Field performance measurements of half-facepiece respirators: steel mill operations

A critique of Occupational Safety and Health Administration's halfmask respirator assigned protection factor

Halfmask air-purifying respirators are used by millions of workers to reduce inhaling air contaminants, both chemical (e.g., asbestos, styrene) and biological (e.g., SARS-CoV-2, Mycobacterium tuberculosis). In 2006, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) promulgated a standard that gave halfmask respirators an assigned protection factor (APF) of 10. This signified that OSHA assumes a fit-tested and trained wearer will experience a 10% maximum total inward leakage of contaminated air into the facepiece. To derive APF = 10, OSHA analyzed data from 16 workplace studies of the efficacy of halfmask respirators worn against particulate contaminants. In this commentary, I contend that, in considering the data, OSHA made several errors that overstated halfmask respirator efficacy. The errors were (i) failing to properly account for within-wearer and between-wearer variability in respirator efficacy; (ii) ignoring the effect of particle deposition in the respiratory tract; (iii) aggregating unbalanced data within and between studies, and effectively double-counting the data in some studies; and (iv) ignoring the effect that particle size exerts in penetrating respirator facepiece leak paths. The net result is that OSHA's APF = 10 can lead to excessive toxicant exposure for many workers.

Correcting Coal Miner Respirator Total Inward Leakage Values for Respiratory Tract Deposition

The great majority of workplace respirator efficacy studies have measured total inward leakage (TIL) for particulate contaminants. One of the first such studies, designated the Harris study, was conducted in the early 1970s in US underground coal mines. As in other particle-based studies, inside-the-facepiece dust sampling was continuously conducted across the inhalation and exhalation phases of the breathing cycle, although unlike in other studies, respirable dust cyclones were used in air sampling. Because exhaled air was partially depleted of dust particles due to deposition in the respiratory tract, the measured time-averaged dust concentration inside the facepiece underestimated the time-averaged dust concentration inspired into the facepiece. In turn, the reported TIL values underestimated the true TIL values experienced, which is to say, overestimated respirator efficacy. This paper describes a method to correct the Harris study's reported TIL values for respiratory tract deposition while accounting for particle size-selective sampling by the cyclone devices. Given the estimated coal mine particle size distribution outside the respirator, it is shown that the reported TIL values should be increased by the multiplicative factor 1.69. This paper also discusses the assigned protection factor (APF) of five for the quartermask respirator class and shows that 4/5 quartermasks in the Harris study did not meet the criterion for complying with this APF value when using the corrected TIL values.

Investigating the field effectiveness of respirators against metal particle exposure in various workplaces: a systematic review

Welders are exposed to high levels of metal fumes, which could be resulting in various health impairments. Respirators became a practical protective option in workplaces, as they are lightweight and easy to use. This systematic review attempts to explore the field effectiveness of using respirators to reduce metal particle exposure in workplaces. We reviewed papers published from 1900 to April 2019 in five major bibliographic databases, including Embase, Web of Science, Medline, Scopus, and CINAHL, along with organizational websites to cover gray literature. In total, 983 references were identified from the databases, out of which, 520 duplicates were removed from the EndNote database. The remaining 463 references were screened for their title and abstract. Out of 463, 70 references went through the full-text screening. Finally, eight papers, including 19 workplace respirator studies, satisfied all the inclusion criteria and were reviewed in this report. The geometric means for metal levels in workers' breathing zone with and without respirators were 9.4 and 1,777 µg/m³ for iron, 1.1 and 139 µg/m³ for lead, 2.1 and 242 µg/m³ for zinc, and 27 and 1,398 µg/m³ for manganese oxide, respectively. Most reviewed studies reported significant differences between measured metal particle levels among workers who worn respirators and who did not. In addition, results showed that N95 provided significantly less protection than elastomeric half facepieces, full-face respirators, and powered air-purifying respirators (p<0.001). More field studies are recommended to investigate Workplace Protection Factor (WPF) and fit factor (FF) of different respirators to understand the actual protection levels that they could be provided to control welding fume exposure among welders in various workplaces.

Measurement of the Workplace Protection Factor of Replaceable Particulate and Powered Air-purifying Respirators in Japanese Dust-generating Occupations

Although measuring the workplace protection factor (WPF) is important to verify the performance of particulate respirators in a real work environment, there are no reports of such measurements in Japan. The aim of this study was to measure the WPF of a replaceable particulate respirator (RPR) and a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR). Eight participants were subjected to three conditions: wearing a RPR correctly (C-RPR), wearing a RPR as usual (but incorrectly) (U-RPR), and wearing a PAPR in the same way as U-RPR (PAPR). Subjects performed dust-generating tasks for 15 min, during which the WPF was measured. The WPF was calculated by dividing the concentration of particles outside the particulate respirator (Co) by that inside the particulate respirator (Ci). A fit testing instrument was used to measure the number of particles. Ci was measured by inserting the test guide into the face piece, and Co was measured by fixing the test guide near the breathing area of the subjects. The WPF geometric mean values (standard deviations) for C-RPR, U-RPR, and PAPR were 17.7 (2.59), 27.0 (3.86), and 117.3 (5.25), respectively. It is important to generate knowledge about the performance of particulate respirators to prevent occupational respiratory diseases.

Evaluation of a New Workplace Protection Factor-Measuring Method for Filtering Facepiece Respirator

Background

This study aims to assess whether the TSI PortaCount (Model 8020) is a measuring instrument comparable with the flame photometer. This would provide an indication for the suitability of the PortaCount for determining the workplace protection factor for particulate filtering facepiece respirators.

Methods

The PortaCount (with and without the N95-Companion™) was compared with a stationary flame photometer from Moores (Wallisdown) Ltd (Type 1100), which is a measuring instrument used in the procedure for determining the total inward leakage of the particulate filtering facepiece respirator in the European Standard. Penetration levels of sodium chloride aerosol through sample respirators of two brands (A and B) were determined by the two measuring systems under laboratory conditions. For each brand, thirty-six measurements were conducted. The samples were split into groups according to their protection level, conditioning before testing, and aerosol concentration. The relationship between the gauged data from two measuring systems was determined. In addition, the particle size distribution inside the respirator and outside the respirator was documented. Linear regression analysis was used to calculate the association between the PortaCount (with and without the N95-Companion™) and the flame photometer.

Results

A linear relationship was found between the raw data scaled with the PortaCount (without N95-Companion™) and the data detected by the flame photometer (R² = 0.9704) under all test conditions. The distribution of particle size was found to be the same inside and outside the respirator in almost all cases.

Conclusion

Based on the obtained data, the PortaCount may be applicable for the determination of workplace protection factor.

Are quantitative fit factors predictive of respirator fit during simulated healthcare activities?

An annual OSHA fit test is required for all U.S. employees required to wear a respirator during work, but there are limited data demonstrating a link between fit test results and respirator fit during work. The goal of this research is to determine if the fit factor (FF) achieved during an abbreviated ambient aerosol condensation particle counter (CPC) quantitative fit test is predictive of fit achieved during a simulated workplace protection factor (SWPF) scenario that includes realistic healthcare activities. Fifteen subjects (7 male; 8 female) were recruited for a range of facial sizes. Each subject donned an N95 filtering facepiece respirator and performed a single 29-min routine consisting of initial and final 2.5 min fast fit tests (five 30-sec exercises: normal breathing, head side to side, head up and down, talking, and bending over) and three repetitions of three 6-min simulated healthcare activities (CPR, ultrasound, and making a hospital bed). Two CPC instruments simultaneously collected second-by-second measures of particle concentration inside and outside of the respirator facepiece. FFs or SWPFs were calculated by dividing outside by inside facepiece concentrations. Overall FFs and SWPFs were highly correlated. Each exercise FF was highly correlated with the overall SWPF. Normal breathing, head up and down, and talking were most predictive of overall SWPF. Normal breathing and talking together were predictive of each of the three simulated healthcare activities. For CPR and bed making activities, head movement exercises were also found to be predictive. A quantitative fit test using a small set of exercises is highly predictive of an individual's fit during simulated work activities. Some exercises (e.g., talking and head movements) are predictive of fit during simulated workplace activities. Limitations include only one respirator model, a small subject pool not representative of the full range of face sizes. This article uses an innovative second-by-second assessment method that collects information about in- and outside-facepiece concentrations throughout the test period.

A new theoretical framework for modeling respiratory protection based on the beta distribution

The problem of modeling respiratory protection is well known and has been dealt with extensively in the literature. Often the efficiency of respiratory protection is quantified in terms of penetration, defined as the proportion of an ambient contaminant concentration that penetrates the respiratory protection equipment. Typically, the penetration modeling framework in the literature is based on the assumption that penetration measurements follow the lognormal distribution. However, the analysis in this study leads to the conclusion that the lognormal assumption is not always valid, making it less adequate for analyzing respiratory protection measurements. This work presents a formulation of the problem from first principles, leading to a stochastic differential equation whose solution is the probability density function of the beta distribution. The data of respiratory protection experiments were reexamined, and indeed the beta distribution was found to provide the data a better fit than the lognormal. We conclude with a suggestion for a new theoretical framework for modeling respiratory protection.

Criteria for the collection of useful respirator performance data in the workplace

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.

Comparison of workplace protection factors for different biological contaminants

This study compared workplace protection factors (WPFs) for five different contaminants (endotoxin, fungal spores, (1→3)-β-D-glucan, total particle mass, and total particle number) provided by an N95 elastomeric respirator (ER) and an N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR). We previously reported size-selective WPFs for total particle numbers for the ER and FFR, whereas the current article is focused on WPFs for bioaerosols and total particle mass. Farm workers (n = 25) wore the ER and FFR while performing activities at eight locations representing horse farms, pig barns, and grain handling facilities. For the determination of WPFs, particles were collected on filters simultaneously inside and outside the respirator during the first and last 15 min of a 60-min experiment. One field blank per subject was collected without actual sampling. A reporting limit (RL) was established for each contaminant based on geometric means (GMs) of the field blanks as the lowest possible measurable values. Depending on the contaminant type, 38-48% of data points were below the RL. Therefore, a censored regression model was used to estimate WPFs (WPF(censored)). The WPF(censored) provided by the two types of respirators were not significantly different. In contrast, significant differences were found in the WPF(censored) for different types of contaminants. GMs WPFs(censored) for the two types of respirators combined were 154, 29, 18, 19, and 176 for endotoxin, fungal spore count, (1→3)-β-D-glucan, total particle mass, and total particle number, respectively. The WPF(censored) was more strongly associated with concentrations measured outside the respirator for endotoxin, fungal spores, and total particle mass except for total particle number. However, when only data points with outside concentrations higher than 176×RL were included, the WPFs increased, and the association between the outside concentrations and the WPFs became weaker. Results indicate that difference in WPFs observed between different contaminants may be attributed to differences in the sensitivity of analytical methods to detect low inside concentrations, rather than the nature of particles (biological or non-biological).

Effect of particle size on respiratory protection provided by two types of N95 respirators used in agricultural settings

This study compared size-selective workplace protection factors (WPFs) of an N95 elastomeric respirator (ER) and an N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) in agricultural environments. Twenty-five healthy farm workers ranging in age from 20 to 30 years voluntarily participated in this study. Altogether, eight farms were included representing three different types: two horse farms, three pig barns, and three grain handling sites. Subjects wore the ER and FFR while performing their daily activities, such as spreading hay, feeding livestock, and shoveling. Aerosol concentrations in an optical particle size range of 0.7-10 μm were determined simultaneously inside and outside the respirator during the first and last 15 min of a 60-min experiment. For every subject, size-selective WPFs were calculated in 1-min intervals and averaged over 30 min. For the ER, geometric mean WPFs were 172, 321, 1013, 2097, and 2784 for particle diameters of 0.7-1.0, 1.0-2.0, 2.0-3.0, 3.0-5.0, and 5.0-10.0 μm, respectively. Corresponding values for the FFR were 67, 124, 312, 909, and 2089. The 5th percentiles for the ER and FFR were higher than the assigned protection factor of 10 and varied from 28 to 250 and from 16 to 223, respectively. Results show that the N95 ER and FFR tested in the study provided an expected level of protection for workers on agricultural farms against particles ranging from 0.7 to 10 μm. WPFs for the ER were higher than the FFR for all particle size ranges. WPFs for both respirator types increased with increasing particle size.

Elastomeric, half-facepiece, air-purifying respirator performance in a lead battery plant

This workplace protection factor (WPF) study of a half facepiece air-purifying respirator with P100 filters was done in a lead battery manufacturing plant. Paired air samples for lead were collected inside and outside respirators worn by workers who were properly trained and quantitatively fit tested. Of the 45 valid sample sets, only four had detectable lead on the inside sample. WPFs were calculated for these sample pairs by dividing the outside sample lead concentration (C(o)) by the inside concentration (C(i)). For the remaining 41 sample pairs, the detection limit for lead was used to calculate a maximum estimated C(i) concentration. The C(o) for each of these sample pairs was divided by the C(i) estimate to obtain a minimum WPF value. All the WPFs were rounded down to two significant figures, resulting in values ranging from 12 to > 2500. A rank and percentile procedure resulted in a 50th percentile WPF of 270 and a lower 5th percentile estimate > 50. These WPFs exceed the assigned protection factor of 10 for half facepieces published by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. This study's results support the APF of 10 and indicate the respirator provided appropriate protection as it was used in this study. The comparability of the two analytical methods commonly used together in WPF studies was also evaluated. The samples collected outside the respirators were analyzed for lead by proton-induced X-ray emission analysis (PIXE) followed by inductively coupled plasma spectrometry (ICP). While the two methods were highly correlated (r(2) = 0.965), the mean PIXE lead mass was approximately 45% higher than the mean ICP value. This systematic bias was explained by the assumptions used to interpret the PIXE analytical results. When WPF studies use ICP and PIXE for C(o) and C(i) samples, respectively, the calculated WPF values are conservative estimates of respirator performance.

Workplace protection factors for an N95 filtering facepiece respirator

This study evaluated the workplace performance of an N95 filtering facepiece, air-purifying respirator in a steel foundry. Air samples were collected inside and outside respirators worn by workers who were properly trained and qualitatively fit tested. For most workers, three or four pairs of air samples were collected on each of 2 days. The 49 valid sample sets were analyzed for iron, silicon, and zirconium. Only iron was present in sufficient concentrations to perform workplace protection factor (WPF) calculations. Individual WPF measurements ranged from 5 to 753. The geometric mean of the distribution was 119 with a lower 5th percentile value of 19. Time-weighted average WPFs (WPF(TWA)) were also calculated for each day for each worker as an estimate of the protection an individual might receive with daily respirator use. The WPF(TWA) values ranged from 15 for the worker with the single WPF value of 5, to a high of 684. The distribution of WPF(TWA) had a geometric mean of 120 and a lower 5th percentile of 22. Both data treatments indicate this respirator's performance was consistent with the assigned protection factor of 10 typically used for half facepiece respirators. The respirator provided adequate protection as used in this study. All contaminant concentrations inside the respirator were well below the relevant occupational exposure limits. Data collected also illustrate the dynamic nature of faceseal leakage in the workplace.

Statistical issues with respect to workplace protection factors for respirators

A workplace protection factor (WPF) for a respirator wearer is the measured concentration of a contaminant outside the respirator divided by the simultaneous concentration of that contaminant inside the respirator. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposed an assigned protection factor (APF) of 10 to negative-pressure, half-facepiece, air-purifying respirators (HFAPR), based on the criterion that the 5th percentile of WPF for HFAPR be larger than the APF. This class of half-facepiece respirators includes both filtering facepiece and elastomeric half-mask respirators. Nicas and Neuhaus developed a statistical model for log-normally distributed WPF that separated between-wearer and within-wearer variation. Using results from applying this model to seven studies of HFAPR, they proposed an APF of 5 for this class of respirator, based on the criterion that the 5th percentile of the 5th percentile of individual worker WPF distributions be larger than the APF. In this article, two reasons are suggested for these differing proposals: (1) the Nicas and Neuhaus criterion is inherently more conservative than that of OSHA, and (2) substantially different databases were used to evaluate the two criteria. The Nicas and Neuhaus model is expanded to allow for differences in WPF distributions for different types of HFAPR and different contaminants and for separately estimating within-wearer variation and variation due to measurement error. Appropriate statistical methods are illustrated for implementing these models when some of inside-the-respirator measurements are nondetects. Results from applying this expanded model to two new WPF studies suggest that an APF of 10 would be sufficiently protective in these studies using the OSHA criterion but more marginally so using the Nicas and Neuhaus criterion.

Performance of a full facepiece, air-purifying respirator against lead aerosols in a workplace environment

This study evaluated workplace performance of a full facepiece, negative pressure, air-purifying respirator with P100 filters in a lead refining plant. Air samples for lead were collected inside and outside the respirators worn by workers who were properly trained and quantitatively fit tested. Trained observers assisted in the study to ensure sample validity. Three to four pairs of air samples per day were collected from each worker for a total of 52 valid sample sets. Lead was found on all the outside samples, and concentrations were below the detection limit for all but one of the inside samples. The single measurable inside sample yielded a workplace protection factor (WPF) of 297. WPFs for the rest of the samples were estimated using the assumption that lead was present at the detection limit for the in-facepiece samples. Calculated WPFs were rounded down to the nearest 100 then subjected to a rank and percentile function. The 5th percentile WPF was approximately 900 using this approach. These WPFs exceed the assigned protection factor (APF) of 50 for this respirator class recommended by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and listed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. These results support the APF of 50 for this respirator and indicate the respirator provided adequate protection as used in this study.

The effect of pressure drop on respirator faceseal leakage

Users of particulate air-purifying respirators are typically told to change their filters when breathing resistance becomes uncomfortable. It has been proposed that a noticeable increase in breathing resistance (pressure drop) may increase airflow through respirator faceseal leaks. This logic has been extended to suggest that respirator user exposure to contaminants may increase because of this theoretical increase in air leakage. Procedures similar to those of previous investigators were used to study this issue. Repeated faceseal leak rate measurements were made at -5.6 through -20.1 mm water pressure drops across the faceseal. Subjects were divided into two groups, representing acceptable fit or unacceptable fit, based on leak rate criteria prescribed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Subjects with acceptable fit did not experience an increase in faceseal leak rate with increased pressure drop. Leak rates for subjects with unacceptable fit were highly variable and did not show an association with pressure drop. Results of this study do not support the concept of increased faceseal leakage with increased pressure drop. The evidence does not suggest increased risk of contaminant exposure through the face seal as pressure drop increases.

Variability in respiratory protection and the assigned protection factor

The workplace protection factor (WPF) for a given respirator wearer shows substantial variability from wearing to wearing; this variability is commonly assumed to be lognormal in nature. Further, when multiple WPFs are measured for each of multiple wearers, the aggregated WPFs appear to follow a lognormal distribution. However, the analysis typically applied to WPF data does not apportion variability within versus between wearers. We present an analytical framework based on a normal random effects model of log-transformed penetration P values (P = 1/WPF). Data from seven studies of negative-pressure air-purifying half-mask respirators, and from two studies of hemlet-and-visor type powered air-purifying respirators were analyzed by the method of maximum likelihood in the context of the model. More specifically, analyses were performed for log-transformed P values and for logit-transformed P values. Parameter estimates included within-wearer and between-wearer variance components. In general, the within-wearer component dominated the between-wearer component. We also propose a method for establishing an assigned protection factor, APF, that properly accounts for these variance components. Our method provides an APF satisfying two criteria: (1) for a given wearer, an acceptable WPF distribution has no more than 5% of WPFs below the APF value; and (2) for a wearer population, no more than 5% of wearers have unacceptable WPF distributions. The method incorporates an one-sided confidence limit to account for sampling variability. Alternative confidence limits were computed based on large sample variance estimates of random effects model parameters versus a bootstrap method. In general, there was good agreement between the APF values based on log-transformed versus logit-transformed P data, and between APF values based on the large sample variance estimates versus the bootstrap method. Based on large sample variance estimates for the logit-transformed P data from the seven half-mask studies, estimated APFs ranged from 1.4 to 250, with 5/7 studies yielding an APF </= 5.3. Given these results and related considerations, we recommend that the current half-mask APF be reduced from 10 to 5.

Prototype sampling system for measuring workplace protection factors for gases and vapors

A prototype sampling system for measuring respirator workplace protection factors (WPFs) was developed. Methods for measuring the concentration of contaminants inside respirators have previously been described; however, these studies have typically involved continuous sampling of aerosols. Our work focuses on developing an intermittent sampling system designed to measure the concentration of gases and vapors during inspiration. This approach addresses two potential problems associated with continuous sampling: biased results due to lower contaminant concentrations and high humidity in exhaled air. The system consists of a pressure transducer circuit designed to activate a pair of personal sampling pumps during inspiration based on differential pressure inside the respirator. One pump draws air from inside the respirator while the second samples the ambient air. Solid granular adsorbent tubes are used to trap the contaminants, making the approach applicable to a large number of gases and vapors. Laboratory testing was performed using a respirator mounted on a headform connected to a breathing machine producing a sinusoidal flow pattern with an average flow rate of 20 L/min and a period of 3 seconds. The sampling system was adjusted to activate the pumps when the pressure inside the respirator was less than -0.1 inch H(2)O. Quantitative fit-tests using human subjects were conducted to evaluate the effect of the sampling system on respirator performance. A total of 299 fit-tests were completed for two different types of respirators (half- and full-facepiece) from two different manufacturers (MSA and North). Statistical tests showed no significant differences between mean fit factors for respirators equipped with the sampling system versus unmodified respirators. Field testing of the prototype sampling system was performed in livestock production facilities and estimates of WPFs for ammonia were obtained. Results demonstrate the feasibility of this approach and will be used in developing improved instrumentation for measuring WPFs.