This study examined the association of facial dimensions with respirator fit considering the effect of gender and respirator brand. Forty-one subjects (20 white females and 21 white males) participated in the study. Each subject was measured for 12 facial dimensions using anthropometric sliding and spreading calipers and a steel measuring tape. Three quantitative fit tests were conducted with the same subject wearing one size of three different brands of half-mask respirators resulting in a total of nine fit tests. Linear mixed model analysis was used to model respirator fit as a function of gender and respirator brand while controlling for facial dimensions. Results indicated that the gender by respirator brand interaction was not statistically significant (p = 0.794), and there was no significant difference in respirator fit between males and females (p = 0.356). There was a significant difference in respirator fit among respirator brands (p < 0.001). Because correlations between facial dimensions and respirator fit differed across gender and respirator brand, six separate linear mixed models were fit to assess which facial dimensions most strongly relate to respirator fit using a "one variable at a step" backward elimination procedure. None of the 12 facial dimensions were significantly associated with respirator fit in all six models. However, bigonial breadth and menton-nasion length were significantly associated with respirator fit in five of the six models, and biectoorbitale breadth, bizygomatic breadth, and lip width were significantly associated with respirator fit in four of the six models. Although this study resulted in significant findings related to the correlation of respirator fit with menton-nasion length and lip width (the dimensions currently used to define the half-mask respirator test panel), other facial dimensions were also shown to be significantly associated with respirator fit. Based on these findings and findings from previous studies, it is suggested that other facial dimensions including bigonial breadth, biectoorbitale breadth, and bizygomatic breadth be considered when designing half-mask respirators, and that face length and lip width alone may not be appropriate in defining test groups whose fit is intended to be representative of worker populations.
Various qualitative exposure assessment models based on different underlying assumptions requiring distinct inputs and providing diverse outputs are used by occupational hygienists and risk managers to evaluate the magnitude of occupational exposures. Although a wide variety of exposure assessment models are available, most models have not been validated. This study compared the inhalation risk factor of a qualitative exposure assessment model with quantitative exposure data collected at a manufacturing facility for more than 9 years for 12 worker groups involving 24 chemical agents. A Spearman's rho correlation found no significant correlation between the model's risk factor and the maximum measured exposure (rs=0.119, p=0.496). A Fisher exact test found that the maximum measured exposure was independent of the model's inhalation risk factor (chi2=0.203, p=0.653). The model accurately classified measured exposures in 18 out of 35 cases (51%), 53% of the measured exposures classified as acceptable were correctly classified by the model (sensitivity), whereas 33% of the measured exposures classified as uncertain/unacceptable were correctly classified by the model (specificity). There was a 67% probability that the model would result in a false low classification and a 47% probability that the model would result in a false high classification. Although the model was simple to apply, the overall predictive ability for the low level exposures seen in the study were poor and inconsistent among worker groups compared.
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.