Nanoparticle Filtration Performance of Commercially Available Dust Masks.

Samy Rengasamy, Benjamin C Eimer, Ronald E Shaffer
{"title":"Nanoparticle Filtration Performance of Commercially Available Dust Masks.","authors":"Samy Rengasamy,&nbsp;Benjamin C Eimer,&nbsp;Ronald E Shaffer","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Dust masks are often confused with filtering facepiece respirators (FFR) but are not approved by NIOSH for respiratory protection against particulate exposure. This study reports the filtration performance of commercially available dust masks against submicron particles and discusses the relevance of these findings toward the filtration of nanoparticles. Seven different models of dust masks from local home improvement/hardware stores were challenged with submicron NaCl particles, and initial percentage penetration and resistance levels were measured using two test procedures. A polydisperse aerosol test (PAT) method, similar to the \"worst case\" conditions used in the NIOSH particulate respirator certification test protocol was used. A monodisperse aerosol test (MAT) method, which utilizes eleven different particle sizes in the range of 20-400 nm, were also used for particle penetration measurements at 30 and 85 L/min flow rates using the TSI 3160. Dust masks were designated as category low-, medium- and high-penetration dust masks based on penetration levels of <5%, 5-25% and >25%, respectively. Data collected using the PAT and the MAT methods showed <5% initial penetration levels for low-penetration dust masks, which is similar to the NIOSH-approved class-95 filtering facepiece respirators. Average penetration levels for medium- and high-penetration dust masks were between 8.9-24.2% and 74.5-96.9%, respectively. Penetration levels of MPPS particles from the MAT correlated with penetration levels from the PAT. Monodisperse MPPS penetration levels from MAT and penetration levels from PAT showed poor correlation with resistance values and no correlation with cost. The results of this study show that dust masks frequently do not provide filtration performance equivalent to that of NIOSH certified devices. Users of dust masks should be cautioned against using them for protection against particulates in the nano- or ultrafine size ranges.</p>","PeriodicalId":73984,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the International Society for Respiratory Protection","volume":"25 3","pages":"27-41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7357396/pdf/nihms-1604064.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the International Society for Respiratory Protection","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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

Dust masks are often confused with filtering facepiece respirators (FFR) but are not approved by NIOSH for respiratory protection against particulate exposure. This study reports the filtration performance of commercially available dust masks against submicron particles and discusses the relevance of these findings toward the filtration of nanoparticles. Seven different models of dust masks from local home improvement/hardware stores were challenged with submicron NaCl particles, and initial percentage penetration and resistance levels were measured using two test procedures. A polydisperse aerosol test (PAT) method, similar to the "worst case" conditions used in the NIOSH particulate respirator certification test protocol was used. A monodisperse aerosol test (MAT) method, which utilizes eleven different particle sizes in the range of 20-400 nm, were also used for particle penetration measurements at 30 and 85 L/min flow rates using the TSI 3160. Dust masks were designated as category low-, medium- and high-penetration dust masks based on penetration levels of <5%, 5-25% and >25%, respectively. Data collected using the PAT and the MAT methods showed <5% initial penetration levels for low-penetration dust masks, which is similar to the NIOSH-approved class-95 filtering facepiece respirators. Average penetration levels for medium- and high-penetration dust masks were between 8.9-24.2% and 74.5-96.9%, respectively. Penetration levels of MPPS particles from the MAT correlated with penetration levels from the PAT. Monodisperse MPPS penetration levels from MAT and penetration levels from PAT showed poor correlation with resistance values and no correlation with cost. The results of this study show that dust masks frequently do not provide filtration performance equivalent to that of NIOSH certified devices. Users of dust masks should be cautioned against using them for protection against particulates in the nano- or ultrafine size ranges.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
市售防尘口罩的纳米颗粒过滤性能。
防尘口罩经常与过滤式面罩呼吸器(FFR)混淆,但NIOSH未批准其用于呼吸防护颗粒暴露。本研究报告了市售防尘口罩对亚微米颗粒的过滤性能,并讨论了这些发现与纳米颗粒过滤的相关性。来自当地家装/五金店的七种不同型号的防尘口罩受到亚微米NaCl颗粒的挑战,并通过两种测试程序测量了初始百分比渗透率和阻力水平。采用多分散气溶胶测试(PAT)方法,类似于NIOSH颗粒呼吸器认证测试方案中使用的“最坏情况”条件。单分散气溶胶测试(MAT)方法使用了20-400 nm范围内的11种不同粒径的颗粒,并使用TSI 3160在30和85 L/min流速下进行颗粒穿透测量。根据25%的渗透率,将防尘口罩分为低、中、高渗透率防尘口罩。采用PAT和MAT方法收集的数据显示
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
Next-Generation Custom-Fit Reusable Respiratory Protective Device with Continuous Fit Monitoring - Part II: Continuous Fit Monitoring. Modifying NIOSH's Manikin Fit Evaluation Method to Match Fit Testing with Human Subjects. Review of the Effect of Continuous Use and Limited Reuse of N95 Respirators on Respirator Fit. Elastomeric Half Mask Respirators: An Alternative to Disposable Respirators and a Solution to Shortages during Public Health Emergencies. Using Public Feedback about the use of Elastomeric Half Mask Respirators to Inform a National Deployment Study within Health Settings.
×
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