Selecting models for a respiratory protection program: what can we learn from the scientific literature?

N-95/P2 respirator compliance with fit testing recommendations and respirator satisfaction amongst hospital staff

BACKGROUND

Filtering Facepiece Respirators (FFRs) are an important and readily scalable infection control measure; however their effectiveness is ultimately determined by compliance. We aimed to examine staff compliance and satisfaction with wearing the N95/P2 FFRs assigned to them via the standardised fit testing protocol implemented in a single large healthcare network in Victoria, Australia.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional survey, employees from five hospital campuses who participated in the health networks N95/P2 FFR fit testing process were invited in person to participate in the study. Data were analysed descriptively, after which chi-squared analysis was performed to determine differences between respirator types, gender, and age groups.

RESULTS

Amongst the 258 staff members surveyed, 28% had either never or only sometimes worn an FFR to which they had been successfully fit tested, and 11% had experienced facial changes that potentially rendered their most recent fit test invalid. More than half (53%) of those surveyed had experienced side effects, the most common being skin irritation and pressure sores. A majority (87%) of staff felt that wearing an FFR had some impact on their ability to perform their duties. Pooled mean self-reported satisfaction ratings were highest for three-panel flat-fold and duckbill models.

CONCLUSION

28% of HCWs surveyed described not wearing N-95/P2 FFRs for which they had successfully been fit tested. Reasons for non-compliance remain unclear, but rates of side effects and interference with duties were high. Further research is required to determine and address potential causative factors and ascertain ongoing optimal organisation-level fit test strategies.

Striving to be the fittest: quantitative P2/N95 respirator fit test results among hospital staff during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objective

To provide fit rates for specific P2/N95 respirators and compare these results by age, sex, clean-shaven status, and fit tester experience.

Design

Exploratory audit involving secondary analysis of existing quantitative fit testing data.

Setting

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare services across Australia implemented respiratory protection protocols. This study details healthcare workers' (HCWs) fit testing results from a large Victorian public health service.

Participants

Fit-tested employees of a large tertiary public health network.

Methods

Fit rates for ten individual P2/N95 respirators were calculated, and the effect of age, sex, clean-shaven status, and fit tester experience was examined via logistic regression.

Results

4593 employees were included, with 97.98% successfully fitting at least one respirator. Males were found to have significantly increased odds of achieving fit success compared to females (OR 11.61 95%CI 1.60-84.10). Fit rates dropped by 4% with each 1-year age increase (OR 0.96 95%CI 0.94-0.98). Clean-shaven individuals were also more likely to achieve a fit compared to non-clean-shaved individuals (OR 79.23 95%CI 10.21-614.62). More experienced fit testers also yielded significantly higher fit rates (OR 3.95, 95%CI 2.34-6.67).

Conclusions

98% of staff achieved a successful fitting of at least one respirator, with three-panel flat fold models (Industree Trident, 3M Aura 9320A+, and 3M Aura 1870+) performing the most consistently. An individual's ability to achieve a successful fit was associated with; male sex, younger age, clean-shaven status, and fit tester experience.

Validation of N95 respirator models for pressure drop and particle capture efficiency

Despite efforts to apply administrative and engineering controls to minimize worker exposure to aerosols, filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) continue to be an important form of personal protective equipment in hard-to-control settings such as healthcare, agriculture, and construction. Optimizing the performance of FFRs can be advanced with the use of mathematical models that incorporate the forces that act on particles during filtration as well as those filter characteristics that influence filter pressure drop. However, a thorough investigation of these forces and characteristics using measurements of currently available FFRs has not been undertaken. Filter characteristics such as fiber diameter and filter depth were measured from samples taken from six currently-available N95 FFRs from three manufacturers. A filtration model was developed that included diffusion, inertial and electrostatic forces to estimate the filtration of an aerosol with a Boltzmann charge distribution. The diameter of the filter fibers was modeled as either a single "effective" diameter or as a lognormal distribution of diameters. Both modeling schemes produced an efficiency curve that simulated efficiency measurements made over a range of particle diameters (0.01 - 0.3 µm) with the use of a scanning mobility particle sizer in the region where efficiency is at a minimum. However, the method using a distribution of fiber diameters produced a better fit for particles > 0.1 µm. The coefficients associated with a simple form of the diffusion equation constituting a power law incorporating the Peclet number were adjusted to enhance model accuracy. Likewise, the fiber charge of the electret fibers was also adjusted to maximize model fit but remained within levels reported by others. A filter pressure drop model was also developed. Results demonstrated the need for a pressure drop model applicable to N95s relative to existing models developed with the use of fibers with larger diameters than those used in current N95 FFRs. A set of N95 FFR characteristics are provided that can be used to develop models of typical N95 FFR filter performance and pressure drop in future studies.

Quantitative fit-test concordance of a pair of similar-fit 3M Aura respirator models, 3M 9320A+ and 3M 1870+: A randomized crossover study

OBJECTIVE

Some manufacturers provide information on similar-fit model pairings of filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs), suggesting that fit-test outcome of one model helps predict the other. This guidance may be useful during crisis capacity when FFR supplies and/or fit tests are constrained. The purpose of this study was to compare quantitative fit-test (QNFT) results and concordance between a pair of similar-fit 3M Aura FFRs: the 3M 9320A+ and 3M 1870+.

METHODS

All participants completed online training and a QNFT with both respirators. The order of the respirator being examined first was randomly allocated. The outcomes included QNFT pass rate, concordance between the 2 models, overall and individual fit factors, and percentage of male and female participants who passed or failed the QNFT.

RESULTS

We recruited 1,000 participants (668 females and 332 males). The QNFT pass rate, overall fit factors, and individual fit factors were significantly higher for the 3M 9320A+ than the 3M 1870+ FFR. The concordance between the models was "fair" (κ coefficient, 0.38). Male participants who passed a QNFT with either of the FFRs had 96% chance of passing the QNFT for the alternate model. Female participants who passed the 3M 1870+ had 97% chance of passing the QNFT for the 3M 9320A+ model. However, ∼1 in 12 females who passed the QNFT for the 3M 9320A+ failed the QNFT for the 3M 1870+ FFR.

CONCLUSIONS

Similar-fit paired FFR models may provide a consequentially different level of respiratory protection, especially for women. Our findings are important for FFR stockpiling and fit-testing strategies, especially during crisis capacity.

Protocol of a prospective comprehensive evaluation of an elastic band beard cover for filtering facepiece respirators in healthcare

Individuals who are unable to be clean shaven for religious, medical or cultural reasons are unable to wear a filtering facepiece respirator (FFR), as the respirator cannot provide adequate protection against aerosol-transmissible diseases. There is currently a paucity of validated techniques to ensure the safe inclusion of bearded healthcare workers in the pandemic workforce. We propose to undertake a healthcare-based multi-modal evaluation study on the elastic band beard cover for FFR technique, examining the quantitative fit test (QNFT) results, usability and skill level of participants with repeated assessments over time. This is a prospective study conducted through the Respiratory Protection Program at the Royal Melbourne Hospital. Healthcare workers are invited to participate if they require respiratory protection and cannot shave for religious, cultural or medical reasons. An online education package on the use of respiratory protective equipment and the elastic band beard cover for FFR technique is provided. This is followed by a face-to-face session, where the participant will receive: one-on-one training; undergo a skill assessment on their donning, doffing and user seal check techniques; complete QNFTs and a usability survey. Participants will be invited to repeat the assessment within 3 months of the first session and at 12 months. This study involves multimodal and repeated assessments of an elastic band beard cover for FFRs. The findings of this study will provide information on: whether this simple technique can provide safe, consistent and effective respiratory protection; whether it will interfere with occupational activities; and whether it is comfortable and tolerable for the duration of wear. This is of significant importance to the health workforce around the world, who cannot shave but require access to respiratory protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Tolerability, User Acceptance and Preference for a Novel Reusable Respirator Among Healthcare Workers

BACKGROUND

The CleanSpace Technology Halo respirator combines a clear face mask and a powered air supply, without belts or hoses. Although providing higher protection than other respirators used in healthcare, user acceptance of this device has not been assessed with validated tools.

METHODS

We surveyed healthcare workers (HCWs) within a US medical system using Halo respirators in 2021. Subjects completed three surveys over eight weeks, which included the Respirator Comfort, Wearing Experience, and Function Instrument (R-COMFI), a validated tool to assess respirator tolerability. The survey included additional questions about user acceptability and respirator preference. Responses were evaluated for change over time and for significant predictors.

RESULTS

Of 113 HCWs who completed the initial survey (29% response rate), mean ± SD R-COMFI score was 9.1± 5.1, (scale 0-47, lower = more tolerable) and did not change over time (p = 0.42). Fewer years in healthcare significantly predicted better R-COMFI score (p=0.01). Many users preferred Halo in both usual care (45-52%) and care of patients with COVID-19 (60-64%).

DISCUSSION

Halo respirators received favorable tolerability scores by HCWs, who often preferred them, especially during care of patients with COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

Given demand for respirator use in healthcare, the innovative design provides higher protection than other respirators with a favorable user experience.

N95 respirators: quantitative fit test pass rates and usability and comfort assessment by health care workers

Objectives

To compare the performance of four N95 respirator types with respect to quantitative fit test pass rate and health care worker‐rated usability and comfort.

Design, setting, participants

Health care workers who participated in the respiratory protection program at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, 1 October 2020 – 31 May 2021. Participants underwent quantitative N95 respirator fit testing (at least three of four types: semi‐rigid cup, flat‐fold cup, duckbill, and three‐panel flat‐fold types), and were invited to complete an online usability and comfort assessment for respirators for which their fit test results were passes.

Main outcome measures

Fit test pass rate, and user‐rated overall comfort and assessment ratings (five‐point Likert scales), by N95 respirator type.

Results

A total of 2161 health care workers underwent quantitative fit testing (women, 1586 [73.4%]; nurses, 1271 [58.8%]). The overall fit test pass rates were 65.0% for the semi‐rigid cup respirators (1029/1583 tests), 32.4% for the flat‐fold respirator (660/2035 tests), 59.2% for the duckbill respirators (2005/3387 tests), and 96.4% for the three‐panel flat‐fold respirator (1876/1946 tests). 378 health care workers completed the comfort and usability survey. Overall comfort and assessment ratings each differed by respirator group (P < 0.001); the median overall comfort (4; IQR, 3–4) and overall assessment values (4; IQR, 3–5) were highest for the three‐panel flat‐fold respirator and lowest for the semi‐rigid cup respirators (comfort: 2 [IQR, 1–3]; assessment: 2 [IQR, 2–3]).

Conclusions

The three‐panel flat‐fold N95 respirator outperformed the three alternative types with regard to fit test pass rate and user‐rated comfort and usability. To maximise respiratory protection for health care workers, these factors should be considered when making respirator procurement decisions.

Determination of activated carbon fiber adsorption capacity for several common organic vapors: applications for respiratory protection

In the context of workplace safety, activated carbon in the fiber form (i.e., activated carbon fiber, ACF) represents an alternative adsorbent to granular activated carbon (GAC) for use in organic vapor respiratory protection devices. ACFs are high surface area carbonaceous materials that are often available in a self-supporting non-woven form. The physical form of ACF suggests the potential for a filtration medium that is capable of supporting both organic vapor adsorption and particulate filtration. To study the application of these materials in respiratory protection devices, ACFs (ACFF 1200 m²/g, ACFF 1800 m²/g, and ACFF 2000 m²/g) were challenged with representative organic vapors (toluene, hexane, and methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)) at an occupationally relevant concentration (200 ppm). Breakthrough curves were generated for at least three different bed weights of adsorbent. Pressure drop (i.e., the resistance across the filtration media) was also measured to determine maximum ACF bed depths for use in respiratory protection devices. Breakthrough experiments indicate that ACFF 2000 has the highest adsorption capacity for toluene (381 mg/g), followed by ACFF 1800 and ACFF 1200 (344 mg/g and 239 mg/g, respectively). A similar trend was observed for hexane: 221 mg/g, 196 mg/g, and 146 mg/g for ACFF 2000, ACFF 1800, and ACFF 1200, respectively. ACFF 1200 showed the highest adsorption capacity for the polar adsorbate MEK (168 mg/g), followed by ACFF 1800 and ACFF 2000 (166 mg/g and 147 mg/g, respectively). Based on the constraints of pressure drop, it seems unlikely the exclusive use of ACF in a filtering facepiece respirator can provide an adsorbent mass sufficient for full shift protection against organic vapor contaminants at or above the legally enforceable permissible exposure level (PEL). Nevertheless, the incorporation of ACF into a facepiece respirator appears promising for "nuisance odor" applications; i.e., the further reduction of organic vapor concentrations when workplace exposures are already below PEL concentrations.Implications: This research brings innovation to the field of occupational health and air pollution control technology by investigating the adsorption performance of activated carbon fiber (ACF) media in the context of worker respiratory protection. ACF properties such as high specific surface area (m²/g), high permeability to airflow, and rapid adsorption kinetics make it ideal for use in thin, N95-style respirators for organic vapors. Respiratory protection is an exciting and relevant application for ACF media. A lightweight adsorbent such as ACF, if incorporated into an N95-style respirator, could potentially provide nuisance-level VOC protection in a physical form that is accessible to workers and consistent with OSHA's voluntary use provisions for facepiece respirators. The research presented in this manuscript represents one of several steps planned in the characterization of ACF media for this particular application.

P2/N95 filtering facepiece respirators: Results of a large-scale quantitative mask fit testing program in Australian health care workers

Background

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, 6,287 Australian health care workers (HCWs) were fit tested to N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs). This study determined how readily HCWs were fitted to 8 FFRs and how age and sex influenced testing.

Methods

HCWs were fit tested following the quantitative OSHA protocol. After bivariate analysis, a logistic regression model assessed the effect of FFR model, HCW age and sex on fit test results.

Results

Of 4,198 female and 2,089 male HCWs tested, 93.3% were successfully fitted. Fifty-five percent passed the first FFR, 21% required 2 and 23% required testing on 3 or more models. Males were 15% less likely to pass compared to females (P < .001). Individuals aged 18-29 were significantly more likely to pass compared to colleagues aged 30-59. Cup-style 3M 1860S was the most suitable model (95% CI: 1.94, 2.54) while the duckbill BSN TN01-11 was most likely to fail (95% CI: 0.11, 0.15).

Conclusions

Current N95 FFRs exhibit suboptimal fit such that a large proportion (45%) of HCWs require testing on multiple models. Older age and male sex were associated with significantly higher fit failure rates. QNFT programs should consider HCW characteristics like sex, age, racial and facial anthropometric measurements to improve the protection of the health workforce.

Randomized crossover study comparing quantitative fit tests between Trident™ and 3M™ Aura™ N95/P2 respirators

BACKGROUND

Various styles of N95/P2 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) have been used by Australian healthcare workers (HCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is usually driven by the national stockpile availability. Many studies demonstrate three-panel flat-fold N95/P2 FFRs have higher quantitative fit test (QNFT) pass rates than other FFR styles. This prospective randomized crossover study utilized QNFT to evaluate the performance of the new three-panel flat-fold FFR, the Trident™ P2 respirator compared to the previously most effective model, the 3M™ Aura™ 9320A + N95 respirator.

METHODS

We recruited 500 participants who completed online training and QNFT on both respirators. The order of the respirator being examined first was randomly allocated. The primary outcome was the QNFT pass rate. Secondary outcomes included the overall fit factor, the individual fit factor for each exercise, and the first-attempt QNFT pass rate.

RESULTS

We found that both the overall and first-attempt QNFT pass rates of the Trident P2 respirator were significantly higher than the 3M Aura (99.2% vs 92.6%, p < 0.001; and 92.6% vs 76.4%, p < 0.001 respectively). The overall fit factor and the individual fit factor were also significantly higher for the Trident FFR than the 3M Aura.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first to report hospital-based QNFT results of the Trident FFR, demonstrating very high first-time and overall pass rates. Our findings are consistent with previous research showing very high QNFT pass rates with three-panel flat-fold FFRs. These findings are important for pandemic preparedness with respect to the stockpiling and safe utilization of N95/P2 respirators.

A feasible route for the design and manufacture of customised respiratory protection through digital facial capture

The World Health Organisation has called for a 40% increase in personal protective equipment manufacturing worldwide, recognising that frontline workers need effective protection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Current devices suffer from high fit-failure rates leaving significant proportions of users exposed to risk of viral infection. Driven by non-contact, portable, and widely available 3D scanning technologies, a workflow is presented whereby a user’s face is rapidly categorised using relevant facial parameters. Device design is then directed down either a semi-customised or fully-customised route. Semi-customised designs use the extracted eye-to-chin distance to categorise users in to pre-determined size brackets established via a cohort of 200 participants encompassing 87.5% of the cohort. The user’s nasal profile is approximated to a Gaussian curve to further refine the selection in to one of three subsets. Flexible silicone provides the facial interface accommodating minor mismatches between true nasal profile and the approximation, maintaining a good seal in this challenging region. Critically, users with outlying facial parameters are flagged for the fully-customised route whereby the silicone interface is mapped to 3D scan data. These two approaches allow for large scale manufacture of a limited number of design variations, currently nine through the semi-customised approach, whilst ensuring effective device fit. Furthermore, labour-intensive fully-customised designs are targeted as those users who will most greatly benefit. By encompassing both approaches, the presented workflow balances manufacturing scale-up feasibility with the diverse range of users to provide well-fitting devices as widely as possible. Novel flow visualisation on a model face is presented alongside qualitative fit-testing of prototype devices to support the workflow methodology.

Enhancement of peripheral seal of medical face masks using a 3-dimensional-printed custom frame

Background

During the COVID-19 pandemic, American Society for Testing and Materials level 3 and level 2 medical face masks (MFMs) have been used for most health care workers and even for the first responders owing to a shortage of N95 respirators. However, the MFMs lack effective peripheral seal, leading to concerns about their adequacy to block aerosol exposure for proper protection. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the peripheral seal of level 3 and level 2 MFMs with a 3-dimensional (3D-) printed custom frame.

Methods

Level 3 and level 2 MFMs were tested on 10 participants with and without a 3D-printed custom frame; the efficiency of mask peripheral seal was determined by means of quantitative fit testing using a PortaCount Fit Tester based on ambient aerosol condensation nuclei counter protocol.

Results

The 3D-printed custom frame significantly improved the peripheral seal of both level 3 and level 2 MFMs compared with the masks alone (P < .001). In addition, both level 3 and level 2 MFMs with the 3D-printed custom frame met the quantitative fit testing standard specified for N95 respirators.

Practical Implications

The 3D-printed custom frame over level 3 and level 2 MFMs can offer enhanced peripheral reduction of aerosols when using collapsible masks. With the shortage of N95 respirators, using the 3D-printed custom frame over a level 3 or level 2 MFM is considered a practical alternative to dental professionals.

A randomised crossover study to compare the user seal check and quantitative fit test between two types of duckbill N95 particulate respirator masks: The Halyard Fluidshield® N95 and the BSN Medical ProShield® N-95 particulate respirator masks

N95 particulate respirator masks are currently recommended for all healthcare workers who care for patients with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease (COVID-19) when performing aerosol-generating procedures. The protection provided by N95 particulate respirator masks is dependent on the filter's efficiency and seal quality. In this prospective randomised crossover study, we conducted the user seal check and the quantitative fit test on two readily available duckbill models of N95 masks, the Halyard Fluidshield® N95 (Halyard, Alpharetta, GA, USA) and the BSN Medical ProShield® N-95 (BSN Medical, Mount Waverley, Victoria) particulate respirator masks. We recruited a total of 96 anaesthetic staff, of whom 26% were of South-East Asian ethnicity. We found that both types of masks provided reasonably high fit test pass rates among our participants and there was no significant difference between the two brands (77% for the Fluidshield and 65% for the ProShield, P = 0.916). Ninety-two percent of the participants could find at least one well-fitted mask among these two types of masks. We also demonstrated that the user seal check had low accuracy and low concordance (kappa coefficient of 0.16 for the Fluidshield and 0.08 for the ProShield) when compared to the quantitative fit test, and hence was not a reliable method to test seal quality.

Performance and impact of disposable and reusable respirators for healthcare workers during pandemic respiratory disease: a rapid evidence review

OBJECTIVES

To synthesise evidence concerning the range of filtering respirators suitable for patient care and guide the selection and use of different respirator types.

DESIGN

Comparative analysis of international standards for respirators and rapid review of their performance and impact in healthcare.

DATA SOURCES

Websites of international standards organisations, Medline and Embase, hand-searching of references and citations.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies of healthcare workers (including students) using disposable or reusable respirators with a range of designs. We examined respirator performance, clinician adherence and performance, comfort and impact, and perceptions of use.

RESULTS

We included standards from eight authorities across Europe, North and South America, Asia and Australasia and 39 research studies. There were four main findings. First, international standards for respirators apply across workplace settings and are broadly comparable across jurisdictions. Second, effective and safe respirator use depends on proper fitting and fit testing. Third, all respirator types carry a burden to the user of discomfort and interference with communication which may limit their safe use over long periods; studies suggest that they have little impact on specific clinical skills in the short term but there is limited evidence on the impact of prolonged wearing. Finally, some clinical activities, particularly chest compressions, reduce the performance of filtering facepiece respirators.

CONCLUSION

A wide range of respirator types and models is available for use in patient care during respiratory pandemics. Careful consideration of performance and impact of respirators is needed to maximise protection of healthcare workers and minimise disruption to care.

Role of respirators in controlling the spread of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) amongst dental healthcare providers: a review

During the ongoing COVID‐19 pandemic, healthcare professionals are at the forefront of managing the highly infectious coronavirus. As the most common route of transmission is via aerosols and droplet inhalation, it is critical for healthcare workers to have the correct personal protective equipment (PPE) including gowns, masks and goggles. Surgical masks are not effective in preventing the influenza and SARS, so they are unlikely to be able to resist contaminated aerosols from entering the respiratory system. Therefore, it is vital to use respirators which have been proven to offer better protection against droplets, aerosols and fluid penetration and which form a tight seal around the mouth and nose. Various types of respirators are used in healthcare settings, such as half‐mask filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) and powered air‐purifying respirators (PAPRs). The most commonly used FFR is the N95 disposable respirator, which is tight fitting and has a 95% or above particle filtering efficiency for a median particle size of 0.3 µm. This review discusses respirators, their purpose, types, clinical efficiency and proper donning and doffing techniques.

Comparing mask fit and usability of traditional and nanofibre N95 filtering facepiece respirators before and after nursing procedures

BACKGROUND

The reliability of N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) depends on correct fitting. The perceived usability of FFRs is equally important because discomfort during usage may affect compliance. Body movements during nursing procedures may also increase the risk of face seal leakage.

AIM

To evaluate the mask fit and usability of the best-fitting 3M N95 FFR and the nanofibre N95 FFR before and after nursing procedures. The physical properties of these FFRs were also examined.

METHODS

This experimental study had a one-group multiple comparison design. In total, 104 nursing students participated, and performed nursing procedures for 10 min when wearing the best-fitting 3M FFR and the nanofibre FFR. Mask fit and perceived usability of the FFRs were evaluated.

FINDINGS

More participants failed to obtain a fit factor ≥100 when using the best-fitting 3M FFR than when wearing the nanofibre FFR (33.7% vs 21.2%) after the procedures (P=0.417). The nanofibre FFR also demonstrated higher usability than the 3M FFRs in terms of facial heat, breathability, facial pressure, speech intelligibility, itchiness, difficulty of maintaining the mask in place, and comfort level (P<0.001). The nanofibre FFR was also lighter, thinner and had slightly higher bacterial filtration efficiency than the 3M FFRs.

CONCLUSION

The nanofibre FFR demonstrated significantly better usability than the 3M FFRs. None of the respirators were able to provide consistent protection for the wearer, as detected by face seal leakage after performing nursing procedures. Further improvement in the prototype design is needed to increase compliance and ensure the respiratory protection of users.

Do Various Respirator Models Fit the Workers in the Norwegian Smelting Industry?

Background

Respirator fit testing is a method to assess if the respirator provides an adequate face seal for the worker.

Methods

Workers from four Norwegian smelters were invited to participate in the study, and 701 respirator fit tests were performed on 127 workers. Fourteen respirator models were included: one FFABE1P3 and 11 FFP3 respirator models produced in one size and two silicone half masks with P3 filters available in three sizes. The workers performed a quantitative fit test according to Health and Safety Executive 282/28 with 5–6 different respirator models, and they rated the respirators based on comfort. Predictors of overall fit factors were explored.

Results

The pass rate for all fit tests was 62%, 56% for women, and 63% for men. The silicone respirators had the highest percentage of passed tests (92–100%). The pass rate for the FFP3 models varied from 19–89%, whereas the FFABE1P3 respirator had a pass rate of 36%. Five workers did not pass with any respirators, and 14 passed with all the respirators tested. Only 63% passed the test with the respirator they normally used. The mean comfort score on the scale from 1 to 5 was 3.2. The respirator model was the strongest predictor of the overall fit factor. The other predictors (age, sex, and comfort score) did not improve the fit of the model.

Conclusion

There were large differences in how well the different respirator models fitted the Norwegian smelter workers. The results can be useful when choosing which respirators to include in respirator fit testing programs in similar populations.

Disclosure and Fit Capability of the Filtering Facepiece Respirator

The filtering facepiece air-purifying respirator is annually purchased in the tens of millions and widely used for worker protection from harmful airborne particulates. The workplace consumers of this safety product, i.e., employers, workers, and safety and health professionals, have assurances of its effectiveness through the respirator certification and disclosure requirements of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. However, the certification of a critical performance requirement has been missing for the approved filtering facepiece respirator since 1995: fit capability. Without this certification, consumers continue to be at risk of purchasing a respirator model that may fit a small percentage of the intended users. This commentary updates and expands an earlier one by this author, addresses the consequences of poorly fitting certified models on the market and lack of disclosure, and calls for further action by National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to meet the needs and expectations of the consumer.

Tuberculosis Infection Control in Health-Care Facilities: Environmental Control and Personal Protection

Transmission of tuberculosis (TB) is a recognized risk to patients and healthcare workers in healthcare settings. The literature review suggests that implementation of combination control measures reduces the risk of TB transmission. Guidelines suggest a three-level hierarchy of controls including administrative, environmental, and respiratory protection. Among environmental controls, installation of ventilation systems is a priority because ventilation reduces the number of infectious particles in the air. Natural ventilation is cost-effective but depends on climatic conditions. Supplemented intervention such as air-cleaning methods including high efficiency particulate air filtration and ultraviolet germicidal irradiation should be considered in areas where adequate ventilation is difficult to achieve. Personal protective equipment including particulate respirators provides additional benefit when administrative and environmental controls cannot assure protection.

Ebola Care and Lack of Consensus on Personal Protective Respiratory Equipment

The Ebola epidemic in West Africa presents a considerable occupational risk to the health personnel involved. The principal mode of virus transmission to health care personnel is through direct contact with the patient, although transmission by aerosols through the air may also occur. Many safety protocols have been suggested relating to personal protection and particularly respiratory protection. It is generally agreed that all health care workers should have easy access to personal protective equipment. However, the degree of respiratory safety escalates from a mask, to an adequate respirator, and finally to a whole body suit with integrated helmet and positive air pressure. Recent publications demonstrate a lack of consensus on the degree of safety necessary. The step from "safe enough" to being "absolutely safe" seems, in most countries, insurmountable because of costs and logistics.