Related Experiment Videos
Errors associated with three methods of assessing respirator fit
Christopher C Coffey1, Robert B Lawrence, Ziqing Zhuang
1Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Division of Respiratory Disease Studies, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA. ccoffey@cdc.gov
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
|February 21, 2006
Summary
Evaluating respirator fit tests reveals significant error rates. The TSI PortaCount Plus with N95-Companion showed fewer errors than Bitrex or saccharin methods, crucial for ensuring adequate respiratory protection in workplaces.
Area of Science:
- Occupational Health and Safety
- Industrial Hygiene
- Respiratory Protection
Background:
- Proper respirator fit is critical for protecting workers from airborne hazards.
- Existing fit test methods may have varying accuracy in identifying inadequate respirator protection.
- NIOSH-certified N95 half-facepiece respirators are widely used in various occupational settings.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the effectiveness of three common fit test methods in identifying respirators that do not provide adequate protection.
- To compare the alpha and beta error rates of Bitrex, saccharin, and TSI PortaCount Plus (with N95-Companion) fit testing methods.
- To assess fit test method performance with both filtering facepiece and elastomeric N95 respirator models.
Main Methods:
- Thirty models of NIOSH-certified N95 half-facepiece respirators (15 filtering-facepiece, 15 elastomeric) were tested.
- A panel of 25 subjects used Bitrex, saccharin, and TSI PortaCount Plus with N95-Companion fit tests.
- Fit test results were compared against simulated workplace protection factors (5th percentiles).
Main Results:
- Alpha errors (failing a good fit) were high: 71% (Bitrex), 68% (saccharin), 40% (Companion).
- Beta errors (passing a poor fit) were lower: 8% (Bitrex), 8% (saccharin), 9% (Companion).
- Error rates differed between filtering facepiece and elastomeric respirators, with higher beta errors for elastomeric models.
Conclusions:
- The TSI PortaCount Plus with N95-Companion demonstrated lower alpha errors compared to Bitrex and saccharin methods.
- Fit test method accuracy varies depending on respirator type (filtering facepiece vs. elastomeric).
- A simulated realistic fit testing program indicated substantial potential for both false pass and false fail results, impacting worker protection.