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 4.1 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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"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://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://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
Inpatient diabetes management. Androgen abuse: Risks and adverse effects in men. Testosterone in prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes in men: Focus on recent randomized controlled trials. Inadequate mentoring in undergraduate research experiences: Exploring protective factors. Factors affecting shared decision-making concerning menopausal hormone therapy.
×
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