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.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.].     

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.     

Respiratory protection and the risk of Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection

Tuberculosis (TB) can be transmitted to susceptible healthcare workers via inhalation of droplet nuclei carrying viable Mycobacterium tuberculosis bacilli. Several types of respiratory protective devices are compared with respect to efficacy against droplet nuclei penetration: surgical masks, disposable dust/mist particulate respirators (PRs), elastomeric halfmask respirators with high-efficiency (HEPA) filters, and powered airpurifying respirators (PAPRs) with elastomeric halfmask facepieces and HEPA filters. It is estimated that these devices permit, respectively, 42%, 5.7%, 2%, and 0.39% penetration of droplet nuclei into the facepiece. More limited data for the disposable HEPA filtering-facepiece respirator suggest that it would allow droplet nuclei penetration of 3% or less, similar to the value estimated for the elastomeric halfmask HEPA filter respirator. Because a respirator wearer's cumulative infection risk depends on the extent of droplet nuclei penetration, the cumulative risk will differ, given use of these different respirators. Hypothetical but realistic “low-exposure” and “high-exposure” scenarios are posed that involve, respectively, a 1.6% and a 6.4% annual risk of infection for healthcare workers. For the low-exposure scenario, the 10-year cumulative risks given no respirators versus surgical masks versus disposable dust/mist PRs versus elastomeric halfmask HEPA filter respirators versus HEPA filter PAPRs are, respectively, 15%, 6.7%, 0.94%, 0.33%, and .064%. For the high-exposure scenario, the 10-year cumulative risks for no respirator use versus use of the same four types of respirators are, respectively, 48%, 24%, 3.7%, 1.3%, and 0.26%. The use of disposable HEPA filtering-facepiece respirator should permit cumulative risks close to those estimated for the elastomeric halfmask HEPA filter respirator. It is concluded that when an infectious TB patient undergoes a procedure that generates respiratory aerosols, and when droplet nuclei source control is inadequate, healthcare workers attending the patient may need to wear highly protective respirators, such as HEPA filter PAPRs.     

Reducing respirator fit test errors: a multi-donning approach

As a continuation of recent studies to assess the accuracy of existing fit test methods, a multi-donning approach to fit testing is presented. As an example of that approach, a multi-donning quantitative fit test for filtering-facepiece respirators is presented and analyzed by comparing its error rates with those of the single-donning approach of current fit test methods. That analysis indicates the multi-donning fit test has the potential to reduce both the alpha error and the beta error to half that of single-donning fit tests. The alpha error is the error of failing a respirator that should pass; the beta error is the error of passing a respirator that should fail. Lowering fit test error rates for filtering-facepiece respirators is important because fit testing is an essential means of helping assure that an individual has selected an adequately fitting respirator. To reduce the alpha and beta error inherent in current fit test methods, the proposed fit test for filtering-facepiece respirators incorporates five donnings of the facepiece, unlike the single donning of existing fit test methods. The analysis presented here indicates that the multiple-donning approach reduces the element of chance in the fit test result and thereby increases the consistency and accuracy of the fit tests. The time to conduct the multi-donning test can approximate the time for current, single-donning tests by shortening the time the respirator is worn after each donning to about 10 sec. And, unlike current fit tests for filtering-facepieces that measure only faceseal leakage, the example multiple-donning fit test considered here is based on a measurement of total leakage (faceseal plus filter). Utilizing total respirator leakage can result in simpler quantitative fit test instrumentation and a fit test that is more relevant to the workplace. Further trials with human subjects are recommended in order to validate the proposed multi-donning approach.     

Simulated workplace performance of N95 respirators.

During July 1995 the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) began to certify nine new classes of particulate respirators. To determine the level of performance of these respirators, NIOSH researchers conducted a study to (1) measure the simulated workplace performance of 21 N95 respirator models, (2) determine whether fit-testing affected the performance, and (3) investigate the effect of varying fit-test pass/fail criteria on respirator performance. The performance of each respirator model was measured by conducting 100 total penetration tests. The performance of each respirator model was then estimated by determining the 95th percentile of the total penetration through the respirator (i.e., 95% of wearers of that respirator can expect to have a total penetration value below the 95th percentile penetration value). The 95th percentile of total penetrations for each respirator without fit-testing ranged from 6 to 88%. The 95th percentile of total penetrations for all the respirators combined was 33%, which exceeds the amount of total penetration (10%) normally expected of a half-mask respirator. When a surrogate fit test (1% criterion) was applied to the data, the 95th percentile of total penetrations for each respirator decreased to 1 to 16%. The 95th percentile of total penetrations for all the respirators combined was only 4%. Therefore, fit-testing of N95 respirators is necessary to ensure that the user receives the expected level of protection. The study also found that respirator performance was dependent on the value of the pass/fail criterion used in the surrogate fit-test.     

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.     

Qualitative fitting characteristics of elastomeric half face-piece respirators using Isoamyl acetate agent

To examine the fit testing of elastomeric half face-piece respirators (EHRs), a total of 41 candidates were randomly assigned into seven EHRs equipped with organic vapor (OV) cartridges which were commonly used in the Iranian industrial workplaces. The qualitative fitting into the facial dimensions was assessed using the Allegro Isoamyl Acetate fit test kit. While the studied EHRs showed very low passing fit testing rates, the 3M, AoSafety (Medium), and AoSafety (Large) had the highest passing rates with 22.0%, 14.60%, and 9.76%, respectively. The AoSafety (All sizes) delivered a higher passing fit test rate than the 3M brand (29.30 vs. 22.0%). The one size fits all respirators including the DUO and Climax showed lower proportions of passing fit tests compared with AoSafety three-size system brands (2.40% and 4.90% vs. 29.30%). Low fit test passing rates were determined among different respirators. The respirators with various sizes and styles had more opportunities for different wearers to pass the fit test than single size models. The initial and annual fit testing requirements shall be developed by local government. Also, the manufacturers are required to pay attention to respirator features and subject characteristics during the production to obtain satisfactory protection for the end-users.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Evaluation of the performance of the N95-companion: effects of filter penetration and comparison with other aerosol instruments

Fit factor is the ratio of the particle concentration outside (C(out)) to the inside (C(in)) of the respirator and assumes that filter penetration is negligible. For Class-95 respirators, concerns were raised that filter penetration could bias fit test measurements. The TSI N95-Companion was designed to overcome this limitation by measuring only 40-60 nm size particles. Recent research has shown that particles in this size range are the most penetrating for respirators containing electrostic filter media. The goal of this study was to better understand the performance of the N95-Companion by assessing the impact of filter penetration and by comparing C(out)/C(in) ratios measured by other aerosol instruments (nano-Differential Mobility Analyzer/Ultrafine Condensation Particle Counter (nano-DMA/UCPC) and the TSI PortaCount Plus) using N95 filtering facepiece respirators sealed to a manikin and with intentionally created leaks. Results confirmed that 40-60 nm-diameter size room air particles were most penetrating for the respirators tested. A nonlinear relationship was found between the N95-Companion-measured C(out)/C(in) ratios and the other instruments at the sealed condition and at the small leak sizes because the N95-Companion measures only charged particles that are preferentially captured by the electrostic filter media, while the other instrument configurations also measure uncharged particles, which are captured less efficiently. The C(out)/C(in) ratios from the N95-Companion for experiments conducted under sealed condition suggest that filter penetration of negatively charged 40-60 nm size particles was less than 0.05%. Thus, the N95-Companion measured C(out)/C(in) ratios are due primarily to particle penetration through leakage, not through filter media, while the C(out)/C(in) ratios for the PortaCount, nano-DMA/UCPC, and UCPC result from a combination of face seal leakage and filter penetration.     

Surgical masks vs filtering facepiece respirators for the protection against coronavirus infection: current state of the art

Background:During the Covid-19 outbreak, a recurrent subject in scientific literature has been brought back into discussion: whether surgical masks provide a sufficient protection against airborne SARS-CoV-2 infections.Objectives:The objective of this review is to summarize the available studies which have compared the respective effectiveness of surgical masks and filtering facepiece respirators for the prevention of infections caused by viruses that are transmitted by the respiratory tract.Methods:The relevant scientific literature was identified by querying the PubMed database with a combination of search strings. The narrower search string “(surgical mask *) AND (respirator OR respirators)” included all the relevant articles retrieved using broader search strategies. Of all the relevant articles found, seven systematic reviews were selected and examined.Results:The currently available scientific evidence seems to suggest that surgical masks and N95 respirators/FFP2 confer an equivalent degree of protection against airborne viral infections.Discussion:Since surgical masks are less expensive than N95 respirators but seem to be as effective in protecting against airborne infection and they are also more comfortable for the user, requiring less respiratory work, they should be the standard protective device for health care workers and especially for workers who carry out non-medical jobs. Filtering facepiece respirators, whose extended use is less comfortable for the wearer, may be preferred for procedures which require greater protection for a shorter time.Key words: Surgical masks, filtering facepiece respirators, aerosols, droplets, SARS-CoV-2, Covid-19     

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.     

多所医院医务人员医用防护口罩适合性研究

目的 通过定量适合性测试,描述医用防护口罩的适合现状以及探索适合性测试的影响因素.方法 通过分层抽样选取6所不同级别、性质的医院中不同呼吸道传染病暴露风险部门,即低风险(普通病区)、中风险(如急诊、呼吸科门诊)、高风险(发热门诊、核酸采样点、感控处)的工作人员,包括医生、护士、医技、工勤人员,对两个品牌的拱形和折叠形口...