职业安全与健康管理局对半面式呼吸器分配保护系数的评论

IF 4.8 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Pub Date : 2024-04-20 DOI:10.1111/nyas.15136
Mark Nicas
{"title":"职业安全与健康管理局对半面式呼吸器分配保护系数的评论","authors":"Mark Nicas","doi":"10.1111/nyas.15136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Halfmask air-purifying respirators are used by millions of workers to reduce inhaling air contaminants, both chemical (e.g., asbestos, styrene) and biological (e.g., SARS-CoV-2, <i>Mycobacterium tuberculosis</i>). In 2006, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) promulgated a standard that gave halfmask respirators an assigned protection factor (APF) of 10. This signified that OSHA assumes a fit-tested and trained wearer will experience a 10% maximum total inward leakage of contaminated air into the facepiece. To derive APF = 10, OSHA analyzed data from 16 workplace studies of the efficacy of halfmask respirators worn against particulate contaminants. In this commentary, I contend that, in considering the data, OSHA made several errors that overstated halfmask respirator efficacy. The errors were (i) failing to properly account for within-wearer and between-wearer variability in respirator efficacy; (ii) ignoring the effect of particle deposition in the respiratory tract; (iii) aggregating unbalanced data within and between studies, and effectively double-counting the data in some studies; and (iv) ignoring the effect that particle size exerts in penetrating respirator facepiece leak paths. The net result is that OSHA's APF = 10 can lead to excessive toxicant exposure for many workers.</p>","PeriodicalId":8250,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences","volume":"1536 1","pages":"5-12"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A critique of Occupational Safety and Health Administration's halfmask respirator assigned protection factor\",\"authors\":\"Mark Nicas\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/nyas.15136\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Halfmask air-purifying respirators are used by millions of workers to reduce inhaling air contaminants, both chemical (e.g., asbestos, styrene) and biological (e.g., SARS-CoV-2, <i>Mycobacterium tuberculosis</i>). In 2006, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) promulgated a standard that gave halfmask respirators an assigned protection factor (APF) of 10. This signified that OSHA assumes a fit-tested and trained wearer will experience a 10% maximum total inward leakage of contaminated air into the facepiece. To derive APF = 10, OSHA analyzed data from 16 workplace studies of the efficacy of halfmask respirators worn against particulate contaminants. In this commentary, I contend that, in considering the data, OSHA made several errors that overstated halfmask respirator efficacy. The errors were (i) failing to properly account for within-wearer and between-wearer variability in respirator efficacy; (ii) ignoring the effect of particle deposition in the respiratory tract; (iii) aggregating unbalanced data within and between studies, and effectively double-counting the data in some studies; and (iv) ignoring the effect that particle size exerts in penetrating respirator facepiece leak paths. The net result is that OSHA's APF = 10 can lead to excessive toxicant exposure for many workers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8250,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences\",\"volume\":\"1536 1\",\"pages\":\"5-12\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.15136\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.15136","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

数百万工人使用半面罩空气净化呼吸器来减少吸入空气污染物,包括化学污染物(如石棉、苯乙烯)和生物污染物(如 SARS-CoV-2、结核分枝杆菌)。2006 年,联邦职业安全与健康管理局(OSHA)颁布了一项标准,将半面罩呼吸器的指定防护系数 (APF) 定为 10。这意味着 OSHA 假定经过适应性测试和培训的佩戴者将会经历最多 10%的污染空气向内泄漏到面罩中。为了得出 APF = 10,OSHA 分析了 16 项关于佩戴半面罩呼吸器对颗粒污染物的功效的工作场所研究数据。在本评论中,我认为 OSHA 在考虑这些数据时犯了几个错误,夸大了半面罩呼吸器的功效。这些错误是:(i) 没有适当考虑佩戴者内部和佩戴者之间在呼吸器功效方面的差异;(ii) 忽视了颗粒在呼吸道中沉积的影响;(iii) 在研究内部和研究之间汇总了不平衡的数据,实际上重复计算了某些研究中的数据;(iv) 忽视了颗粒大小在穿透呼吸器面罩泄漏路径方面的影响。最终结果是,OSHA 的 APF = 10 可能会导致许多工人接触过量的有毒物质。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A critique of Occupational Safety and Health Administration's halfmask respirator assigned protection factor

Halfmask air-purifying respirators are used by millions of workers to reduce inhaling air contaminants, both chemical (e.g., asbestos, styrene) and biological (e.g., SARS-CoV-2, Mycobacterium tuberculosis). In 2006, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) promulgated a standard that gave halfmask respirators an assigned protection factor (APF) of 10. This signified that OSHA assumes a fit-tested and trained wearer will experience a 10% maximum total inward leakage of contaminated air into the facepiece. To derive APF = 10, OSHA analyzed data from 16 workplace studies of the efficacy of halfmask respirators worn against particulate contaminants. In this commentary, I contend that, in considering the data, OSHA made several errors that overstated halfmask respirator efficacy. The errors were (i) failing to properly account for within-wearer and between-wearer variability in respirator efficacy; (ii) ignoring the effect of particle deposition in the respiratory tract; (iii) aggregating unbalanced data within and between studies, and effectively double-counting the data in some studies; and (iv) ignoring the effect that particle size exerts in penetrating respirator facepiece leak paths. The net result is that OSHA's APF = 10 can lead to excessive toxicant exposure for many workers.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 综合性期刊-综合性期刊
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
1.90%
发文量
193
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Published on behalf of the New York Academy of Sciences, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences provides multidisciplinary perspectives on research of current scientific interest with far-reaching implications for the wider scientific community and society at large. Each special issue assembles the best thinking of key contributors to a field of investigation at a time when emerging developments offer the promise of new insight. Individually themed, Annals special issues stimulate new ways to think about science by providing a neutral forum for discourse—within and across many institutions and fields.
期刊最新文献
From Skin to Brain: Antagonism and Parallelism in the MCH and MSH Systems Behavioral Phenotyping of Arts Engagement Using 20 Years of the American Time Use Survey A Randomized Proof‐of‐Concept Study of Gamified Rhythmic Training in Autistic Children Evolutionary Dynamics of Endogenous Feline Leukemia Virus in the Felis Genus Through the Lens of Genomics The Effect of Writing Direction and Task‐Specific Experience on Mapping Time and Numbers on Space
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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