Related Experiment Videos
Comparative Analysis of Respirator Fit Factors Using Korean Test Panels and Standardized Korean Headforms
Hyekyung Seo1, Hoyeong Jang1, Sungho Kim2
1Department of Health Technology, Shinhan University, Uijeongbu-City, Gyeonggi-Do, Republic of Korea.
Background:
Fit testing is essential to evaluate the effectiveness of respiratory protective equipment for ensuring occupational safety. The Republic of Korea currently lacks a standardized fit test panel that reflects domestic facial characteristics, although international guidelines emphasize its establishment. This study aimed to validate a Korean fit test panel developed according to international standards and to examine the consistency of fit test results between human participants and headforms with comparable facial dimensions.
Methods:
The panel was developed using facial anthropometric data from 11,429 adults in the Size Republic of Korea database based on ISO 16976-2:2022(E). Fifty participants representing the panel categories underwent quantitative fit testing with various respirator models. Fit test pass rates of human participants and headforms were evaluated against the U.S. National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory ( 2015) criterion of 64-76% to determine the panel's applicability.
Results:
Participants with medium-to-large faces achieved significantly higher fit factors with large respirators (p < 0.05), whereas those with small faces exhibited lower fit for small-sized models. Significant differences were observed across respirator size categories (p < 0.05), with full-face types showing higher pass rates than half-face types. Human fit tests exceeded the National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory criterion (76-100%), supporting the panel's international applicability. In contrast, headform-based testing produced lower fit factors, particularly for small respirators. Intraclass correlation coefficient analysis revealed poor agreement (<16%) between human and headform results.
Conclusion:
The Korean fit test panel appears to represent population-specific facial dimensions and shows potential for respirator evaluation under the tested conditions. However, differences between participants and headform outcomes indicate the need for improved headform fidelity to enhance test reliability.