Laboratory and field evaluation of a new personal sampling system for assessing the protection provided by the N95 filtering facepiece respirators against particles.

OBJECTIVES We have recently developed a new personal sampling system for the real-time measurement of the protection provided by respirators against airborne dust and micro-organisms. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance characteristics of the new sampling system in both laboratory and field conditions. METHODS The measurements were conducted using the N95 filtering facepiece respirators and the newly developed personal sampling system put on a manikin (laboratory study) or donned by a human subject (laboratory and field studies). Two inhalation flow rates (0 and 40 l min(-1)) in conjunction with the sampling flow rate (10 l min(-1)) were tested in the manikin-based experiments to investigate the effects of the leak location (nose, cheek and chin) and the depth of the sampling probe (0, 5, 10 and 15 mm) within the respirator. The effect of human activity on the protection factor was evaluated using a variety of head movements and breathing patterns when a human subject wore the respirator in a room-size laboratory test chamber. The field study was conducted during corn harvesting with a respirator worn by a human subject on a combine. RESULTS There was no significant difference in the protection factors for different leak locations, or for sampling probe depths, when the inhalation rate was 0 l min(-1). For the inhalation rate of 40 l min(-1), the protection factors for nose leaks were higher than those for chin and cheek leaks. Furthermore, the protection factor was the lowest and showed the least variation when the sampling probe depth was equal to 0 mm (imbedded on the respirator surface). Human subject testing showed that the grimace maneuver decreased the protection factor and changed the original respirator fit. The protection factor during breath holding was lower than that found during inhalation and exhalation. Field results showed greater variation than laboratory results. CONCLUSIONS The newly designed personal sampling system efficiently detected the changes in protection factors in real time. The sampling flow was least affected by the inhalation flow when the sampling probe was imbedded on the respirator surface. Leak location, breathing patterns and exercises did affect the measurement of the protection factors obtained using an N95 filtering facepiece respirator. This can be attributed to the differences in the in-mask airflow dynamics contributed by the leak, filter material, sampling probe and inhalation. In future studies, it would be beneficial if the laboratory data could be integrated with the field database.

[1]  T. Reponen,et al.  Indoor air pollution control through ionization , 2004 .

[2]  Klaus Willeke,et al.  Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques, and Applications , 2001 .

[3]  K Willeke,et al.  Penetration of airborne microorganisms through a surgical mask and a dust/mist respirator. , 1996, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[4]  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.

[5]  C D Crutchfield,et al.  Effect of leak location on measured respirator fit. , 1997, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[6]  C C Coffey,et al.  Performance of N95 respirators: filtration efficiency for airborne microbial and inert particles. , 1998, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

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

[8]  J. Hankinson,et al.  Workplace measurement of respirator effects using respiratory inductive plethysmography. , 1989, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[9]  W C Malm,et al.  Aerosol Light Scattering Measurements as a Function of Relative Humidity , 2000, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[10]  C D Crutchfield,et al.  Effect of test exercises and mask donning on measured respirator fit. , 1999, Applied occupational and environmental hygiene.

[11]  Tiina Reponen,et al.  Development of a New Method for Measuring the Protection Provided by Respirators against Dust and Microorganisms , 2004 .

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

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

[14]  Icrp.  Human Respiratory Tract Model for Radiological Protection , 1994 .

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

[16]  W. W. Melvin,et al.  Respirator Fit and Facial Dimensions of Two Minority Groups , 1998 .

[17]  Clifton D. Crutchfield,et al.  Determinations of known respirator leakage using controlled negative pressure and ambient aerosol QNFT systems , 1995 .

[18]  T J Nelson,et al.  The effect of inhalation resistance on facepiece leakage. , 2000, AIHAJ : a journal for the science of occupational and environmental health and safety.

[19]  I. Tang,et al.  Aerosol growth studies—II. Preparation and growth measurements of monodisperse salt aerosols , 1977 .

[20]  J G Jones,et al.  The physiological cost of wearing a disposable respirator. , 1991, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[21]  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.

[22]  J F Gamble,et al.  A model for correcting Workplace Protection Factors for lung deposition and other effects. , 1993, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

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

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

[25]  W C Hinds,et al.  The effect of respirator dead space and lung retention on exposure estimates. , 1993, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.