2015
DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/mev042
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Respirator Performance against Nanoparticles under Simulated Workplace Activities

Abstract: Filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) and elastomeric half-mask respirators (EHRs) are commonly used by workers for protection against potentially hazardous particles, including engineered nanoparticles. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of these types of respirators against 10–400 nm particles using human subjects exposed to NaCl aerosols under simulated workplace activities. Simulated workplace protection factors (SWPFs) were measured for eight combinations of respirator models (2 N9… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
21
0
2

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
2
21
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, the smallest PFs of FFRs used in this study were between 28-55 nm, which were in accordance with previous findings. Vo et al (2015) conducted a simulated workplace protection factor (SWPF) study using half elastomeric masks and half filtering facepiece respirators along with N95 and P100 filters. The results showed that the PFs against particles of 10-100 nm were larger than those against particles of 100-400 nm.…”
Section: Fit Factors and Protection Factors Of Ffrsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, the smallest PFs of FFRs used in this study were between 28-55 nm, which were in accordance with previous findings. Vo et al (2015) conducted a simulated workplace protection factor (SWPF) study using half elastomeric masks and half filtering facepiece respirators along with N95 and P100 filters. The results showed that the PFs against particles of 10-100 nm were larger than those against particles of 100-400 nm.…”
Section: Fit Factors and Protection Factors Of Ffrsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A recent study measured the simulated workplace protection factor (SWPF), an inverse factor of TIL, for FFRs (N95 and P100) and ERs with N95 and P100 filters. [ 7 ] Higher filter efficiency respirator categories (ER vs FFR and P100 vs N95) showed relatively larger SWPF confirming the filter efficiency dependence of TIL.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 66%
“…Another study measured the simulated workplace protection factor (SWPF), an inverse factor of TIL, for FFRs (N95 and P100) and ERs with N95 and P100 filters. [ 7 ] A comparison of relatively higher- and lower-efficiency respirators (P100 vs. N95 and ER vs. FFR) showed larger SWPF or lower TIL for higher-efficiency respirator categories. Similarly, TIL was found to be inversely related with filter efficiency for five N95 FFR models tested with 35 test subjects in two different laboratories [ 8 ] and for four N95 FFR models tested using a manikin head.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Publication bias can be expected but could not be assessed due to lack of data. EHR P100 on manequin without seal [22] EHR P3 and P2 on manequin without seal [23] N95 FFRs [24] N95 FFRs [25] FFR electrostatic filter [26] glass fiber filter [26] FPP3 [29] cloth masks [28] FFR P2, P3 [30] N95 FFRs [31] P100 FFR [31] N95 FFRs [32] PF res (-) 1 10 100 1000 10000 N95 FFRs worn by 12 persons [27] N95 FFRs worn by 25 persons [39] P100 FFRs worn by 25 persons [39] N95 EHRs worn by 25 persons [39] P100 EHRs worn by 25 persons [39] EHR P100 for manequin without seal [22] EHR P3 without seal [23] EHR P2 without seal [23] N95 sealed [25] Electrostatic FPP3 [29] cloth masks [28] N95 FFRs [31] P100 FFRs [31] N95 FFRs [32] N95 FFR (30) FFP2 [30] P100 [30] FFP3 [30] FFR N95 for MWCNT [37] FFR N99 for MWCNT [37] FFR N100 for MWCNT [37] FFR N95 for MWCNT mass [38] FFR N99 for MWCNT mass [38] FFR N100 for MWCNT mass [38] …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%