RESUMEN
This study aimed to quantify the variability between different anthropometric panels in determining the inward leakage (IL) of N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) and elastomeric half-mask respirators (EHRs). We enrolled 144 experienced and non-experienced users as subjects in this study. Each subject was assigned five randomly selected FFRs and five EHRs, and performed quantitative fit tests to measure IL. Based on the NIOSH bivariate fit test panel, we randomly sampled 10,000 pairs of anthropometric 35 and 25 member panels without replacement from the 144 study subjects. For each pair of the sampled panels, a Chi-Square test was used to test the hypothesis that the passing rates for the two panels were not different. The probability of passing the IL test for each respirator was also determined from the 20,000 panels and by using binomial calculation. We also randomly sampled 500,000 panels with replacement to estimate the coefficient of variation (CV) for inter-panel variability. For both 35 and 25 member panels, the probability that passing rates were not significantly different between two randomly sampled pairs of panels was higher than 95% for all respirators. All efficient (passing rate ≥80%) and inefficient (passing rate ≤60%) respirators yielded consistent results (probability >90%) for two randomly sampled panels. Somewhat efficient respirators (passing rate between 60% and 80%) yielded inconsistent results. The passing probabilities and error rates were found to be significantly different between the simulation and binomial calculation. The CV for the 35-member panel was 16.7%, which was slightly lower than that for the 25-member panel (19.8%). Our results suggested that IL inter-panel variability exists, but is relatively small. The variability may be affected by passing level and passing rate. Facial dimension-based fit test panel stratification was also found to have significant impact on inter-panel variability, i.e., it can reduce alpha and beta errors, and inter-panel variability.
Asunto(s)
Filtración/instrumentación , Exposición por Inhalación/prevención & control , Máscaras/normas , Dispositivos de Protección Respiratoria/normas , Antropometría , Diseño de Equipo , Humanos , National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. , Exposición Profesional/prevención & control , Material Particulado , Probabilidad , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
Inter-panel variability has never been investigated. The objective of this study was to determine the variability between different anthropometric panels used to determine the inward leakage (IL) of N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) and elastomeric half-mask respirators (EHRs). A total of 144 subjects, who were both experienced and non-experienced N95 FFR users, were recruited. Five N95 FFRs and five N95 EHRs were randomly selected from among those models tested previously in our laboratory. The PortaCount Pro+ (without N95-Companion) was used to measure IL of the ambient particles with a detectable size range of 0.02 to 1 µm. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration standard fit test exercises were used for this study. IL test were performed for each subject using each of the 10 respirators. Each respirator/subject combination was tested in duplicate, resulting in a total 20 IL tests for each subject. Three 35-member panels were randomly selected without replacement from the 144 study subjects stratified by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health bivariate panel cell for conducting statistical analyses. The geometric mean (GM) IL values for all 10 studied respirators were not significantly different among the three randomly selected 35-member panels. Passing rate was not significantly different among the three panels for all respirators combined or by each model. This was true for all IL pass/fail levels of 1%, 2%, and 5%. Using 26 or more subjects to pass the IL test, all three panels had consistent passing/failing results for pass/fail levels of 1% and 5%. Some disagreement was observed for the 2% pass/fail level. Inter-panel variability exists, but it is small relative to the other sources of variation in fit testing data. The concern about inter-panel variability and other types of variability can be alleviated by properly selecting: pass/fail level (IL 1-5%); panel size (e.g., 25 or 35); and minimum number of subjects required to pass (e.g., 26 of 35 or 23 of 35).