...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene >Simulated workplace protection factors for half-facepiece respiratory protective devices.
【24h】

Simulated workplace protection factors for half-facepiece respiratory protective devices.

机译:半面罩呼吸防护设备的模拟工作场所保护因素。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

This study investigates two different methods (random effects model and 5th percentile) for determining the performance of three types of respiratory protective devices (elastomeric N95 respirators, N95 filtering-facepiece respirators, and surgical masks) during a simulated workplace test. This study recalculated the protection level of three types of respiratory protective devices using the random effects model, compared the two methods with each other and the APF of 10 for half-facepiece respirators, and determined the value of each of the fit test protocols in attaining the desired level of simulated workplace protection factor (SWPF). Twenty-five test subjects with varying face sizes tested 15 models of elastomeric N95 respirators, 15 models of N95 filtering-facepiece respirators, and 6 models of surgical masks. Simulated workplace testing was conducted using a TSI PORTACOUNT Plus model 8020 and consisted of a series of seven exercises. Six simulated workplace tests were performed with redonning ofthe respirator/mask occurring between each test. Each of the six tests produced an SWPF. To determine the level of protection provided by the respiratory protective devices, a 90% lower confidence limit for the simulated workplace protection factor (SWPF(LCL90%)) and the 5th percentile of simulated workplace protection factor were computed. The 5th percentile method values could be up to seven times higher than the SWPF(LCL90%) values. Without fit testing, all half-facepiece N95 respirators had a 5th percentile of 4.6 and an SWPF(LCL90%) value of 2.7. N95 filtering-facepiece respirators as a class had values of 3.3 and 2.0, respectively, whereas N95 elastomeric respirators had values of 7.3 and 4.6, respectively. Surgical masks did not provide any protection, with values of 1.2 and 1.4, respectively. Passing either the Bitrex, saccharin, or Companion fit test resulted in the respirators providing the expected level of protection with 5th percentiles greater than or equal to 10 except when passing the Bitrex test with N95 filtering-facepiece respirators, which resulted in a 5th percentile of only 7.9. No substantial difference was seen between the three fit tests. All of the SWPF(LCL90%) values after passing a fit test were less than 10. The random model method provides a more conservative estimate of the protection provided by a respirator because it takes into account both between- and within-wearer variability.
机译:这项研究调查了两种不同的方法(随机效应模型和5%百分位数),用于在模拟工作场所测试中确定三种类型的呼吸防护设备(弹性N95呼吸器,N95过滤式面罩呼吸器和手术口罩)的性能。这项研究使用随机效应模型重新计算了三种类型的呼吸防护装置的防护等级,将两种方法相互比较,半面罩式呼吸器的APF为10,并确定了每种合适的测试方案在达到以下目标时的价值所需的模拟工作场所保护因子(SWPF)级别。 25名具有不同面部尺寸的测试对象测试了15种型号的弹性N95呼吸器,15种型号的N95过滤式面罩呼吸器和6种手术口罩。使用TSI PORTACOUNT Plus 8020型进行了模拟工作场所测试,该测试由一系列七个练习组成。进行了六次模拟工作场所测试,并恢复了两次测试之间的呼吸器/面罩。六个测试中的每一个都产生了SWPF。为了确定呼吸防护设备提供的防护等级,计算出模拟工作场所保护系数(SWPF(LCL90%))的置信度下限为90%,模拟工作场所保护系数的置信度为第5个百分点。第5个百分位数方法值可能比SWPF(LCL90%)值高7倍。如果没有合适的测试,所有半面罩N95呼吸器的第五个百分位数均为4.6,SWPF(LCL90%)值为2.7。 N95过滤式面罩呼吸器的等级分别为3.3和2.0,而N95弹性呼吸器的数值分别为7.3和4.6。外科口罩没有提供任何保护,其值分别为1.2和1.4。通过Bitrex,糖精或伴侣拟合测试可为呼吸器提供预期的防护等级,其第5个百分位数大于或等于10,除非通过带有N95过滤式面罩呼吸器的Bitrex测试,使该防护等级为第5个百分位数只有7.9。三种拟合测试之间没有发现实质性差异。通过拟合测试后,所有SWPF(LCL90%)值均小于10。随机模型方法对呼吸器提供的防护提供了更为保守的估计,因为它考虑了佩戴者之间和佩戴者内部的可变性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号