Effect of Particle Size on Respiratory Protection Provided by Two Types of N95 Respirators Used in Agricultural Settings

This study compared size-selective workplace protection factors (WPFs) of an N95 elastomeric respirator (ER) and an N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) in agricultural environments. Twenty-five healthy farm workers ranging in age from 20 to 30 years voluntarily participated in this study. Altogether, eight farms were included representing three different types: two horse farms, three pig barns, and three grain handling sites. Subjects wore the ER and FFR while performing their daily activities, such as spreading hay, feeding livestock, and shoveling. Aerosol concentrations in an optical particle size range of 0.7–10 μm were determined simultaneously inside and outside the respirator during the first and last 15 min of a 60-min experiment. For every subject, size-selective WPFs were calculated in 1-min intervals and averaged over 30 min. For the ER, geometric mean WPFs were 172, 321, 1013, 2097, and 2784 for particle diameters of 0.7–1.0, 1.0–2.0, 2.0–3.0, 3.0–5.0, and 5.0–10.0 μm, respectively. Corresponding values for the FFR were 67, 124, 312, 909, and 2089. The 5th percentiles for the ER and FFR were higher than the assigned protection factor of 10 and varied from 28 to 250 and from 16 to 223, respectively. Results show that the N95 ER and FFR tested in the study provided an expected level of protection for workers on agricultural farms against particles ranging from 0.7 to 10 μm. WPFs for the ER were higher than the FFR for all particle size ranges. WPFs for both respirator types increased with increasing particle size.

[1]  Tiina Reponen,et al.  Performance of an N95 Filtering Facepiece Particulate Respirator and a Surgical Mask During Human Breathing: Two Pathways for Particle Penetration , 2009, Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene.

[2]  K. Donham,et al.  A Task-Specific Assessment of Swine Worker Exposure to Airborne Dust , 2009, Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene.

[3]  S. Horne,et al.  Combined effect of grain farming and smoking on lung function and the prevalence of chronic bronchitis. , 1991, International journal of epidemiology.

[4]  L. Janssen,et al.  Elastomeric, Half-Facepiece, Air-Purifying Respirator Performance in a Lead Battery Plant , 2009, Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene.

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

[6]  S. V. Von Essen,et al.  Lower respiratory tract inflammation in grain farmers. , 1990, American journal of industrial medicine.

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

[8]  Larry L Janssen,et al.  Workplace Protection Factors for an N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirator , 2007, Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene.

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

[10]  J. Hardin,et al.  Generalized Estimating Equations , 2002 .

[11]  Tiina Reponen,et al.  Laboratory and field evaluation of a new personal sampling system for assessing the protection provided by the N95 filtering facepiece respirators against particles. , 2005, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[12]  Richard Mines,et al.  Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS), 1997-1998: A Demographic and Employment Profile of United States Farmworkers. , 2000 .

[13]  Z Zhuang,et al.  Field performance measurements of half-facepiece respirators: steel mill operations. , 1998, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[14]  Tiina Reponen,et al.  Respiratory Protection Provided by N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirators Against Airborne Dust and Microorganisms in Agricultural Farms , 2005, Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene.

[15]  K. Donham,et al.  Respiratory symptoms and lung function among workers in swine confinement buildings: a cross-sectional epidemiological study. , 1984, Archives of environmental health.

[16]  T. Reponen,et al.  Personal Exposure to Airborne Dust and Microorganisms in Agricultural Environments , 2006, Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene.