols through the filter media of each respirator was measured in order to adjust the corresponding generated and ambient aerosol overall fit factors, reflecting only face-seal leakage. Fit-testing results were compared to 5th percentiles of simulated workplace protection factors. Beta errors (the chance of passing a fit-test in error) ranged from 3 percent to 11 percent. Alpha errors (the chance of failing a fit-test in error) ranged from 51 percent to 84 percent. The ambient aerosol using the TSI PortaCount Plus and the generated aerosol methods identified poorly fitting respirators better than the saccharin, the Companion, and Bitrex methods. These errors rates should be considered when selecting a fit-testing method for fitting N95 filtering-facepieces. When both types of errors were combined as an assignment error, the ambient aerosol method using the TSI PortaCount Plus had the lowest percentage of wearers being assigned a poor-fitting respirator.     

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.     

The effect of pressure drop on respirator faceseal leakage

Users of particulate air-purifying respirators are typically told to change their filters when breathing resistance becomes uncomfortable. It has been proposed that a noticeable increase in breathing resistance (pressure drop) may increase airflow through respirator faceseal leaks. This logic has been extended to suggest that respirator user exposure to contaminants may increase because of this theoretical increase in air leakage. Procedures similar to those of previous investigators were used to study this issue. Repeated faceseal leak rate measurements were made at -5.6 through -20.1 mm water pressure drops across the faceseal. Subjects were divided into two groups, representing acceptable fit or unacceptable fit, based on leak rate criteria prescribed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Subjects with acceptable fit did not experience an increase in faceseal leak rate with increased pressure drop. Leak rates for subjects with unacceptable fit were highly variable and did not show an association with pressure drop. Results of this study do not support the concept of increased faceseal leakage with increased pressure drop. The evidence does not suggest increased risk of contaminant exposure through the face seal as pressure drop increases.     

Evaluation of a quantitative fit testing method for N95 filtering facepiece respirators

A method for performing quantitative fit tests (QNFT) with N95 filtering facepiece respirators was developed by earlier investigators. The method employs a simple clamping device to allow the penetration of submicron aerosols through N95 filter media to be measured. The measured value is subtracted from total penetration, with the assumption that the remaining penetration represents faceseal leakage. The developers have used the clamp to assess respirator performance. This study evaluated the clamp's ability to measure filter penetration and determine fit factors. In Phase 1, subjects were quantitatively fit-tested with elastomeric half-facepiece respirators using both generated and ambient aerosols. QNFT were done with each aerosol with both P100 and N95 filters without disturbing the facepiece. In Phase 2 of the study elastomeric half facepieces were sealed to subjects' faces to eliminate faceseal leakage. Ambient aerosol QNFT were performed with P100 and N95 filters without disturbing the facepiece. In both phases the clamp was used to measure N95 filter penetration, which was then subtracted from total penetration for the N95 QNFT. It was hypothesized that N95 fit factors corrected for filter penetration would equal the P100 fit factors. Mean corrected N95 fit factors were significantly different from the P100 fit factors in each phase of the study. In addition, there was essentially no correlation between corrected N95 fit factors and P100 fit factors. It was concluded that the clamp method should not be used to fit-test N95 filtering facepieces or otherwise assess respirator performance.     

Development of Medium-size Half-mask Facepiece for Male Workers at a Shipyard and Its Fit Performance in Korea

Ten years ago, three differently sized half-mask facepiece prototypes were constructed from silicon using computer graphics and statistical analysis to fit them according to Korean facial dimensions. The purpose of this study was to complete the medium-size half-mask respirator based on the prototype, which would provide an adequate fit performance for male workers at a shipyard, Hyundai Samho Heavy Industry Co., in Korea. The complete respirator—the hardness 55—was manufactured with existing accessories such as a filter, exhalation valve, and strap attached. The fit performance test was conducted by performing a quantitative fit-test on 48 male subjects: workers who usually wear half-mask respirators (Dobulife Tech Co., Model DM-911, Gwangju, Gyeonggi-do, Korea). The results showed that the hardness 55 provided male subject workers with much better fit performance than the existing mask constructed by the same company. Because softness of the material of the facepiece, in particular the inner part, influenced faceseal leakage, further research on developing better-fit respirator facepieces should consider carefully the fine control of material softness.     

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.     

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.     

Determination of known exhalation valve damage using a negative pressure user seal check method on full facepiece respirators

A negative pressure user seal check (NPUSC) method was evaluated for its ability to adequately detect known exhalation valve leakage into a respirator. Three valves with different types of damage were included. Twenty-six test subjects, wearing full facepiece respirators, were asked to perform a NPUSC. Their responses as to whether they passed or failed the user seal check were compared to fit testing results from two quantitative fit test methods: ambient aerosol and controlled negative pressure. In addition, equipment developed at the University of Cincinnati was used to measure in-mask pressures that are generated during the performance of NPUSCs. This technique was employed to assess the ability of respirator wearers to properly conduct user seal checks. The data were analyzed to determine if the user seal check procedure is an effective method for detecting known exhalation valve damage. All test subjects reported passing the user seal check with the undamaged valve. With the warped valve installed, 95 percent of test subjects reported passing the user seal check. With the slit valve installed, 73 percent of test subjects reported passing. With the dirty valve installed, 65 percent reported passing. All fit factors, measured with the damaged valves, were below the Occupational Safety and Health Administration-recognized pass/fail criteria except one fit test with the respirator equipped with the slit valve. Results from the in-mask pressure measurements confirmed whether or not the subject properly conducted a user seal check, but did not detect respirator leakage. In conclusion, the performance of a NPUSC rarely helped to identify damaged exhalation valves. These results support the need for respirator inspection prior to donning with periodic fit testing and the performance of user seal checks as necessary components of an adequate respiratory protection program.     

Respirator donning in post-hurricane New Orleans

We evaluated correctness of N95 filtering facepiece respirator donning by the public in post-hurricane New Orleans, where respirators were recommended for mold remediation. We randomly selected, interviewed, and observed 538 participants, using multiple logistic regression for analysis. Only 129 (24%) participants demonstrated proper donning. Errors included nose clip not tightened (71%) and straps incorrectly placed (52%); 22% put on the respirator upside down. Factors independently associated with proper donning were as follows: ever having used a mask or respirator (odds ratio [OR] 5.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.79-22.64); ever having had a respirator fit test (OR 4.40; 95% CI, 2.52-7.81); being male (OR 2.44; 95% CI, 1.50-4.03); Caucasian race (OR 2.09; 95% CI, 1.32-3.33); having a certified respirator (OR 1.99, 95% CI, 1.20-3.28); and having participated in mold clean-up (OR 1.82; 95% CI,1.00-3.41). Interventions to improve respirator donning should be considered in planning for influenza epidemics and disasters.     

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.     

Impact of three biological decontamination methods on filtering facepiece respirator fit, odor, comfort, and donning ease

The objective of this study was to determine if ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI), moist heat incubation (MHI), or microwave-generated steam (MGS) decontamination affects the fitting characteristics, odor, comfort, or donning ease of six N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) models. For each model, 10 experienced test subjects qualified for the study by passing a standard OSHA quantitative fit test. Once qualified, each subject performed a series of fit tests to assess respirator fit and completed surveys to evaluate odor, comfort, and donning ease with FFRs that were not decontaminated (controls) and with FFRs of the same model that had been decontaminated. Respirator fit was quantitatively measured using a multidonning protocol with the TSI PORTACOUNT Plus and the N95 Companion accessory (designed to count only particles resulting from face to face-seal leakage). Participants' subjective appraisals of the respirator's odor, comfort, and donning ease were captured using a visual analog scale survey. Wilcoxon signed rank tests compared median values for fit, odor, comfort, and donning ease for each FFR and decontamination method against their respective controls for a given model. Two of the six FFRs demonstrated a statistically significant reduction (p < 0.05) in fit after MHI decontamination. However, for these two FFR models, post-decontamination mean fit factors were still ≥ 100. One of the other FFRs demonstrated a relatively small though statistically significant increase (p < 0.05) in median odor response after MHI decontamination. These data suggest that FFR users with characteristics similar to those in this study population would be unlikely to experience a clinically meaningful reduction in fit, increase in odor, increase in discomfort, or increased difficulty in donning with the six FFRs included in this study after UVGI, MHI, or MGS decontamination. Further research is needed before decontamination of N95 FFRs for purposes of reuse can be recommended.     

Correlation between respirator fit and respirator fit test panel cells by respirator size

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), recognizing the difficulties inherent in using old military data to define modern industrial respirator fit test panels, recently completed a study to develop an anthropometric database of the measurements of heads and faces of civilian respirator users. Based on the data collected, NIOSH researchers developed two new panels for fit testing half-facepiece and full-facepiece respirators. One of the new panels (NIOSH bivariate panel) uses face length and face width. The other panel is based on principal component analysis (PCA) to identify the linear combination of facial dimensions that best explains facial variations. The objective of this study was to investigate the correlation between respirator fit and the new NIOSH respirator fit test panel cells for various respirator sizes. This study was carried out on 30 subjects that were selected in part using the new NIOSH bivariate panel. Fit tests were conducted on the test subjects using a PORTACOUNT device and three exercises. Each subject was tested with three replications of four models of P-100 half-facepiece respirators in three sizes. This study found that respirator size significantly influenced fit within a given panel cell. Face size categories also matched the respirator sizing reasonably well, in that the small, medium, and large face size categories achieved the highest geometric mean fit factors in the small, medium, and large respirator sizes, respectively. The same pattern holds for fit test passing rate. Therefore, a correlation was found between respirator fit and the new NIOSH bivariate fit test panel cells for various respirator sizes. Face sizes classified by the PCA panel also followed a similar pattern with respirator fit although not quite as consistently. For the LANL panel, however, both small and medium faces achieved best fit in small size respirators, and large faces achieved best fit in medium respirators. These findings support the selection of the facial dimensions for developing the new NIOSH bivariate respirator fit test panel.     

Correlation of qualitative and quantitative results from testing respirator fit

Three qualitative respirator fit tests were evaluated for their ability to adequately measure respiratory protection. The evaluated methods were the negative pressure test, the isoamyl acetate test, and the irritant smoke test. Each test was performed concurrently with a single quantitative fit test, the dioctylphthalate (DOP) test, during 274 half-mask and 274 full facepiece wearings. The quantitative values of DOP penetration obtained after passing or failing each qualitative fit test were lognormally distributed. For each qualitative test performed on each mask type, the average log penetration values obtained after passing and failing each test were statistically different from each other. The mean of the log penetration values associated with the failed qualitative test was always larger than the mean of the log penetration values associated with passed qualitative tests for all three qualitative methods. Most (95%) of the tested study had adequately fitting respirators as determined by quantitative testing. Of these subjects, 96% to 100% passed the qualitative fit tests. Of the 5% of the study subjects with inadequately fitting half mask respirators, 93% to 100% of the inadequate fits were detected by qualitative methods. Twenty three to 46% of the poorly fitting full face masks were detected by qualitative methods. The probability of passing or failing a qualitative test with an inadequately fitting respirator can be estimated; however, the uncertainty associated with each estimate is large due to the small number of study subjects with poorly fitting respirators.     

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.