Powered air-purifying respirator use in healthcare: Effects on thermal sensations and comfort

Abstract

Twelve subjects wore an N95 filtering facepiece respirator (N95 FFR), one tight-fitting full facepiece powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR), two loose-fitting PAPRs, and one elastomeric/PAPR hybrid for 1 hr each during treadmill walking at 5.6 km/hr while undergoing physiological and subjective response monitoring. No significant interaction (p ≥ .05) was noted between the five respirators in heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, transcutaneous carbon dioxide, and perceptions of breathing effort or discomfort, exertion, facial heat, and overall body heat. Respirator deadspace heat/humidity were significantly greater for the N95 FFR, whereas tympanic forehead skin temperatures were significantly greater for the hybrid PAPR. Temperature of the facial skin covered by the respirator was equivalent for the N95 FFR and hybrid PAPR, and both were significantly higher than for the other three PAPRs. Perception of eye dryness was significantly greater for a tight-fitting full facepiece PAPR than the N95 FFR and hybrid PAPR. At a low-moderate work rate over 1 hr, effects on cardiopulmonary variables, breathing perceptions, and facial and overall body heat perceptions did not differ significantly between the four PAPRs and a N95 FFR, but the tight-fitting, full facepiece PAPR increased perceptions of eye dryness. The two loose-fitting PAPRs and the full facepiece tight-fitting PAPR ameliorated exercise-induced increases in facial temperature, but this did not translate to improved perception of facial heat and overall body heat.

User acceptance of reusable respirators in health care

“…Other studies have reported increased perception of facial heat and eye dryness in PAPR users. 29,30 In the current study, PAPR users rated their respirators more favorably than N95-FFR users on sense of protection. Similarly, in the study of HCWs familiar with PAPR use during SARS, PAPRs were perceived to be more protective than N95-FFRs.…”

Analysis of User Preference with N95 and Powered Air-Purifying Respirators in a Healthcare Work Environment

“…Results showed that the N95 FFR had a higher tympanic forehead temperature and a higher respirator dead space compared to the other PAPR'S. However, the perception of eye dryness was highest among the tight fitting PAPR, and the two loose-fitting PAPR's had a higher rate of facial heat, but this is thought to be due to exercise induced body heat (Powell, Kim, & Roberge, 2017). A different study conducted by Johnson et al, (2007) evaluated sixteen subjects wearing a tight-fitting PAPR while exercising on a treadmill.…”

Preference and User Experience with Powered Air- purifying Respirators in Healthcare Workers in a Simulated Work Environment: A Pilot Study

“…Perceived thermal discomfort due to forehead temperature was also a result of the 2017 study by Powell et al. It was also reported that subjects complained of eye dryness as well (Powell et al, 2017).…”

“…Thermal comfort of the face is much less of an issue with PAPRs as compared to N95 masks due to the battery powered flow of air. However, physical exertion while wearing an elastomeric PAPR can cause an increase in forehead skin temperature, leading to an overall perception of body core thermal discomfort (Powell et al, 2017). The flow of air also can cause an additional perception of discomfort.…”

“…The flow of air also can cause an additional perception of discomfort. In the tight-fitting full facepiece PAPR, subjects reported a perception of eye dryness (Powell et al, 2017).…”