Pressure drop of filtering facepiece respirators: How low should we go?

• Authors: Jung-Hyun Kim , Raymond J. Roberge , Jeffrey B. Powell , Ronald E. Shaffer , Caroline M. Ylitalo , John M. Sebastian

Abstracts

EN

Introduction This study was undertaken to determine the mean peak filter resistance to airflow (R filter) encountered by subjects while wearing prototype filtering facepiece respirators (PRs) with low Rfilter during nasal and oral breathing at sedentary and low-moderate work rates. Material and methods In-line pressure transducer measurements of mean R filter across PRs with nominal R filter of 29.4 Pa, 58.8 Pa and 88.2 Pa (measured at 85 l/min constant airflow) were obtained during nasal and oral breathing at sedentary and low-moderate work rates for 10 subjects. Results The mean R filter for the 29.4 PR was significantly lower than the other 2 PRs (p < 0.000), but there were no significant differences in mean R filter between the PRs with 58.8 and 88.2 Pa filter resistance (p > 0.05). The mean R filter was greater for oral versus nasal breathing and for exercise compared to sedentary activity (p < 0.001). Conclusions Mean oral and nasal R filter for all 3 PRs was at, or below, the minimal threshold level for detection of inspiratory resistance (the 58.8–74.5 Pa/l×s⁻¹), which may account for the previously-reported lack of significant subjective or physiological differences when wearing PRs with these low R filter. Lowering filtering facepiece respirator R filter below 88.2 Pa (measured at 85 l/min constant airflow) may not result in additional subjective or physiological benefit to the wearer.

Keywords

EN

respirator; filter; oral breathing; nasal breathing

• Publisher: Instytut Medycyny Pracy im. prof. dra Jerzego Nofera w Łodzi
• Journal: International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 28
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 71-80

Dates

published

2015

Contributors

author

Jung-Hyun Kim

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory,Technology Research Branch)

author

Raymond J. Roberge

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory,Technology Research Branch)

author

Jeffrey B. Powell

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory,Technology Research Branch)

author

Ronald E. Shaffer

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory,Technology Research Branch)

author

Caroline M. Ylitalo

• 3M Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, United States of America (3M Personal Safety Division)

author

John M. Sebastian

• 3M Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, United States of America (3M Personal Safety Division)

Identifiers

DOI

10.13075/ijomeh.1896.00153

Biblioteka Nauki

2177016