Development of a New Method for Measuring the Protection Provided by Respirators against Dust and Microorganisms

The efficiency of respirators is usually determined by the protection factor, which is the ratio of the particle concentration outside the respirator to that inside the respirator. Most studies on workplace protection factors (WPF) of respirators have focused on the measurement of total mass concentrations, ignoring the effect of particle size. Furthermore, there appear to be on previous studies on protection factors against biological particles. In this study, a prototype personal sampling setup was developed for determining the protection provided by respirators again non-biological and biological particles in the size rang of 0.7-10 um. The range covers respirable and thoracic dust particles as well as most bacterial and fungal spores. The setup is compatible for field use in workplace environments and was optimized by minimizing particle losses in its aerosol transmission system. Theoretical modeling, laboratory tests, and field tests were performed for design optimization. After accounting for aerosol deposition mechanisms due to gravity, inertia, and turbulence affecting aerosol transmission through the straight and bending sections of specialized tubing, the theoretical data showed best agreement with the laboratory and field data for a tube diameter of 1⁄2 inch (~1.27 com) among the three tested diameters. Tubing of this diameter also had the least amount of particle losses, and can be directed either above the ear or above the shoulder of the person whose respiratory protection is being evaluated. In addition, the ability of the setup to measure the WPF when a human subject donned a respirator was demonstrated successfully during soybean unloading. This study suggests that the new setup is a promising tool for future studies on evaluating respiratory protection against airborne dusts and microorganisms in occupational environments.

[1]  Z Zhuang,et al.  Field performance measurements of half-facepiece respirators--foundry operations. , 1996, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[2]  Stephen J Reynolds,et al.  Prototype sampling system for measuring workplace protection factors for gases and vapors. , 2003, Applied occupational and environmental hygiene.

[3]  T J Nelson,et al.  Workplace protection factors--supplied air hood. , 2001, AIHAJ : a journal for the science of occupational and environmental health and safety.

[4]  Kenneth L. Rubow,et al.  In-Mask Aerosol Sampling For Powered Air Purifying Respirators , 1984 .

[5]  K Willeke,et al.  Particle settling after lead-based paint abatement work and clearance waiting period. , 2000, AIHAJ : a journal for the science of occupational and environmental health and safety.

[6]  R. Weber,et al.  Measuring performance of a half-mask respirator in a styrene environment. , 2000, AIHAJ : a journal for the science of occupational and environmental health and safety.

[7]  F Akbar-Khanzadeh,et al.  Comfort of personal protective equipment. , 1995, Applied ergonomics.

[8]  William Popendorf,et al.  Respirator Protection and Acceptability Among Agricultural Workers , 1995 .

[9]  K L Rubow,et al.  Electrostatic effects in aerosol sampling and filtration. , 1985, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[10]  W R Myers,et al.  Review of respirator performance testing in the workplace: issues and concerns. , 1992, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[11]  W R Myers,et al.  Causes of in-facepiece sampling bias--II. Full-facepiece respirators. , 1988, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[12]  Robert B Lawrence,et al.  Comparison of five methods for fit-testing N95 filtering-facepiece respirators. , 2002, Applied occupational and environmental hygiene.

[13]  R K Oestenstad,et al.  Identification of faceseal leak sites on a half-mask respirator. , 1990, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[14]  D L Campbell,et al.  Assigned protection factors for two respirator types based upon workplace performance testing. , 1984, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[15]  K Willeke,et al.  Particle size-dependent leakage and losses of aerosols in respirators. , 1987, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[16]  K Willeke,et al.  Characteristics of face seal leakage in filtering facepieces. , 1992, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[17]  Warren R. Myers,et al.  Field Performance Measurements of Half-Facepiece Respirators—Paint Spraying Operations , 1996 .

[18]  R K Oestenstad,et al.  Distribution of faceseal leak sites on a half-mask respirator and their association with facial dimensions. , 1990, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[19]  K. Willeke,et al.  Filter and leak penetration characteristics of a dust and mist filtering facepiece. , 1990, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[20]  Jacek Dutkiewicz,et al.  Size distribution of bacterial and fungal bioaerosols in indoor air. , 1999, Annals of agricultural and environmental medicine : AAEM.

[21]  K Willeke,et al.  Quantitative fit testing techniques and regulations for tight-fitting respirators: current methods measuring aerosol or air leakage, and new developments. , 1997, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[22]  R. Beever,et al.  Function of rodlets on the surface of fungal spores , 1978, Nature.

[23]  W R Myers,et al.  Parameters that bias the measurement of airborne concentration within a respirator. , 1986, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[24]  Tiina Reponen,et al.  Effect of relative humidity on the aerodynamic diameter and respiratory deposition of fungal spores , 1996 .