Background N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) are widely used in healthcare to reduce transmission of airborne infectious diseases. These respirators are generally described as single use or limited reuse devices, but cost and operational issues mean that they may be donned and doffed multiple times. There is scant research on the effect of this practice on adequacy of fit. Objective The purpose of this study was to measure the effect on respirator fit of multiple donning and doffing of N95 FFRs. Methods This was an experiment in which 16 women and 9 men employed by the National Institute for Occupational Health (NIOH), Johannesburg, donned their same N95 FFR six times. All 25 were trained in the correct wearing of the devices before the experiment. Four models of respirators were used: the six who did not use respirators at work (novice subjects) were issued a 3M 1860 FFR and the others used their currently supplied one. During the experiment subjects donned their respirators under the supervision of the tester. Quantitative fit testing was done in the NIOH Occupational Hygiene laboratory after each donning according to the OSHA-Accepted Fit Test Protocol using the TSI PortaCount Pro+ Model 8038 Respirator Fit Tester. During the test, fit was measured after each of seven exercises and then an overall fit factor was computed. Only individuals who achieved an initial overall fit factor of ≥100 were allowed to continue participation in the study. Median overall fit factors were calculated for the 25 subjects for each donning and changes across them was examined using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Men and women and frequent and infrequent users were compared across the six tests. Infrequent use was defined as subjects who wore respirators ≤ once per week, and novice subjects. Results Two subjects (8%) had an overall fit factor <100 at fit Test 2, 6 (24%) at Test 3, and 8 (32%) at Tests 4, 5, and 6. Thirteen respirator users (52%) achieved ≥100 throughout the fit testing, so 12 had at least one failure at either Tests 2–6. Five of the 12 subjects with at least one failure showed persistent failures on all subsequent donnings. Six subjects out of 12 (50%) who failed a fit test achieved an overall fit factor >100 at a subsequent test. There was a significant difference between the median first and sixth overall fit factors (195 versus 150; P = 0.0271), but not between the second and sixth (161 versus 150; P = 0.3584). Men and women had similar overall fit factors, but infrequent users had larger average overall fit factors than frequent users after all six donnings. Conclusion Forty-eight percent of study subjects failed at least one fit test after re-donning an N95 FFR. The fit test data suggest that donning practices probably accounted for the fit test failures. The 50% of subjects who produced overall fit factors ≥100 after a test of <100 supports this contention.
BackgroundIn South Africa, respiratory protective equipment is often the primary control method used to protect workers. This preliminary study investigated how well a common disposable P2 respirator fitted persons with a range of facial dimensions.MethodsQuantitative respirator fit tests were performed on 29 volunteers from different racial, gender and face size groups. Two facial dimensions width (bizygomatic) and length (menton-sellion) were measured for all participants.ResultsIn this study 13.8% of the participants demonstrated a successful fit with the medium sized mask. These included participants from three different racial and both gender groups. The large percentage of failed fit tests (86%) indicates that reliance on off-the-shelf respirators could be problematic in South Africa.ConclusionsThe limitations of this preliminary study notwithstanding, respirator fit appear to be associated with individual facial characteristics and are not specific to racial/ethnic or gender characteristics.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.