Comparison of Simulated Workplace Protection Factors Offered by N95 and P100 Filtering Facepiece and Elastomeric Half-Mask Respirators against Particles of 10 to 400 nm.

Xinjian He, Evanly Vo, M Horvatin, Y Liu, M Bergman, Z Zhuang
{"title":"Comparison of Simulated Workplace Protection Factors Offered by N95 and P100 Filtering Facepiece and Elastomeric Half-Mask Respirators against Particles of 10 to 400 nm.","authors":"Xinjian He, Evanly Vo, M Horvatin, Y Liu, M Bergman, Z Zhuang","doi":"10.15436/2377-1372.15.015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study compared the simulated workplace protection factors (SWPFs) between NIOSH-approved N95 respirators and P100 respirators, including two models of filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) and two models of elastomeric half-mask respirator (EHR), against sodium chloride particles (NaCl) in a range of 10 to 400 nm. Twenty-five human test subjects performed modified OSHA fit test exercises in a controlled laboratory environment with the N95 respirators (two FFR models and two EHR models) and the P100 respirators (two FFRs and two EHRs). Two Scanning Mobility Particle Sizers (SMPS) were used to measure aerosol concentrations (in the 10-400 nm size range) inside (C<sub>in</sub>) and outside (C<sub>out</sub>) of the respirator, simultaneously. SWPF was calculated as the ratio of C<sub>out</sub> to C<sub>in</sub>. The SWPF values obtained from the N95 respirators were then compared to those of the P100 respirators. SWPFs were found to be significantly different (P<0.05) between N95 and P100 class respirators. The 10<sup>th</sup>, 25<sup>th</sup>, 50<sup>th</sup>, 75<sup>th</sup> and 90<sup>th</sup> percentiles of the SWPFs for the N95 respirators were much lower than those for the P100 models. The N95 respirators had 5<sup>th</sup> percentiles of the SWPFs > 10. In contrast, the P100 class was able to generate 5<sup>th</sup> percentiles SWPFs > 100. No significant difference was found in the SWPFs when tested against nano-size (10 to 100 nm) and large-size (100 to 400 nm) particles. Overall, the findings suggest that the two FFRs and two EHRs with P100 class filters provide better performance than those with N95 filters against particles from 10 to 400 nm, supporting current OSHA and NIOSH recommendations.</p>","PeriodicalId":91125,"journal":{"name":"Journal of nanotechnology and materials science","volume":"2 2","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4529391/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of nanotechnology and materials science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15436/2377-1372.15.015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study compared the simulated workplace protection factors (SWPFs) between NIOSH-approved N95 respirators and P100 respirators, including two models of filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) and two models of elastomeric half-mask respirator (EHR), against sodium chloride particles (NaCl) in a range of 10 to 400 nm. Twenty-five human test subjects performed modified OSHA fit test exercises in a controlled laboratory environment with the N95 respirators (two FFR models and two EHR models) and the P100 respirators (two FFRs and two EHRs). Two Scanning Mobility Particle Sizers (SMPS) were used to measure aerosol concentrations (in the 10-400 nm size range) inside (Cin) and outside (Cout) of the respirator, simultaneously. SWPF was calculated as the ratio of Cout to Cin. The SWPF values obtained from the N95 respirators were then compared to those of the P100 respirators. SWPFs were found to be significantly different (P<0.05) between N95 and P100 class respirators. The 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th and 90th percentiles of the SWPFs for the N95 respirators were much lower than those for the P100 models. The N95 respirators had 5th percentiles of the SWPFs > 10. In contrast, the P100 class was able to generate 5th percentiles SWPFs > 100. No significant difference was found in the SWPFs when tested against nano-size (10 to 100 nm) and large-size (100 to 400 nm) particles. Overall, the findings suggest that the two FFRs and two EHRs with P100 class filters provide better performance than those with N95 filters against particles from 10 to 400 nm, supporting current OSHA and NIOSH recommendations.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
N95 和 P100 过滤面罩与弹性半面罩对 10 至 400 纳米微粒的模拟工作场所防护系数比较。
本研究比较了 NIOSH 批准的 N95 呼吸器和 P100 呼吸器(包括两种型号的过滤式面罩呼吸器 (FFR) 和两种型号的弹性半面罩呼吸器 (EHR))对 10 至 400 纳米范围内氯化钠微粒 (NaCl) 的模拟工作场所保护因子 (SWPF)。25 名人体测试对象在受控实验室环境中使用 N95 呼吸器(两款 FFR 型和两款 EHR 型)和 P100 呼吸器(两款 FFR 型和两款 EHR 型)进行了修改后的 OSHA 密合度测试练习。使用两台扫描移动式粒子测定仪 (SMPS) 同时测量呼吸器内部 (Cin) 和外部 (Cout) 的气溶胶浓度(10-400 nm 尺寸范围)。SWPF 以 Cout 与 Cin 之比计算。然后将 N95 呼吸器获得的 SWPF 值与 P100 呼吸器的 SWPF 值进行比较。结果发现,N95 呼吸器的 SWPF 值与 P100 呼吸器的 SWPF 值有明显差异(N95 呼吸器 SWPF 值的第 Pth、第 25、第 50、第 75 和第 90 百分位数远低于 P100 呼吸器。N95 呼吸器的 SWPF 第 5 百分位数大于 10。相比之下,P100 呼吸器的第 5 百分位数 SWPFs > 100。在对纳米级(10 到 100 纳米)和大颗粒级(100 到 400 纳米)进行测试时,SWPFs 没有发现明显差异。总之,研究结果表明,与配备 N95 过滤器的设备相比,配备 P100 级过滤器的两台 FFR 和两台电子健康记录仪对 10 至 400 纳米颗粒的防护性能更好,这也支持了当前 OSHA 和 NIOSH 的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Nanoparticle Encapsulation for Antiretroviral Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis. Comparison of Simulated Workplace Protection Factors Offered by N95 and P100 Filtering Facepiece and Elastomeric Half-Mask Respirators against Particles of 10 to 400 nm.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1