A technique to measure respirator protection factors against aerosol particles in simulated workplace settings using portable instruments

The aim of this study was to develop a new method to measure respirator protection factors for aerosol particles using portable instruments while workers conduct their normal work. The portable instruments, including a set of two handheld condensation particle counters (CPCs) and two portable aerosol mobility spectrometers (PAMSs), were evaluated with a set of two reference scanning mobility particle sizers (SMPSs). The portable instruments were mounted to a tactical load-bearing vest or backpack and worn by the test subject while conducting their simulated workplace activities. Simulated workplace protection factors (SWPFs) were measured using human subjects exposed to sodium chloride aerosols at three different steady state concentration levels: low (8x10³ particles/cm³), medium (5x10⁴ particles/cm³), and high (1x10⁵ particles/cm³). Eight subjects were required to pass a quantitative fit test before beginning a SWPF test for the respirators. Each SWPF test was performed using a protocol of five exercises for 3 min each: (1) normal breathing while standing; (2) bending at the waist; (3) a simulated laboratory-vessel cleaning motion; (4) slow walking in place; and (5) deep breathing. Two instrument sets (one portable instrument {CPC or PAMS} and one reference SMPS for each set) were used to simultaneously measure the aerosol concentrations outside and inside the respirator. The SWPF was calculated as a ratio of the outside and inside particles. Generally, the overall SWPFs measured with the handheld CPCs had a relatively good agreement with those measured with the reference SMPSs, followed by the PAMSs. Under simulated workplace activities, all handheld CPCs, PAMSs, and the reference SMPSs showed a similar GM SWPF trend, and their GM SWPFs decreased when simulated workplace movements increased. This study demonstrated that the new design of mounting two handheld CPCs in the tactical load-bearing vest or mounting one PAMS unit in the backpack permitted subjects to wear it while performing the simulated workplace activities. The CPC shows potential for measuring SWPFs based on its light weight and lack of major instrument malfunctions.

Respirator Performance against Nanoparticles under Simulated Workplace Activities

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 N95 FFRs, 2 P100 FFRs, 2 N95 EHRs, and 2 P100 EHRs) worn by 25 healthy test subjects (13 females and 12 males) with varying face sizes. Before beginning a SWPF test for a given respirator model, each subject had to pass a quantitative fit test. Each SWPF test was performed using a protocol of six exercises for 3 min each: (i) normal breathing, (ii) deep breathing, (iii) moving head side to side, (iv) moving head up and down, (v) bending at the waist, and (vi) a simulated laboratory-vessel cleaning motion. Two scanning mobility particle sizers were used simultaneously to measure the upstream (outside the respirator) and downstream (inside the respirator) test aerosol; SWPF was then calculated as a ratio of the upstream and downstream particle concentrations. In general, geometric mean SWPF (GM-SWPF) was highest for the P100 EHRs, followed by P100 FFRs, N95 EHRs, and N95 FFRs. This trend holds true for nanoparticles (10-100 nm), larger size particles (100-400 nm), and the 'all size' range (10-400 nm). All respirators provided better or similar performance levels for 10-100 nm particles as compared to larger 100-400 nm particles. This study found that class P100 respirators provided higher SWPFs compared to class N95 respirators (P < 0.05) for both FFR and EHR types. All respirators provided expected performance (i.e. fifth percentile SWPF > 10) against all particle size ranges tested.