Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) respiratory protection handbook.

Janssen, Larry; Johnson, Arthur T.; Johnson, James S.; Mansdorf, S.Z.; Meici, Osvaldo R.; Metzler, Richard W.; Rehak, Timothy R; Szalajda, Jonathan V.; Moore, Jordan

doi:10.26616/nioshpub2018166

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, the mask grade in the US is determined by measuring particle removal efficiency (95%, 99%, or 100%) for the most penetrating particle size (MPPS) and resistance level for oil (N: not resistant to oil, R: somewhat resistant to oil, P: strongly resistance to oil); masks may be graded based on both values (e.g., N95) (Bollinger and Schutz 1987;NIOSH, 2019). The mask grade can be obtained at a breathing resistance < 25 mm H2O (inhalation) or < 35 mm (exhalation) at a flow rate of 85 L min -1 (Janssen et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Study on Performance and Reusability of Certified and Uncertified Face Masks

Lee

Kim

Joo

et al. 2022

Aerosol Air Qual. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, the performance (particle removal efficiency and breathing resistance) of several commercially available face masks (KF80-certified electrostatic and nanofiber filter masks, and an uncertified mask) was evaluated, along with their filter structure and composition. Also, the effects of the relative humidity (RH) of incoming air, of water and alcohol exposure, and of reuse, on the performance of face masks were examined. Monodisperse and polydisperse sodium chloride particles were used as test aerosols. Except for the uncertified mask filter, PM2.5 removal efficiency was > 90%. The nanofiber filter mask had the highest quality factor due to its low pressure drop and high removal efficiency, and densely packed nanofiber pore structure, and significant amounts of fluorine, carbon and oxygen. The removal efficiency of the KF80-certified mask was barely affected by the higher RH of incoming air. When the mask filters were soaked in water, their removal efficiency decreased. The uncertified mask filter showed the largest decrease in removal efficiency (26%). When the mask was soaked in alcohol, the removal efficiency decreased to a greater degree than when soaked in water. The nanofiber mask filter showed the strongest resistance to alcohol among the tested mask filters. During evaluation of mask reusability, the removal efficiency of certified mask filters decreased by 4% over 5 consecutive days (2 hours per day), and that for the uncertified mask filter decreased significantly, by 30% after 5 days.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%