Criteria for the Collection of Useful Respirator Performance Data in the Workplace

Abstract

Workplace protection factors (WPFs) are intended to measure the ability of a respiratory protective device (RPD) to reduce contaminant exposure when used in the context of an effective respiratory protection program. In 1992, members of the American Industrial Hygiene Association Respiratory Protection Committee (RPC) published a review of important issues and considerations for measuring respirator performance in the workplace. The RPC recognized that respirator testing in workplaces can have a variety of objectives and endpoints, and that not all workplace measurements are WPFs. That paper addressed concerns in the general categories of 1) study objectives; 2) site selection; 3) subject selection and preparation; 4) sampling and analytical methods; and 5) data analysis. No specific protocol for measuring WPFs was recommended by the RPC, and attempts to reach a U.S. consensus on a WPF protocol since 1992 have not succeeded. Numerous studies have implemented the principles for WPF measurement described in the RPC paper. Modifications to the original recommendations have been made to reflect the current state of the art. This article describes what has been learned in recent years in each of the five categories identified in the 1992 discussion. Because of the wide variety of workplaces and work activities, contaminants and respiratory protective devices, a strict protocol is not appropriate for collecting WPF data. Rather, the minimum requirements for the collection and presentation of meaningful respirator performance data in the workplace are described. Understanding of these principles will permit useful RPD performance data to be generated.

Considerations for Recommending Extended Use and Limited Reuse of Filtering Facepiece Respirators in Health Care Settings

“…Infectious bioaerosols are hard to detect and differentiate from non-infectious bioaerosols. ( 36 ) Furthermore, assuring compliance during all periods of exposure in the health care setting is challenging. ( 37 ) Several studies in other workplaces have assessed protection over extended periods of continuous use by measuring the WPFs: up to 224 min in a steel foundry ( 38 ) ; 172 min in a concrete factory ( 39 ) ; and 60 min on farms.…”

Technological Scenario for Masks in Patent Database During Covid-19 Pandemic

“…Evidence indicates that personal protective equipment maintains its protection when used for longer periods. However, its use for (29)(30)(31). This type can be classified based on its filter efficiency and face leak (32) ( Table II).…”

Which type of personal protective equipment (PPE) and which method of donning or doffing PPE carries the least risk of infection for healthcare workers?

“…8 Evidence indicates that respirators maintain their protection when used for extended periods. 9 However, using a respirator for longer than four hours should be avoided as it can lead to discomfort. 9,10 Although studies have acknowledged that extended PPE use during times of severe shortages could reduce the utilisation rate, Several studies including guidance, based on clinical and epidemiological data, have highlighted the need for coordinated efforts to prevent and reduce transmission of infection to HCWs.…”

“…9 However, using a respirator for longer than four hours should be avoided as it can lead to discomfort. 9,10 Although studies have acknowledged that extended PPE use during times of severe shortages could reduce the utilisation rate, Several studies including guidance, based on clinical and epidemiological data, have highlighted the need for coordinated efforts to prevent and reduce transmission of infection to HCWs. 2,8,11,13 In response to the lack of evidence and appropriate PPE guidance within dentistry, in many countries, healthcare quality and safety control centres including professional associations have put forward their recommendations for dental services during the COVID-19 outbreak.…”