An Emergency Powered Air-Purifying Respirator From Local Materials and its Efficacy Against Aerosolized Nanoparticles

Kessel, Jeff; Saevig, Christopher S.; Hill, W. Cary; Kessel, Benjamin; Hull, Matthew S.

doi:10.1177/00469580221087837

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…participants [101,102], two studies: Japan University of Occupational and Environmental Health [103,104], one study: employees of the National Institute for Occupational Health (NIOH) [105], and one study: American Society of Safety Professionals (ASSP) [54]. Notably, the HCW subjects' occupations or professional groups were not mentioned in nineteen studies [32,33,42,51,53,58,88,[106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117]. The subjects' occupations in the remaining 69 studies were not exactly determined.…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of passing fit testing of the masks and respirators used during the COVID-19 pandemic: Part 1-quantitative fit test procedures

Fakherpour,

Jahangiri,

Jansz

2023

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background During respiratory infection pandemics, masks and respirators are highly sought after, especially for frontline healthcare workers and patients carrying respiratory viruses. The objective of this study was to systematically review fit test pass rates and identify factors influencing the fitting characteristics. Methods Potentially relevant studies were identified using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct during the COVID-19 pandemic from February 5, 2020, to March 21, 2023. The search strategy using the following keywords was conducted: Quantitative Fit Test, Condensation Nuclei Counter, Controlled Negative Pressure, PortaCount, Sibata, Accufit, Fit, Seal, Mask, Respirator, Respiratory Protective Device, Respiratory Protective Equipment, Protective Device, Personal Protective Equipment, COVID-19, Coronavirus, and SARS-CoV-2. The quality of the included studies was also assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results A total of 137 articles met the eligibility criteria. Fifty articles had a quality score of less than 7 (good quality). A total of 21 studies had a fit test pass rate of less than 50%. 26 studies on disposable respirators and 11 studies on reusable respirators had an FF of less than 50 and less than 200, respectively. The most influential factors include respirator brand/model, style, gender, ethnicity, facial dimensions, facial hair, age, reuse, extensive movement, seal check, comfort and usability assessment, and training. Conclusion 37.36% of the disposable respirator studies and 43% of the reusable respirator studies did not report fit test results. 67.86% of the disposable respirator studies had a fit test pass rate greater than 50%, and 35.84% of these studies had an FF greater than 100. Also, 85.71% of the reusable respirator studies had a fit test pass rate greater than 50%, and 52.77% of these studies had an FF greater than 1000. Overall, the fit test pass rate was relatively acceptable. Newly developed or modified respirators must undergo reliable testing to ensure the protection of HCWs. Subject and respirator characteristics should be considered when implementing fit testing protocols. An optimal fit test panel should be developed prior to respirator design, certification, procurement decisions, and selection procedures.

show abstract