Quantitative fit-test method for powered air-purifying respirators

Lowry, Philip L.; Wheat, L.D.; Bustos, J.M.

doi:10.1080/15298667991429615

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(7) These values were lowered in the 1987 NIOSH Respirator Decision Logic (1) and the subsequent 2004 Respirator Selection Logic. (2) One of the earliest published studies incorporating quantitative fit testing of PAPRs was the 1979 work of Lowry et al (8) In this study, quantitative fit tests were performed on three different PAPR units in a total of eight different configurations. Only one of the PAPR units (three configurations) tested was NIOSH certified.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated Unit Performance Testing of Powered, Air-Purifying Particulate Respirators Using a DOP Challenge Aerosol

Martin

Moyer

Jensen

2006

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although workplace protection factor (WPF) and simulated workplace protection factor (SWPF) studies provide useful information regarding the performance capabilities of powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) under certain workplace or simulated workplace conditions, some fail to address the issue of total PAPR unit performance over extended time. PAPR unit performance over time is of paramount importance in protecting worker health over the course of a work shift or at least for the recommended service lifetime of the PAPR battery pack, whichever is shorter. The need for PAPR unit performance testing has become even more important with the inception of 42 CFR 84 and the recent introduction of electrostatic respirator filter media into the PAPR market. This study was conducted to learn how current PAPRs certified by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health would perform under an 8-hour unit performance test similar to the dioctyl phthalate (DOP) loading test described in 42 CFR 84 for R- and P-series filters for nonpowered, air-purifying particulate respirators. In this study, entire PAPR units, four with mechanical filters and one with an electrostatic filter, were tested using a TSI Model 8122 Automated Respirator Tester, with and without the built-in breathing machine. The two, tight-fitting PAPRs, both with mechanical filters, showed little effect on performance resulting from the breathing machine. The two loose-fitting helmet PAPRs indicate that unit performance testing without the breathing machine is a more stringent test than testing with the breathing machine under the conditions used. The PAPR with a loose-fitting hood gave inconclusive results as to which testing condition is more stringent. The PAPR unit equipped with electrostatic filters gave the highest maximum penetration values during unit performance testing.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated Unit Performance Testing of Powered, Air-Purifying Particulate Respirators Using a DOP Challenge Aerosol

Martin

Moyer

Jensen

2006

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore it is important to evaluate the respirator performance as a function of the breathing pattern which simulates typical usage conditions. In order to assess the practical performance of respirators, the particle concentration in/out respirators which was worn by volunteers and workers were measured in laboratories and workplaces 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ) . Subject test, however, is not able to compare various masks under the same breathing condition, as it is quite difficult for repeating the same breathing pattern.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breathing simulator of workers for respirator performance test

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Breathing machines are widely used to evaluate respirator performance but they are capable of generating only limited air flow patterns, such as, sine, triangular and square waves. In order to evaluate the respirator performance in practical use, it is desirable to test the respirator using the actual breathing patterns of wearers. However, it has been a difficult task for a breathing machine to generate such complicated flow patterns, since the human respiratory volume changes depending on the human activities and workload. In this study, we have developed an electromechanical breathing simulator and a respiration sampling device to record and reproduce worker’s respiration. It is capable of generating various flow patterns by inputting breathing pattern signals recorded by a computer, as well as the fixed air flow patterns. The device is equipped with a self-control program to compensate the difference in inhalation and exhalation volume and the measurement errors on the breathing flow rate. The system was successfully applied to record the breathing patterns of workers engaging in welding and reproduced the breathing patterns.

show abstract

Respiratory Protective Equipment

Myers¹

2001

Patty's Industrial Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The respirator is historically one of the oldest types of equipment used for personal protection in the occupational setting. It is uncertain when the use of primitive forms of respiratory protection began. However, Pliny the Elder recorded the first known use of such a device early in the 1 st century ad . Although respirators have been used for almost 2000 years, the genesis of their technical development is actually the mid‐19th century. During that century. Despite major advances in knowledge and technology, respirator development continued slowly. Chemical warfare agents, introduced in World War I, focused attention on the need for adequate respirators. In the United States, the Bureau of Mines successfully carried out this work for the army. The forerunners of present‐day respirators began to appear after World War I. In those early years, misuse of surplus army gas masks by civilians and employers, who had sole discretion about deciding when and how respirators were used, highlighted the need for respiratory protection standards. The Bureau of Mines in 1919 initiated the first respirator certification program in the United States and certified their first respirator, a self‐contained breathing apparatus in 1920. Responsibility for the respirator certification program was transferred from the Bureau of Mines to NIOSH in 1972. In 1995, NIOSH promulgated new certification regulations, Title 42 Code of Federal Regulations Part 84 (Part 84). Knowing the minimum performance standards and recognizing the limitations of the NIOSH certification tests are important when selecting and using a “NIOSH‐certified” repirator. Achieving proper respiratory protection with NIOSH‐certified RPE requires that ( 1 ) the RPE be properly selected for the environment in which it will be used; ( 2 ) its face fitting characteristics be adequately evaluated and considered in the selection process; and ( 3 ) workers receive periodic training that adequately prepares them to conscientiously and properly wear and use the RPE. Three recognized standard‐producing groups have produced guidance or standards on establishing and maintaining the elements of a good respiratory protection program. They are: The American National Standards Institute (ANSI), The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The primary objective of industrial hygiene is to prevent contaminants from escaping into the atmosphere. Hazard control should start at the outset of process, equipment, and plant design stages so those potential exposure sources can be engineered out. But very often exposure control becomes an issue after the process(es) are operational and therefore control becomes a more difficult and costly proposition. However, even then consideration should be given to the use of effective engineering controls to eliminate and/or reduce exposure to respiratory hazards. The preferred priority of controls steps are ( 1 ) substitution of a less toxic substance, ( 2 ) encapsulation or isolation of the process, ( 3 ) use of local exhaust ventilation or general ventilation in conjunction with filters and scrubbers to control the effluents, ( 4 ) use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Respiratory protective equipment should be used only when all higher priority control steps are not technically or financially feasible. Real world circumstances however demonstrate that engineering controls often do not reduce exposures sufficiently to eliminate a respiratory hazard. As a result respiratory protective equipment (RPE) becomes the only technically and economically feasible adjunct to engineering controls to minimize and control respiratory exposures. According to recent estimates reported by the OSHA Office of Regulatory Analysis, roughly 5 million workers, 19–20% of the mining/manufacturing/ construction workforce, in 1.3 million establishments use or have access to some type of respiratory protective equipment. Thus, RPE continues to be an important component in many respiratory exposure control plans. As a result, selection, use and evaluation of RPE have become more important as well.

show abstract

Quantitative fit-test method for powered air-purifying respirators

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Integrated Unit Performance Testing of Powered, Air-Purifying Particulate Respirators Using a DOP Challenge Aerosol

Integrated Unit Performance Testing of Powered, Air-Purifying Particulate Respirators Using a DOP Challenge Aerosol

Breathing simulator of workers for respirator performance test

Respiratory Protective Equipment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About