Comparison of workplace protection factors for different biological contaminants

Details

• Personal Author:
  Adhikari A ; Cho KJ ; Dwivedi A ; Grinshpun SA ; Jones G ; Jones S ; McKay R ; Reponen T ; Shukla R ; Singh U ; Adhikari A ; Cho KJ ; Dwivedi A ; Grinshpun SA ; Jones G ; Jones S ; McKay R ; Reponen T ; Shukla R ; Singh U
• Description:
  This study compared workplace protection factors (WPFs) for five different contaminants (endotoxin, fungal spores, (1-->)-ß-D-glucan, total particle mass, and total particle number) provided by an N95 elastomeric respirator (ER) and an N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR). We previously reported size-selective WPFs for total particle numbers for the ER and FFR, whereas the current article is focused on WPFs for bioaerosols and total particle mass. Farm workers (n = 25) wore the ER and FFR while performing activities at eight locations representing horse farms, pig barns, and grain handling facilities. For the determination of WPFs, particles were collected on filters simultaneously inside and outside the respirator during the first and last 15 min of a 60-min experiment. One field blank per subject was collected without actual sampling. A reporting limit (RL) was established for each contaminant based on geometric means (GMs) of the field blanks as the lowest possible measurable values. Depending on the contaminant type, 38-48% of data points were below the RL. Therefore, a censored regression model was used to estimate WPFs (WPF(censored)). The WPF(censored) provided by the two types of respirators were not significantly different. In contrast, significant differences were found in the WPF(censored) for different types of contaminants. GMs WPFs(censored) for the two types of respirators combined were 154, 29, 18, 19, and 176 for endotoxin, fungal spore count, (1-->3)-ß-D-glucan, total particle mass, and total particle number, respectively. The WPF(censored) was more strongly associated with concentrations measured outside the respirator for endotoxin, fungal spores, and total particle mass except for total particle number. However, when only data points with outside concentrations higher than 176×RL were included, the WPFs increased, and the association between the outside concentrations and the WPFs became weaker. Results indicate that difference in WPFs observed between different contaminants may be attributed to differences in the sensitivity of analytical methods to detect low inside concentrations, rather than the nature of particles (biological or non-biological). [Description provided by NIOSH]
• Subjects:
  Aerosols Agriculture Air Pollutants, Occupational Dust Farmers Occupational Health Particulate Matter Personal Protective Equipment Respiratory Protective Devices Risk Assessment Risk Factors Safety Safety Management Workplace

  More +
• Keywords:
  Aerosol-particles Agricultural-industry Agricultural-workers Airborne-dusts Airborne-particles Author Keywords: Agriculture Bioaerosol Bioaerosols Biological-effects Dust-particles Face-masks Mathematical-models Particle-aerodynamics Particle-counters Particulate-sampling-methods Particulates Personal-protective-equipment Protective-equipment Quantitative-analysis Respirator Respirators Respiratory-protective-equipment Risk-analysis Risk-factors Safety-measures Safety-research Statistical-analysis Work-environment Work-operations Work-organization Work-performance Workplace-studies Workplace Protection Factor

  More +
• ISSN:
  1545-9624
• Document Type:
  Text
• Funding:
  Grant
• Genre:
  Journal Article ; Journal Article
• Place as Subject:
  Ohio ; OSHA Region 5
• CIO:
  National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) ; National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
• Topic:
  Workplace Safety & Health ; Workplace Safety & Health
• Location:
  North America ; North America
• Pages in Document:
  417-425
• Volume:
  8
• Issue:
  7
• NIOSHTIC Number:
  nn:20039890
• Citation:
  J Occup Environ Hyg 2011 Jul; 8(7):417-425
• Contact Point Address:
  Tiina Reponen, University of Cincinnati, Department of Environmental Health, P.O. Box 670056, 3223 Eden Ave., Cincinnati, OH 45267-0056
• Email:
  Tiina.Reponen@uc.edu
• Federal Fiscal Year:
  2011
• NORA Priority Area:
  Research Tools and Approaches: Control Technology and Personal Protective Equipment ; Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing ; Research Tools and Approaches: Control Technology and Personal Protective Equipment ; Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing
• Performing Organization:
  University of Cincinnati
• Peer Reviewed:
  True
• Start Date:
  20010601
• Source Full Name:
  Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
• End Date:
  20110731
• Collection(s):
  National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
• Main Document Checksum:
  urn:sha-512:8acd578083707e80bd49615cbc00d8dcfc814622a0ebf294ab2b7a43473615a89745a7369c2acf703f0e5f898c8ff78c6be316a8ef99c78ce8aff3171e39fc58
• Download URL:
  https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/192952/cdc_192952_DS1.pdf
• File Type:
  [PDF - 222.92 KB ]