The Effect on Fit of Multiple Consecutive Donning and Doffing of N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirators.

BACKGROUND: N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) are widely used in healthcare to reduce transmission of airborne infectious diseases. These respirators are generally described as single use or limited reuse devices, but cost and operational issues mean that they may be donned and doffed multiple times. There is scant research on the effect of this practice on adequacy of fit. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to measure the effect on respirator fit of multiple donning and doffing of N95 FFRs. METHODS: This was an experiment in which 16 women and 9 men employed by the National Institute for Occupational Health (NIOH), Johannesburg, donned their same N95 FFR six times. All 25 were trained in the correct wearing of the devices before the experiment. Four models of respirators were used: the six who did not use respirators at work (novice subjects) were issued a 3M 1860 FFR and the others used their currently supplied one. During the experiment subjects donned their respirators under the supervision of the tester. Quantitative fit testing was done in the NIOH Occupational Hygiene laboratory after each donning according to the OSHA-Accepted Fit Test Protocol using the TSI PortaCount Pro+ Model 8038 Respirator Fit Tester. During the test, fit was measured after each of seven exercises and then an overall fit factor was computed. Only individuals who achieved an initial overall fit factor of ≥100 were allowed to continue participation in the study. Median overall fit factors were calculated for the 25 subjects for each donning and changes across them was examined using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Men and women and frequent and infrequent users were compared across the six tests. Infrequent use was defined as subjects who wore respirators ≤ once per week, and novice subjects. RESULTS: Two subjects (8%) had an overall fit factor <100 at fit Test 2, 6 (24%) at Test 3, and 8 (32%) at Tests 4, 5, and 6. Thirteen respirator users (52%) achieved ≥100 throughout the fit testing, so 12 had at least one failure at either Tests 2-6. Five of the 12 subjects with at least one failure showed persistent failures on all subsequent donnings. Six subjects out of 12 (50%) who failed a fit test achieved an overall fit factor >100 at a subsequent test. There was a significant difference between the median first and sixth overall fit factors (195 versus 150; P = 0.0271), but not between the second and sixth (161 versus 150; P = 0.3584). Men and women had similar overall fit factors, but infrequent users had larger average overall fit factors than frequent users after all six donnings. CONCLUSION: Forty-eight percent of study subjects failed at least one fit test after re-donning an N95 FFR. The fit test data suggest that donning practices probably accounted for the fit test failures. The 50% of subjects who produced overall fit factors ≥100 after a test of <100 supports this contention.

Quantitative Respirator Fit, Face Sizes, and Determinants of Fit in South African Diagnostic Laboratory Respirator Users.

OBJECTIVES: Respirators are widely used in health care settings but there is scant information on adequacy of fit and its determinants, particularly in resource-constrained settings. The aim of the study is to describe the proportion of South African diagnostic laboratory respirator users with adequate quantitative respirator fit while wearing their currently selected respirators which were generally supplied without regard to face size, and to identify determinants of fit test pass and fail. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study with 562 participants. Quantitative respirator fit testing was conducted using a PortaCount fit testing machine. Four facial dimensions were taken using callipers and a tape measure. STATA 14 was used to perform descriptive and inferential statistics. The effect of the independent variables including face dimensions, race, smoking, respirator make and size, and age group was explored using multiple logistic regression stratified by sex. RESULTS: Ninety one percent of the respirators supplied were medium-sized. Seventy eight percent of respirator users failed fit testing and were thus probably not protected by their currently supplied respirator. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that face length in mm (odds ratio [OR] = 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00-1.09), nasal root breadth in mm (OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.06-1.28), and respirator shape (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.39-0.78) were significant predictors of overall fit for all subjects and for women alone, but these factors explained only a small percentage of fit test outcomes. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of diagnostic laboratory employees were using poorly fitting respirators. This creates a false impression of protection. Fit testing of respirators is therefore important and recommended. The determinants evaluated described only a small portion of the variability in fit; important determinants were absent from the models.