The Importance of Fit-Testing Particulate Filtering Facepiece Respirators!

Abstract

Filtering facepiece respirators should protect people in healthcare settings and in research and diagnostic laboratories from infection from biological agents or from other hazardous particles. To ensure sufficient personal protection, a properly fitting respirator is imperative. However, data about the usefulness of testing the proper fit of such respirators conflict. Some data from health care settings indicate no difference in performance when the respirators were fit-tested or not fit-tested, but other data suggest better performance when respirators were fit-tested. The goal of this study was to quantitatively test in a laboratory environment the fitting of different filtering facepiece type 3 (FFP3) respirators from various manufacturers and to determine the parameters that are important for a good fit-factor. Another aim was to identify the best-fitting respirator for individuals who wear FFP3 respirators during their daily work in a laboratory/animal room environment. The quantitative fit-testing of respirators was performed using a TSI Portacount ® Pro+ Respirator Fit Tester (TSI Incorporated, Shoreview, MN). Fourteen individuals at two different Swiss institutions were tested with 10 different commercially available FFP3 respirators. Only 2 of 14 individuals passed the fit-test with all 10 respirators, and 2 of 14 individuals passed the fit-test with only three respirators. Performance of the respirators varied greatly for the different individuals, and the findings show that several factors contribute to the fitting of a respirator, such as the type of the respirator and the proper donning of the respirator. Study results confirm that a respirator fit-test is necessary because workers often fail to achieve sufficient protection with their respirators.

Quantitative fit testing of filtering face-piece respirators during the COVID-19 pandemic reveals anthropometric deficits in most respirators available in Iran

“…In the current study, the repeated measurements exhibited that statistically significant differences were determined among the respirator brands by the FFs which consistent with the previous studies [ 44 , 65 – 69 ]. The LMM was also represented the similar findings.…”

Aerosol production during autopsies: The risk of sawing in bone

“…adaptations with protective casing around the saw blade [5] or moistening the saw blade to reduce spread of particles [7,22]. Similarly, the use of protective gear, such as specialised, well-fitted respirators and filtering face pieces [16,23], as well as guideline inspections to ensure proper infrastructure of autopsy facilities could greatly reduce the number of aerosol particles reaching the respiratory tracts of forensic practitioners.…”

Physiologic and fit factor profiles of N95 and P100 filtering facepiece respirators for use in hot, humid environments

“…Our data indicate no statistically significant differences between FFR models passing the pre-exercise fit tests; the pass rates (FF !100) are in line with those of other reported studies. [10][11][12] The failures of both models on the initial fit tests reflect the recognition that there is high variability in obtaining a good fit with the FFR 13,14 as a result of numerous factors (facial anthropometrics, respirator style and features, material quality, training, experience, etc); therefore, no single FFR model is likely to obtain a passing score each time it is tested. However, of subjects passing the pre-exercise fit test, a significant number failed on the postexercise test with the N95 FFR, but not with the P100 FFR ( Table 2).…”