This study compared size-selective workplace protection factors (WPFs) of an N95 elastomeric respirator (ER) and an N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) in agricultural environments. Twenty-five healthy farm workers ranging in age from 20 to 30 years voluntarily participated in this study. Altogether, eight farms were included representing three different types: two horse farms, three pig barns, and three grain handling sites. Subjects wore the ER and FFR while performing their daily activities, such as spreading hay, feeding livestock, and shoveling. Aerosol concentrations in an optical particle size range of 0.7-10 μm were determined simultaneously inside and outside the respirator during the first and last 15 min of a 60-min experiment. For every subject, size-selective WPFs were calculated in 1-min intervals and averaged over 30 min. For the ER, geometric mean WPFs were 172, 321, 1013, 2097, and 2784 for particle diameters of 0.7-1.0, 1.0-2.0, 2.0-3.0, 3.0-5.0, and 5.0-10.0 μm, respectively. Corresponding values for the FFR were 67, 124, 312, 909, and 2089. The 5th percentiles for the ER and FFR were higher than the assigned protection factor of 10 and varied from 28 to 250 and from 16 to 223, respectively. Results show that the N95 ER and FFR tested in the study provided an expected level of protection for workers on agricultural farms against particles ranging from 0.7 to 10 μm. WPFs for the ER were higher than the FFR for all particle size ranges. WPFs for both respirator types increased with increasing particle size.

The aim of this study was to investigate respirator filter and faceseal penetration of particles representing bacterial and fungal spore size ranges (0.7-4 mum). First, field experiments were conducted to determine workplace protection factors (WPFs) for a typical N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR). These data (average WPF = 515) were then used to position the FFR on a manikin to simulate realistic donning conditions for laboratory experiments. Filter penetration was also measured after the FFR was fully sealed on the manikin face. This value was deducted from the total penetration (obtained from tests with the partially sealed FFR) to determine the faceseal penetration. All manikin experiments were repeated using three sinusoidal breathing flow patterns corresponding to mean inspiratory flow rates of 15, 30, and 85 l min(-1). The faceseal penetration varied from 0.1 to 1.1% and decreased with increasing particle size (P < 0.001) and breathing rate (P < 0.001). The fractions of aerosols penetrating through the faceseal leakage varied from 0.66 to 0.94. In conclusion, even for a well-fitting FFR respirator, most particle penetration occurs through faceseal leakage, which varies with breathing flow rate and particle size.

No abstract

No abstract

This study investigated differences in penetration between fibers and spherical particles through faceseal leakage of an N95 filtering facepiece respirator. Three cyclic breathing flows were generated corresponding to mean inspiratory flow rates (MIF) of 15, 30, and 85 L/min. Fibers had a mean diameter of 1 μm and a median length of 4.9 μm (calculated aerodynamic diameter, d ae = 1.73 μm). Monodisperse polystyrene spheres with a mean physical diameter of 1.01 μm (PSI) and 1.54 μm (PSII) were used for comparison (calculated d ae = 1.05 and 1.58 μm, respectively). Two optical particle counters simultaneously determined concentrations inside and outside the respirator. Geometric means (GMs) for filter penetration of the fibers were 0.06, 0.09, and 0.08% at MIF of 15, 30, and 85 L/min, respectively. Corresponding values for PSI were 0.07, 0.12, and 0.12%. GMs for faceseal penetration of fibers were 0.40, 0.14, and 0.09% at MIF of 15, 30, and 85 L/min, respectively. Corresponding values for PSI were 0.96, 0.41, and 0.17%. Faceseal penetration decreased with increased breathing rate for both types of particles (p ≤ 0.001). GMs of filter and faceseal penetration of PSII at an MIF of 30 L/min were 0.14% and 0.36%, respectively. Filter penetration and faceseal penetration of fibers were significantly lower than those of PSI (p < 0.001) and PSII (p < 0.003). This confirmed that higher penetration of PSI was not due to slightly smaller aerodynamic diameter, indicating that the shape of fibers rather than their calculated mean aerodynamic diameter is a prevailing factor on deposition mechanisms through the tested respirator. In conclusion, faceseal penetration of fibers and spherical particles decreased with increasing breathing rate, which can be explained by increased capture by impaction. Spherical particles had 2.0-2.8 times higher penetration through faceseal leaks and 1.1-1.5 higher penetration through filter media than fibers, which can be attributed to differences in interception losses.