[Study on the fit testing for the workers wearing hearing protection device in machinery manufacturing enterprises].

Objective: To investigate the occupational noise hazards in five machinery manufacturing enterprises, and to evaluate the individual noise reduction values and influencing factors of workers wearing hearing protection device (HPD) by individual fit testing. Methods: From November 2021 to January 2022, 5 machinery manufacturing enterprises in Bao'an District of Shenzhen were selected to conduct an occupational health survey to understand the noise exposure level of workers. The 3MTM E-A-RfitTM fitness test system was used to test the baseline individual sound attenuation value level (PAR) of the daily wear of the ear protecters for 485 workers in typical noise working positions. Workers whose PAR values could not meet the requirements of noise reduction at work were instructed to wear and repeated tests were conducted. PAR results of the workers before and after the intervention were collected and analyzed. Results: The noise workers who received the suitability test were mainly distributed in 24 types of work, the job noise exposure level was 80.2 dB (A) ~ 95.0 dB (A), and the job noise excess rate was 52.5% (138/263). The median baseline PAR [M (Q(1), Q(3)) ] for 485 workers was 6.0 (0.0, 14.0) dB. The baseline PAR of male workers, those with more than 15 years of working experience, those with more than 15 years of using ear guards, those who considered ear guards comfortable to wear, those with college degree or above, and those exposed to noise level 90 dB (A) were higher, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). A total of 275 workers (56.7%) did not pass the baseline PAR test, and there was no statistically significant difference in the intervention rate of workers in different noise groups (P>0.05). PAR in subjects who did not pass baseline after intervention increased from 0.0 (0.0, 3.0) dB to 15.0 (12.0, 18.2) dB. Conclusion: The workplace noise hazard of machinery manufacturing enterprises is serious, and there is a great difference between the baseline PAR and the nominal value of the hearing guard worn by the noise exposed workers. The intervention measures can effectively improve the protective effect of wearing ear protectors.

Durability of FIT Screening After Cessation of a Screening Outreach Intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Organized outreach to increase CRC screening using mailed FIT tests has been shown to be effective, but durable changes to screening behavior after cessation of screening is not known. METHODS: In this study, after cessation of funding for an organized cancer screening outreach program, we evaluated whether adherence to screening remained elevated. Patients aged 50-75 years eligible for CRC screening from eight safety net clinics were randomly assigned to outreach intervention vs usual care alone in 2016 to 2018; the primary outcome analyzed was the difference in the cumulative proportion of completed FIT screening between study assignments 1 year after study cessation. RESULTS: Despite higher rates of FIT screening for patients who were randomly assigned to the outreach intervention, FIT completion was not significantly different between the group that received the outreach services versus the usual care group (28.3% vs 29.8%, p = 0.158). CONCLUSION: Outreach campaigns and their activities must be sustained to maintain improved rates of screening participation.

[Research on the protective effect of hearing protective device for workers exposed to noise in a motor manufacturing enterprise].

Objective: To understand the current situation of noise hazard in a motor manufacturing enterprise, and to explore the protective effect of workers wearing hearing protective device and its possible influencing factors. Methods: In November 2021, a total of 179 noise workers wearing hearing protective devices in a motor manufacturing company in a city were selected as research objects. Personal attenuation rating (PAR) of workers wearing hearing protective devices was measured. Baseline PAR was analyzed for different subgroups of basic demographic information, noise exposure, and the use of hearing protective devices to evaluate the effect of the intervention. Baseline PAR was compared using nonparametric tests. Results: There were 179 workers from 35 positions in 4 types of work, and the over-standard noise rate was 51.2% (42/82), among which the noise exposure intensity of motor equipment debugging workers was the highest [94.4 dB (A) ]. Compared the baseline PAR of different characteristics, it was found that the baseline PAR of male workers, workers whose daily noise exposure time were <8 h, workers who had used the hearing protective devices for 10 to 14 years, and workers who thought the hearing protective devices were comfortable were all higher, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). Baseline PAR passing rate was 43.0% (77/179), and PAR of 102 workers who did not pass baseline test increased from 0 (0, 3) dB before intervention to 14 (12, 16) dB after intervention, with statistical significance (P<0.05) . Conclusion: The noise hazard in this motor manufacturing enterprise is serious, and the protective effect of workers wearing hearing protective devices is not good. Gender, daily noise exposure time, years and comfort of wearing hearing protective device are the possible influencing factors of poor protective effect.

[Analysis of verification results of protective effects of hearing protectors in different industries].

Objective: To get insight into the current practice of noise reduction effect of workers as they wore hearing protectors in different domestic enterprises and the possible affected factors. Methods: From October 2020 to April 2021, using a random sampling method, 1197 workers exposed to noise in petrochemical factories, textile factories, and parts manufacturing factories were selected as the study subjects. The noise reduction effect of hearing protectors worn by workers in daily use was tested using a hearing protector suitability testing system. The personal sound attenuation level (PAR) was compared among workers in three enterprises, Targeted intervention and repetitive testing were conducted for workers who did not meet the noise reduction effect required by the enterprise, and the changes in PAR of workers before and after the intervention were compared. The comparison of baseline PARs between two or more groups was performed using the Mann Whitney test, the comparison of baseline PARs with post intervention PARs was performed using the Wilcoxon signed rank sum test, and the comparison of qualitative data between two or more groups was performed using the Chi square test. Results: The median baseline PAR for all workers was 15 dB. Men, age<30 years old, education level at or above college level, working experience of 5 to 15 years, and those who used hearing protectors for 5 to 15 years had higher PARs, with statistically significant differences (P<0.05). The median difference in baseline PAR among workers from three enterprises was statistically significant (H=175.06, P<0.01). The median PAR of subjects who did not pass the baseline increased from 3 dB to 21 dB after intervention (Z=-27.92, P<0.01) . Conclusion: Some workers wearing hearing protectors do not meet the required PAR, and low PARs may be related to incorrect wearing methods and incorrect selection of hearing protectors. As a tool for testing, training, and assisting in selection, the hearing protector suitability testing system is of great significance for worker hearing protection.

New classes of tests for the Weibull distribution using Stein's method in the presence of random right censoring.

We develop two new classes of tests for the Weibull distribution based on Stein's method. The proposed tests are applied in the full sample case as well as in the presence of random right censoring. We investigate the finite sample performance of the new tests using a comprehensive Monte Carlo study. In both the absence and presence of censoring, it is found that the newly proposed classes of tests outperform competing tests against the majority of the distributions considered. In the cases where censoring is present we consider various censoring distributions. Some remarks on the asymptotic properties of the proposed tests are included. We present another result of independent interest; a test initially proposed for use with full samples is amended to allow for testing for the Weibull distribution in the presence of censoring. The techniques developed in the paper are illustrated using two practical examples.

Verifying earplug attenuation and evaluating the effectiveness of one-on-one training along with earplug fit testing at nine facilities in China.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to measure the personal attenuation ratings (PARs) in Chinese workers wearing hearing protection devices (HPDs), to evaluate the effectiveness of the single number rating (SNR), the noise reduction rating (NRR), and the associated derated values of earplugs; and (2) to evaluate the effectiveness of one-on-one training along with earplug fit testing on PAR improvement. METHODS: Noise exposure measurements, one-on-one training, and fit tests to measure earplug attenuation were conducted at nine manufacturing facilities located in eastern China from 2016 to 2017. 503 workers participated in the study. Ninety-three percent were male. 199 workers were provided one-on-one training. RESULTS: Before training, 14% and 15% of the workers achieved the attenuation predicted by the manufacturer's SNR and NRR, 56% and 65% exceeded the derated SNR and NRR, respectively. Following one-on-one training, mean PAR improved significantly by 15 dB (p < 0.01); 26% of the workers achieved SNR and NRR, 79% and 91% met the associated derated values, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Labeled noise attenuation ratings and their derated values overestimated the actual level of attenuation among workers wearing HPDs. One-on-one training along with earplug fit testing contributed to improved PARs.

How hearing conservation training format impacts personal attenuation ratings in U.S. Marine Corps Training Recruits.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this fit-testing study in the field was to systematically compare three Hearing Protection Device (HPD) fit-training methods and determine whether they differ in the acquisition of HPD fitting skill and resulting amount of earplug attenuation. DESIGN: Subjects were randomly assigned to receive HPD fit-training using one of three training methods: current, experiential HPD (eHPD), and integrated. Personal Attenuation Ratings (PARs) were acquired via HPD fit-testing and used to verify attenuations pre- and post-training. STUDY SAMPLE: US Marine training recruits (n = 341) identified via HPD fit-testing for remedial HPD fit-training and assigned to three cohorts. RESULTS: The post-training HPD fit-test passing rate differed by training method, with pass rates ranging from 50% (current) to nearly 92% (eHPD). The difference between group delta PAR values were significantly higher (>9 dB) in both the eHPD and integrated methods compared to the current method. CONCLUSION: The HPD fit-training methods that teach "what right feels like" (eHPD and integrated) provided a greater number of trainees with the skill to achieve noise attenuation values required for impulse noise exposures encountered during basic training. The attenuation achieved by those methods was significantly greater than the current training method.

Breathability and Safety Testing of Personal Protective Equipment: "Human-comfort" Factor Remains Undefined.

Healthcare systems all over the world have been enormously affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare workers (HCWs) taking care of these patients need personal protective equipments (PPEs) standardized for full protection from droplets and aerosols carrying viral load to variable distances. There has been a surge of manufacturers supplying these protective gears in India and regulatory agencies have issued technical specifications pertaining to PPEs focusing solely on synthetic blood penetration tests (SBPTs) and keeping the upper limit of non-woven fabric to 95 g/m2 (GSM). These PPE specifications are silent on air permeability (AP) and water/moisture vapor transmission rate (WVTR/MVTR) of the fabric. As a result, most of the PPE kits, despite having appropriate SBPT certifications from regulatory agencies, have extremely poor permeability and breathability. The acceptability of PPEs by HCWs can be vastly improved when the end-users are proactively invited to participate in "comfort testing" of PPEs before getting issuance of certification for marketing. "Field testing" or "end-user trials" in which HCWs don the PPE and assess it for comfort while performing different types of clinical work, e.g., in intensive care units (ICUs), operation theaters, cath labs, etc., also takes into account a hitherto often ignored "human-comfort-factor" that not only enhances the understanding of HCWs about the need for the PPEs but can also motivate them to use it without worrying about discomfort. We hereby propose that comfort fit testing (COmfort and Material Fit is an Obviously Required Test) should be a part of the mandatory testing and certification process for PPE, so that the industry invests wisely in manufacturing PPE kits that are not only certified for fabric but are also tested for comfort factors. How to cite this article: Kapoor A, Baronia AK, Azim A, Agarwal G, Prasad N, Mishra R, et al. Breathability and Safety Testing of Personal Protective Equipment: "Human-comfort" Factor Remains Undefined. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(1):12-15.

Longitudinal changes in mouthguard fit: Reliability of an evaluation method.

BACKGROUND/AIM: A mouthguard should be replaced when it deteriorates or becomes deformed as a result of the softness or flexibility of the material. The question, however, is how long can one use a mouthguard and when should one replace it with a newly made mouthguard? The aim of this study was to develop an improved method for measuring the fit of mouthguards based on previous reports and to examine its reliability. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Silicone fit-testing material was applied to the inner surface of the mouthguards of 12 participants, and the mouthguards were inserted into the participants' oral cavity. After the test material had set, the mouthguard was weighed. The intra-rater reliability and inter-rater reliability were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficients. RESULTS: The intra-rater reliability was 0.813 (P < .001), and the inter-rater reliability was 0.817 (P < .001). Both values were greater than 0.7, suggesting that this measuring method had sufficient reliability. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that mouthguard fit can be evaluated longitudinally to determine the optimal time to replace a mouthguard.

The impact of extreme reuse and extended wear conditions on protection provided by a surgical-style N95 filtering facepiece respirator.

Most respirators employed in health care settings, and often in first responder and industrial settings, are intended for single-use: the user dons the respirator, performs a work activity, and then doffs and discards the respirator. However, in the current COVID-19 pandemic, in the presence of persistent shortages of personal protective equipment, extended use and reuse of filtering facepiece respirators are routinely contemplated by many health care organizations. Further, there is considerable current effort to understand the effect of sterilization on the possibility of reuse, and some investigations of performance have been conducted. While the ability of such a respirator to continue to provide effective protection after repeated sanitization cycles is a critical component of implementing its reuse, of equal importance is an understanding of the impact that reusing the respirator multiple times in a day while performing work tasks, and even extending its wear over multiple days, has on the workplace protective performance. In this study, we subjected a stockpiled quantitatively fitted surgical style N95 filtering facepiece respirator device to extreme reuse and extended wear conditions (up to 19 uses over a duration of 5 days) and measured its protective performance at regular intervals, including simulated workplace protection factor measurements using total inward leakage. With this respirator, it was shown to be possible to maintain protection corresponding to an assigned protection factor greater than 10 under extreme usage conditions provided an individual is properly trained in the use of, and expertly fitted in, the respirator. Other factors such as hygiene and strap breakage are likely to place limits on reuse.

Evaluating the effect of training along with fit testing on foam earplug users in four factories in China.

OBJECTIVES: To gain insight into the hearing protection practice of Chinese workers and the value of hearing protection fit testing. DESIGN: The Field Attenuation Estimation System (FAES) was used to measure the personal attenuation ratings (PARs) of one foam earplug used at the work sites in China. Intervention was provided to workers who needed it. Follow-up fit testing was conducted approximately six months later. Paired t-tests were conducted to compare the baseline, post-intervention and follow-up visit PARs. STUDY SAMPLE: Fit testing was conducted on 335 workers in four factories with 269 workers intervened. Follow-up visit was conducted on 97 intervened workers in three factories. RESULTS: The mean PAR baseline was 10 dB. Significant improvement was shown on post-intervention PARs (p < 0.05) as well as follow-up visit PARs (p < 0.05). Comparing follow-up visit PARs to post-intervention PARs, good sustainability was shown in two factories (p > 0.05), while a significant decline (p < 0.05) was observed in another. CONCLUSIONS: Hearing protection fit testing demonstrated value for verifying sufficiency of attenuation. The training along with fit testing contributed to improve PARs and maintaining effectiveness over time. Employer's attention and follow-up actions are important in sustaining the training effectiveness.

Evaluating the effect of training along with fit testing on earmuff users in a Chinese textile factory.

A hearing protection fit testing was conducted on workers (n = 189) in a textile factory in southern China. The 3M E-A-Rfit Dual-Ear Validation System was used to measure the personal attenuation rating (PAR) on an over-the-head style earmuff at the work site. In addition, PARs were obtained several times throughout the same work shift to capture different fits on 39 workers. Follow-up visits were conducted in approximate 6-month or 12-month intervals to repeat the fit testing. Both the immediate and residual effects of training on the field attenuation of hearing protection devices obtained by workers, and the effects of training toward improving the attenuation and protection of earmuffs after a period of daily use, were observed. A questionnaire survey was used to assess the awareness of hearing health and motivation toward the use of earmuffs in a high temperature environment. The results showed that there were wide variations in PARs among the workers tested. The one-on-one training together with fit testing improved PAR and helped to reduce the negative impact caused by use of protective hair covers. Since earmuffs are often used for long periods of time (>1 year), repeating fit tests could be helpful in order to verify the attenuation received throughout their useful life.

Comparison of qualitative and quantitative fit-testing results for three commonly used respirators in the healthcare sector.

N95 filtering facepiece respirators are used by healthcare workers when there is a risk of exposure to airborne hazards during aerosol-generating procedures. Respirator fit-testing is required prior to use to ensure that the selected respirator provides an adequate face seal. Two common fit-test methods can be employed: qualitative fit-test (QLFT) or quantitative fit-test (QNFT). Respiratory protection standards deem both fit-tests to be acceptable. However, previous studies have indicated that fit-test results may differ between QLFT and QNFT and that the outcomes may also be influenced by the type of respirator model. The aim of this study was to determine if there is a difference in fit-test outcomes with our suite of respirators, 3M - 1860S, 1860, AND 1870, and whether the model impacts the fit-test results. Subjects were recruited from residential care facilities. Each participant was assigned a respirator and underwent sequential QLFT and QNFT fit-tests and the results (either pass or fail) were recorded. To ascertain the degree of agreement between the two fit-tests, a Kappa (Κ) statistic was conducted as per the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) respiratory protection standard. The pass-fail rates were stratified by respirator model and a Kappa statistic was calculated for each to determine effect of model on fit-test outcomes. We had 619 participants and the aggregate Κ statistic for all respirators was 0.63 which is below the suggested ANSI threshold of 0.70. There was no statistically significant difference in results when stratified by respirator model. QNFT and QLFT produced different fit-test outcomes for the three respirator models examined. The disagreement in outcomes between the two fit-test methods with our suite of N95 filtering facepiece respirators was approximately 12%. Our findings may benefit other healthcare organizations that use these three respirators.

Impact of time and assisted donning on respirator fit.

The goal of this study was to examine the impact of assistance with donning and time on quantitative fit factors (FF) and pass rates for subjects wearing an N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) and a non-certified adhesive mask. Fit factors were measured using two side-by-side TSI Portacount instruments sampling second-by-second simultaneous inside- and outside-facepiece concentrations. Naïve subjects made two visits at least one week apart. At each visit subjects first donned either the respirator or adhesive mask without assistance and performed a five-exercise fast fit test. They then donned a new respirator or mask with assistance in proper donning (e.g., proper forming of the nosepiece, strap placement, etc.) and performed a second five-exercise fast fit test. The same sequence of unassisted and assisted donning was then repeated with the other facepiece. Fifteen subjects participated in the study; time between visits ranged from 7-29 days (average 12 days). On visit 1 the respirator FFs were significantly higher (GM = 88) than for the adhesive mask (GM = 14); with assistance these FFs showed significant improvements to 116 and 124, respectively. At visit 1 almost half of subjects donning the respirator without assistance achieved a passing FF of 100 or greater, while only one-fifth of subjects were able to pass the fit test wearing an adhesive mask without assistance. Pass rates improved for both groups with assistance, but more so for the adhesive mask wearers. On visit 2 the pass rates for both groups had decreased, with the adhesive mask group showing a greater decrease. With assistance, pass rates improved for both groups, but again more so for those wearing the adhesive mask. Results suggest that wearers would benefit from assistance and re-training every time they don a respirator, even if the time between donnings is as short as one or two weeks.

Comparison of two quantitative fit-test methods using N95 filtering facepiece respirators.

Current regulations require annual fit testing before an employee can wear a respirator during work activities. The goal of this research is to determine whether respirator fit measured with two TSI Portacount instruments simultaneously sampling ambient particle concentrations inside and outside of the respirator facepiece is similar to fit measured during an ambient aerosol condensation nuclei counter quantitative fit test. Sixteen subjects (ten female; six male) were recruited for a range of facial sizes. Each subject donned an N95 filtering facepiece respirator, completed two fit tests in random order (ambient aerosol condensation nuclei counter quantitative fit test and two-instrument real-time fit test) without removing or adjusting the respirator between tests. Fit tests were compared using Spearman's rank correlation coefficients. The real-time two-instrument method fit factors were similar to those measured with the single-instrument quantitative fit test. The first four exercises were highly correlated (r > 0.7) between the two protocols. Respirator fit was altered during the talking or grimace exercise, both of which involve facial movements that could dislodge the facepiece. Our analyses suggest that the new real-time two-instrument methodology can be used in future studies to evaluate fit before and during work activities.

Effect of Pregnancy Upon Facial Anthropometrics and Respirator Fit Testing.

Workers required to wear respirators must undergo additional respirator fit testing if a significant change in body weight occurs. Approximately 10% of working women of reproductive age will be pregnant and experience a significant change in weight, yet the effect of pregnancy-associated weight gain on respirator fit is unknown. Cephalo-facial anthropometric measurements and quantitative fit testing of N95 filtering facepiece respirators (N95 FFR) of 15 pregnant women and 15 matched, non-pregnant women were undertaken for comparisons between the groups. There were no significant differences between pregnant and non-pregnant women with respect to cephalo-facial anthropometric measurements or N95 FFR quantitative fit tests. Healthy pregnant workers, who adhere to the recommended weight gain limits of pregnancy, are unlikely to experience an increase in cephalo-facial dimensions that would mandate additional N95 FFR fit testing above that which is normally required on an annual basis.

Evaluation of health worker acceptance and tolerance of respirators in clinical practice-An Australian perspective.

BACKGROUND: One of the main infection prevention and control measures introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic was the focused application of respiratory protection to ensure health worker safety and the effective use of personal protective equipment. However, user acceptance of these strategies is paramount in sustainable compliance. This study explores various aspects of respirator use and provides recommendations to improve and maximize health worker safety. The aim of this study was to understand the relationship between respirator (P2/N95) comfort and user experience toward respiratory protection. The aim of this study was to understand the relationship between respirator (P2/N95) comfort and user experience toward respiratory protection. METHODS: The nonexperimental cross-sectional design study was conducted in New South Wales, Australia between November and December 2022 using an anonymous self-administered online questionnaire in Microsoft Forms. RESULTS: Of 2,514 respondents, 65% reported to have used a respirator every working day with only a few using a respirator once weekly or less (9%). Almost all respondents had completed at least one quantitative fit test (96%) prior to the survey. Fifty-nine percent reported to have experienced discomfort from wearing a respirator and the most reported adverse effect was difficulty communicating (64%), followed by skin irritation or acne (62%) and headache (56%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite somewhat less favorable ratings on comfort and communication, health workers are in favor of respiratory protection. However, a focus on tolerance of respirators and strategies to address adverse effects from prolonged respirator use must be considered when implementing policies and procedures. Moreover, resources must be allocated to improve the design, breathability, and sustainability of a respirator along with education and training on how to use respiratory protection safely and effectively.

Consistency of attenuation across multiple fittings of custom and non-custom earplugs.

Hearing protection devices (HPDs) play a significant role in protecting workers from occupational noise-induced hearing loss. Individual HPD fit-testing estimates the amount of protection, or attenuation, that an individual achieves from a given HPD as it is worn. Results from a single fit-test may not be representative of real-world HPD performance over time, however, due to inconsistency in how the individual fits the HPD from time to time. In this study, the effects of HPD type and user training on the consistency of attenuation achieved across multiple fittings were evaluated in a within-subjects design. Attenuation measurements using a real-ear attenuation at threshold procedure were obtained on 30 participants wearing custom-molded and non-custom earplugs. The subjects were initially naive to proper earplug insertion techniques and later received one-on-one training for the second half of the attenuation measurements. Consistency, or reliability, of fit was assessed using (i) the standard deviation of the 'distance to ear mean attenuation', a measure of fitting uncertainty, and (ii) the standard deviation of the attenuation values across multiple fit-tests for each subject. The custom earplug provided statistically significantly better consistency of attenuation than the non-custom earplug at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz. Training effects were statistically significant at 250, 500, and 1000 Hz and at the Personal Attenuation Rating. No interactions were statistically significant. These results indicate that, in general, subjects obtained more consistent attenuation with the custom earplugs than with the non-custom earplugs and that consistency improved with training for both earplug types.