Comparing respirator laboratory protection factors measured with novel personal instruments to those from the PortaCount

Allison J Persing; Margaret Sietsema; K R Farmer; Thomas M Peters

doi:10.1080/15459624.2020.1864152

Back

Comparing respirator laboratory protection factors measured with novel personal instruments to those from the PortaCount

Journal article

Peer reviewed

Comparing respirator laboratory protection factors measured with novel personal instruments to those from the PortaCount

Allison J Persing, Margaret Sietsema, K R Farmer and Thomas M Peters

Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene, Vol.18(2), pp.65-71

02/2021

DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2020.1864152

PMCID: PMC10506423

PMID: 33406010

Files and links (1)

url

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10506423/pdf/nihms-1930731.pdfView

Open Access

Abstract

A quantitative fit test is performed using a benchtop instrument (e.g., TSI PortaCount) to assess the fit factor provided by a respirator when assigned to a worker. There are no wearable instruments on the market to measure protection factors while the respirator is in use. The aim of this study is to evaluate two new, wearable, quantitative instruments-a dual-channel optical particle counter (DC OPC) and a dual-channel condensation particle counter (DC CPC)-that would enable , real-time measurement of respirator workplace protection factor. Respirator laboratory protection factors measured by the new instruments were compared to those measured with the TSI PortaCount on one test subject for three test aerosols (sodium chloride, incense, ambient) at target laboratory protection factors of 100, 300, and 1,000 for sodium chloride and ambient, and 75 and 500 for incense. Three replicates were performed for each test condition. Data were analyzed with a two-sided paired t-test at a significance level of 0.05. Laboratory protection factors measured with the DC CPC agree with those measured with the PortaCount whereas those from the DC OPC generally do not. Mean laboratory protection factors derived from the DC CPC are only statistically significantly different for mean values of a laboratory protection factor at ambient conditions for a target laboratory protection factor of 300 ( = 0.02) and for incense at a target laboratory protection factor of 75 ( = 0.03). Although statistically significant, the difference in laboratory protection factors derived from the DC CPC are not substantial in practice and may be explained by systematic uncertainty. In contrast, the DC OPC reports substantially larger mean laboratory protection factors, differing by about half an order of magnitude in extreme cases, and statistically significantly different mean laboratory protection factors for the sodium chloride aerosol for target laboratory protection factors of 100 and 300 ( = 0.01 and = 0.01).

laboratory protection factor

real-time measurement

respiratory protection

Aerosol

Details

Title: Subtitle: Comparing respirator laboratory protection factors measured with novel personal instruments to those from the PortaCount
Creators: Allison J Persing - Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
Margaret Sietsema - School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
K R Farmer - TSI Incorporated, Shoreview, Minnesota
Thomas M Peters - Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
Resource Type: Journal article
Publication Details: Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene, Vol.18(2), pp.65-71
DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2020.1864152
PMID: 33406010
PMCID: PMC10506423
NLM abbreviation: J Occup Environ Hyg
ISSN: 1545-9624
eISSN: 1545-9632
Grant note: T42 OH008491 / NIOSH CDC HHS
Language: English
Date published: 02/2021
Academic Unit: Roy J. Carver Department of Biomedical Engineering; Occupational and Environmental Health
Record Identifier: 9984214819202771

Metrics

42 Record Views

4 Times Cited - Web of Science