Safety and Health at Work

Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (산업안전보건연구원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Do Various Respirator Models Fit the Workers in the Norwegian Smelting Industry?

  • Foereland, Solveig (Department of Occupational Medicine, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital) ;
  • Robertsen, Oeystein (Department of Psychology, UiT - the Artic University of Norway) ;
  • Hegseth, Marit Noest (Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, University Hospital of North Norway)
  • Received : 2018.11.07
  • Accepted : 2019.06.13
  • Published : 2019.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Respirator fit testing is a method to assess if the respirator provides an adequate face seal for the worker. Methods: Workers from four Norwegian smelters were invited to participate in the study, and 701 respirator fit tests were performed on 127 workers. Fourteen respirator models were included: one FFABE1P3 and 11 FFP3 respirator models produced in one size and two silicone half masks with P3 filters available in three sizes. The workers performed a quantitative fit test according to Health and Safety Executive 282/28 with 5-6 different respirator models, and they rated the respirators based on comfort. Predictors of overall fit factors were explored. Results: The pass rate for all fit tests was 62%, 56% for women, and 63% for men. The silicone respirators had the highest percentage of passed tests (92-100%). The pass rate for the FFP3 models varied from 19-89%, whereas the FFABE1P3 respirator had a pass rate of 36%. Five workers did not pass with any respirators, and 14 passed with all the respirators tested. Only 63% passed the test with the respirator they normally used. The mean comfort score on the scale from 1 to 5 was 3.2. The respirator model was the strongest predictor of the overall fit factor. The other predictors (age, sex, and comfort score) did not improve the fit of the model. Conclusion: There were large differences in how well the different respirator models fitted the Norwegian smelter workers. The results can be useful when choosing which respirators to include in respirator fit testing programs in similar populations.

Keywords

References

  1. U.S. Geological Survey. Mineral commodity summaries 2017. U.S. Geological Survey; 2017. 202p.
  2. Foreland S, Bye E, Bakke B, Eduard W. Exposure to fibres, crystalline silica, silicon carbide and sulphur dioxide in the Norwegian silicon carbide industry. Ann Occup Hyg 2008;52(5):317-36. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/men029
  3. Kero IT, Jorgensen RB. Comparison of three real-time measurement methods for airborne ultrafine particles in the silicon alloy industry. Int J Environ Res PublicHealth 2016;13(9).
  4. Johnsen HL, Hetland SM, Saltyte Benth J, Kongerud J, Soyseth V. Quantitative and qualitative assessment of exposure among employees in Norwegian smelters. Ann Occup Hyg 2008;52(7):623-33. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/men046
  5. Kero I, Gradahl S, Trannell G. Airborne emissions from Si/FeSi production. JOM 2017;69(2):365-80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-016-2149-x
  6. Johnsen HL, Soyseth V, Hetland SM, Benth JS, Kongerud J. Production of silicon alloys is associated with respiratory symptoms among employees in Norwegian smelters. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2008;81(4):451-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-007-0237-5
  7. Soyseth V, Johnsen HL, Kongerud J. Respiratory hazards of metal smelting. Curr OpinPulm Med 2013;19(2):158-62.
  8. Johnsen HL, Bugge MD, Foreland S, Kjuus H, Kongerud J, Soyseth V. Dust exposure is associated with increased lung function loss among workers in the Norwegian silicon carbide industry. Occup Environ Med 2013;70(11):803-9. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2012-101068
  9. Bugge MD, Foreland S, Kjaerheim K, Eduard W, Martinsen JI, Kjuus H. Mortality from non-malignant respiratory diseases among workers in the Norwegian silicon carbide industry: associations with dust exposure. Occup Environ Med 2011.
  10. Bugge MD, Kjaerheim K, Foreland S, Eduard W, Kjuus H. Lung cancer incidence among Norwegian silicon carbide industry workers: associations with particulate exposure factors. Occup Environ Med 2012.
  11. HSE. OC 282/28Fit testing of respiratory protective equipment facepieces; 2012.
  12. OSHA. 29 CFR 1910.134 - respiratory protection; 2011. Washington DC.
  13. Regulations concerning organisation, management and employee participation; 2018.
  14. Lee SA, Grinshpun SA, Reponen T. Respiratory performance offered by N95 respirators and surgical masks: human subject evaluation with NaCl aerosol representing bacterial and viral particle size range. Ann Occup Hyg 2008;52(3):177-85. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/men005
  15. Reponen T, Lee SA, Grinshpun SA, Johnson E, McKay R. Effect of fit testing on the protection offered by n95 filtering facepiece respirators against fine particles in a laboratory setting. Ann Occup Hyg 2011;55(3):264-71. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/meq085
  16. Coffey CC, Lawrence RB, Campbell DL, Zhuang Z, Calvert CA, Jensen PA. Fitting characteristics of eighteen N95 filtering-facepiece respirators. J Occup Environ Hyg 2004;1(4):262-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459620490433799
  17. Hon CY, Danyluk Q, Bryce E, Janssen B, Neudorf M, Yassi A, et al. Comparison of qualitative and quantitative fit-testing results for three commonly used respirators in the healthcare sector. J Occup Environ Hyg 2017;14(3):175-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2016.1237030
  18. Manganyi J, Wilson KS, Rees D. Quantitative respirator fit, face sizes, and determinants of fit in South African diagnostic laboratory respirator users. Ann Work Expo Health 2017;61(9):1154-62. https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxx077
  19. Yu Y, Jiang L, Zhuang Z, Liu Y, Wang X, Liu J, et al. Fitting characteristics of N95 filtering-facepiece respirators used widely in China. PLoS One 2014;9(1):e85299. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085299
  20. (Corrigendum AC:2002 and AC:2005 incorporated)EN 143:2000. Respiratory protective devices - particle filters - requirements, testing, marking -; 2000.
  21. Lee K, Slavcev A, Nicas M. Respiratory protection against Mycobacterium tuberculosis: quantitative fit test outcomes for five type N95 filteringfacepiece respirators. J Occup Environ Hyg 2004;1(1):22-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459620490250026
  22. Lawrence RB, Duling MG, Calvert CA, Coffey CC. Comparison of performance of three different types of respiratory protection devices. J Occup Environ Hyg 2006;3(9):465-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459620600829211
  23. Lee SA, Hwang DC, Li HY, Tsai CF, Chen CW, Chen JK. Particle size-selective assessment of protection of European standard FFP respirators and surgical masks against particles-tested with human subjects. J Healthc Eng 2016;2016.
  24. Zhuang Z, Coffey CC, Ann RB. The effect of subject characteristics and respirator features on respirator fit. J Occup Environ Hyg 2005;2(12):641-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459620500391668
  25. Shaffer RE, Janssen LL. Selecting models for a respiratory protection program: what can we learn from the scientific literature? Am J Infect Control 2015;43(2):127-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2014.10.021
  26. Bryce E, Forrester L, Scharf S, Eshghpour M. What do healthcare workers think? A survey of facial protection equipment user preferences. J Hosp Infect 2008;68(3):241-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2007.12.007
  27. Reasons for not using respiratory protective equipment and suggested measures to optimize use in the Norwegian silicon carbide, ferro-alloy and siliconalloy industry. In: Hegseth MN, Robertsen O, Aminoff A, Vangberg HCB, Foreland S, editors. INFACON XV: international ferro-alloys congress 2018 [Cape Town, South Africa].
  28. Floyd EL, Henry JB, Johnson DL. Influence of facial hair length, coarseness, and areal density on seal leakage of a tight-fitting half-face respirator. J Occup Environ Hyg 2018;15(4):334-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2017.1416388
  29. Frost S, Harding AH. The effect of wearer stubble on the protection given by Filtering Facepieces Class 3 (FFPA) and Half Masks; 2015. Contract No.: RR1052.

Cited by

  1. Insecticide Filtration Efficiency of Respiratory Protective Equipment Commonly Worn by Farmers in Thailand vol.18, pp.5, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052624
  2. Quantitative fit testing of filtering face-piece respirators during the COVID-19 pandemic reveals anthropometric deficits in most respirators available in Iran vol.19, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40201-021-00648-3
  3. Standards for Surgical Respirators and Masks: Relevance for Protecting Healthcare Workers and the Public During Pandemics vol.65, pp.5, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxab008
  4. Fit-testing of respiratory protective equipment in the UK during the initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic vol.113, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2021.04.024
  5. The influence of gender and ethnicity on facemasks and respiratory protective equipment fit: a systematic review and meta-analysis vol.6, pp.11, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005537
  6. A feasible route for the design and manufacture of customised respiratory protection through digital facial capture vol.11, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-00341-3
  7. Viscoelastic Polyurethane Foams with Reduced Flammability and Cytotoxicity vol.15, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15010151