Comment on Scheepers et al. Comparative Performance Testing of Respirator versus Surgical Mask Using a Water Droplet Spray Model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1599.

In the article "Comparative Performance Testing of Respirator versus Surgical Mask Using a Water Droplet Spray Model" by Scheepers et al. [...].

Gravimetric Measurements of Filtering Facepiece Respirators Challenged With Diesel Exhaust.

Elevated concentrations of diesel exhaust have been linked to adverse health effects. Filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) are widely used as a form of respiratory protection against diesel particulate matter (DPM) in occupational settings. Previous results (Penconek A, Drazyk P, Moskal A. (2013) Penetration of diesel exhaust particles through commercially available dust half masks. Ann Occup Hyg; 57: 360-73.) have suggested that common FFRs are less efficient than would be expected for this purpose based on their certification approvals. The objective of this study was to measure the penetration of DPM through NIOSH-certified R95 and P95 electret respirators to verify this result. Gravimetric-based penetration measurements conducted using polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and polypropylene (PP) filters were compared with penetration measurements made with a Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS, TSI Inc.), which measures the particle size distribution. Gravimetric measurements using PP filters were variable compared to SMPS measurements and biased high due to adsorption of gas phase organic material. Relatively inert PTFE filters adsorbed less gas phase organic material resulting in measurements that were more accurate. To attempt to correct for artifacts associated with adsorption of gas phase organic material, primary and secondary filters were used in series upstream and downstream of the FFR. Correcting for adsorption by subtracting the secondary mass from the primary mass improved the result for both PTFE and PP filters but this correction is subject to 'equilibrium' conditions that depend on sampling time and the concentration of particles and gas phase hydrocarbons. Overall, the results demonstrate that the use of filters to determine filtration efficiency of FFRs challenged with diesel exhaust produces erroneous results due to the presence of gas phase hydrocarbons in diesel exhaust and the tendency of filters to adsorb organic material.

Performance of conventional and antimicrobial-treated filtering facepiece respirators challenged with biological aerosols.

This study evaluated the filtration performance of four commercially available models of National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-certified filtering facepiece respirators (FFR) against both biological and inert aerosols at a flow rate of 85 L/min. Conventional N95 and P100 FFRs and two antimicrobial (AM)-treated FFRs (an N95 and a P95, both with iodine-based AM treatments) were tested for both physical penetration (PEN(P)) and viable penetration (PEN(V)) with three different bioaerosols, including MS2 bacteriophage virus, and the spores and vegetative cells of Bacillus atrophaeus bacteria, in addition to inert sodium chloride (NaCl) aerosol. For each FFR model, the PEN(P) measured with NaCl was predictive of its MS2 PEN(P), and it was observed that spores and bacteria aerosols were also filtered similarly to the inert aerosol. For both conventional FFRs, up to a 1-log reduction in PEN(V) in comparison with PEN(P) was observed and attributed to the experimental variability of the test system. For both models of AM-FFRs, no statistically significant differences between PEN(V) and PEN(P) for any of the three different bioaerosol challenges were observed. Thus, no bioaerosol filtration enhancement over the conventional FFRs was detected for either iodine-based AM-FFR. In the absence of any standardized test methods, we recommend that future studies evaluating the filtration performance of AM-treated FFRs incorporate the experimental best practices described herein.

Comparison of pressure drop and filtration efficiency of particulate respirators using welding fumes and sodium chloride.

Respirators are used to help reduce exposure to a variety of contaminants in workplaces. Test aerosols used for certification of particulate respirators (PRs) include sodium chloride (NaCl), dioctyl phthalate, and paraffin oil. These aerosols are generally assumed to be worst case surrogates for aerosols found in the workplace. No data have been published to date on the performance of PRs with welding fumes, a hazardous aerosol that exists in real workplace settings. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of respirators and filters against a NaCl aerosol and a welding fume aerosol and determine whether or not a correlation between the two could be made. Fifteen commercial PRs and filters (seven filtering facepiece, two replaceable single-type filters, and six replaceable dual-type filters) were chosen for investigation. Four of the filtering facepiece respirators, one of the single-type filters, and all of the dual-type filters contained carbon to help reduce exposure to ozone and other vapors generated during the welding process. For the NaCl test, a modified National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health protocol was adopted for use with the TSI Model 8130 automated filter tester. For the welding fume test, welding fumes from mild steel flux-cored arcs were generated and measured with a SIBATA filter tester (AP-634A, Japan) and a manometer in the upstream and downstream sections of the test chamber. Size distributions of the two aerosols were measured using a scanning mobility particle sizer. Penetration and pressure drop were measured over a period of aerosol loading onto the respirator or filter. Photos and scanning electron microscope images of clean and exposed respirators were taken. The count median diameter (CMD) and mass median diameter (MMD) for the NaCl aerosol were smaller than the welding fumes (CMD: 74 versus 216 nm; MMD: 198 versus 528 nm, respectively). Initial penetration and peak penetration were higher with the NaCl aerosol. However, pressure drop increased much more rapidly in the welding fume test than the NaCl aerosol test. The data and images clearly show differences in performance trends between respirator models. Therefore, general correlations between NaCl and weld fume data could not be made. These findings suggest that respirators certified with a surrogate test aerosol such as NaCl are appropriate for filtering welding fume (based on penetration). However, some respirators may have a more rapid increase in pressure drop from the welding fume accumulating on the filter. Therefore, welders will need to choose which models are easier to breathe through for the duration of their use and replace respirators or filters according to the user instructions and local regulations.