Display options
Share it on

J Nanotechnol Mater Sci. 2015 Sep 07;2(2):1-6. doi: 10.15436/2377-1372.15.015.

Comparison of Simulated Workplace Protection Factors Offered by N95 and P100 Filtering Facepiece and Elastomeric Half-Mask Respirators against Particles of 10 to 400 nm.

Journal of nanotechnology and materials science

Xinjian He, Evanly Vo, M Horvatin, Y Liu, M Bergman, Z Zhuang

Affiliations

  1. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA ; Industrial and Management Systems Engineering, College of Engineering and Mineral Resources, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.
  2. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA.
  3. URS, Inc. Pittsburgh, PA.
  4. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA ; Institute of Health Surveillance, Analysis and Protection, Hubei Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Wuhan, Hubei, China.

PMID: 26273701 PMCID: PMC4529391 DOI: 10.15436/2377-1372.15.015

Abstract

This study compared the simulated workplace protection factors (SWPFs) between NIOSH-approved N95 respirators and P100 respirators, including two models of filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) and two models of elastomeric half-mask respirator (EHR), against sodium chloride particles (NaCl) in a range of 10 to 400 nm. Twenty-five human test subjects performed modified OSHA fit test exercises in a controlled laboratory environment with the N95 respirators (two FFR models and two EHR models) and the P100 respirators (two FFRs and two EHRs). Two Scanning Mobility Particle Sizers (SMPS) were used to measure aerosol concentrations (in the 10-400 nm size range) inside (C

Keywords: FFR; HER; N95; Nano particle; P100; Respirator; SWPF

References

  1. Environ Sci Technol. 2008 May 1;42(9):3155-62 - PubMed
  2. Ann Occup Hyg. 2006 Apr;50(3):259-69 - PubMed
  3. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2004 Apr;1(4):262-71 - PubMed
  4. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2010 Nov;7(11):622-7 - PubMed
  5. AIHAJ. 2000 Jan-Feb;61(1):102-5 - PubMed
  6. Ann Occup Hyg. 2008 Apr;52(3):177-85 - PubMed
  7. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1992 Sep;53(9):533-9 - PubMed
  8. Ann Occup Hyg. 2011 Apr;55(3):253-63 - PubMed
  9. J Occup Environ Med. 2011 Jun;53(6 Suppl):S68-73 - PubMed
  10. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2010 Mar;7(3):163-76 - PubMed
  11. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2007 Jun;4(6):420-31 - PubMed
  12. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2005 Jun;55(6):708-46 - PubMed
  13. Ann Occup Hyg. 2011 Apr;55(3):264-71 - PubMed
  14. Ann Occup Hyg. 2015 Oct;59(8):1012-21 - PubMed
  15. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2008 Sep;5(9):556-64 - PubMed
  16. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2009 Feb;6(2):73-81 - PubMed
  17. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2009 Oct;6(10):593-603 - PubMed
  18. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2008 Apr;5(4):239-49 - PubMed
  19. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2005 Dec;2(12):641-9 - PubMed
  20. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1999 Sep-Oct;60(5):618-24 - PubMed
  21. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2009 Jan;6(1):52-61 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support