Simulated workplace protection factor study of powered air-purifying and supplied air respirators.

Howard J. Cohen, Lawrence H. Hecker, Darrell K. Mattheis, James S. Johnson, Arthur H. Biermann, Kenneth L. Foote
{"title":"Simulated workplace protection factor study of powered air-purifying and supplied air respirators.","authors":"Howard J. Cohen, Lawrence H. Hecker, Darrell K. Mattheis, James S. Johnson, Arthur H. Biermann, Kenneth L. Foote","doi":"10.1080/15298660108984658","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A study protocol was developed to obtain simulated workplace protection factor (SWPF) data for eleven models of powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) and supplied-air respirators (SAR) with hoods and helmets. Respirators were tested in a chamber that allowed the simulation of 12 exercises, including 2 exercises of interest to the pharmaceutical industry. Each respirator was tested by 12 volunteers, and a total of 144 sets of test results were obtained for each device. The testing protocol allowed SWPFs up to 250,000 to be measured (limit of quantification). Median SWPFs for all respirators, except one SAR, were at or above this reporting limit. Lower fifth percentiles were above 100,000, except for one SAR previously noted. An assigned protection factor (APF) was estimated for each respirator by dividing the lower fifth percentile by a safety factor of 25. APFs ranged from 6000-10,000 for PAPRs (including one loose-fitting PAPR) and 3400-10,000 for SARs, with one exception. This SAR had a lower fifth percentile of less than 20 and an estimated APF of 1. Results indicated that most respirators tested could provide a high degree of protection for workers, although one National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health-approved SAR provided minimal, if any, protection. Direct testing in a simulated workplace seems the only method that will assure employers of choosing an adequate SAR. This may be true for other classes of respirators. Furthermore, the historical approach of establishing APFs for classes of respirators, rather than individual models, may not provide adequate protection to the wearer. This is also a serious problem for regulatory agencies seeking to promulgate respirator standard provisions such as APFs for classes of respirators.","PeriodicalId":7449,"journal":{"name":"AIHAJ : a journal for the science of occupational and environmental health and safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"33","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AIHAJ : a journal for the science of occupational and environmental health and safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15298660108984658","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 33

Abstract

A study protocol was developed to obtain simulated workplace protection factor (SWPF) data for eleven models of powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) and supplied-air respirators (SAR) with hoods and helmets. Respirators were tested in a chamber that allowed the simulation of 12 exercises, including 2 exercises of interest to the pharmaceutical industry. Each respirator was tested by 12 volunteers, and a total of 144 sets of test results were obtained for each device. The testing protocol allowed SWPFs up to 250,000 to be measured (limit of quantification). Median SWPFs for all respirators, except one SAR, were at or above this reporting limit. Lower fifth percentiles were above 100,000, except for one SAR previously noted. An assigned protection factor (APF) was estimated for each respirator by dividing the lower fifth percentile by a safety factor of 25. APFs ranged from 6000-10,000 for PAPRs (including one loose-fitting PAPR) and 3400-10,000 for SARs, with one exception. This SAR had a lower fifth percentile of less than 20 and an estimated APF of 1. Results indicated that most respirators tested could provide a high degree of protection for workers, although one National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health-approved SAR provided minimal, if any, protection. Direct testing in a simulated workplace seems the only method that will assure employers of choosing an adequate SAR. This may be true for other classes of respirators. Furthermore, the historical approach of establishing APFs for classes of respirators, rather than individual models, may not provide adequate protection to the wearer. This is also a serious problem for regulatory agencies seeking to promulgate respirator standard provisions such as APFs for classes of respirators.
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
动力式空气净化与供气式呼吸器的模拟工作场所防护系数研究。
为获得11种带头罩和安全帽的动力式空气净化呼吸器(papr)和供气式呼吸器(SAR)的模拟工作场所保护系数(SWPF)数据,制定了一项研究方案。呼吸器在一个可以模拟12种运动的房间里进行测试,其中包括制药行业感兴趣的2种运动。每个呼吸器由12名志愿者进行测试,每个呼吸器共获得144组测试结果。测试方案允许测量高达250,000的swpf(定量限制)。除一个SAR外,所有呼吸器的swpf中位数均等于或高于该报告限值。除先前提到的一个特别行政区外,较低的五个百分位数高于100,000。每个呼吸器的指定保护系数(APF)是通过将较低的5%除以25的安全系数来估计的。PAPR的apf范围为6000-10,000(包括一个宽松的PAPR), SARs的apf范围为3400-10,000,只有一个例外。该SAR的第五百分位数低于20,估计APF为1。结果表明,尽管美国国家职业安全与卫生研究所(National Institute for Occupational Safety and health)批准的一种SAR只能提供最低程度的保护,但大多数接受测试的呼吸器都可以为工人提供高度的保护。在模拟工作场所进行直接测试似乎是确保雇主选择适当SAR的唯一方法。对于其他类别的呼吸器可能也是如此。此外,历史上为各类呼吸器而不是单个型号建立apf的方法可能无法为佩戴者提供足够的保护。对于寻求颁布呼吸器标准条款(如呼吸器类别的apf)的监管机构来说,这也是一个严重的问题。
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
Approaches and considerations for setting occupational exposure limits for sensory irritants: report of recent symposia. Approach to setting occupational exposure limits for sensory irritants in The Netherlands. The origin of a nicotine detection method. Telephone communications with several commercial respirators. Replotting data for chronic beryllium disease.
×
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