Selecting models for a respiratory protection program: What can we learn from the scientific literature?
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

All these words:

For very narrow results

This exact word or phrase:

When looking for a specific result

Any of these words:

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

None of these words:

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Language:

Dates

Publication Date Range:

to

Document Data

Title:

Document Type:

Library

Collection:

Series:

People

Author:

Help
Clear All

Add terms to the query box

Query box

Help
Clear All
i

Selecting models for a respiratory protection program: What can we learn from the scientific literature?

Filetype[PDF-71.96 KB]


  • English

  • Details:

    • Alternative Title:
      Am J Infect Control
    • Description:
      Background An unbiased source of comparable respirator performance data would be helpful in setting up a hospital respiratory protection program. Methods The scientific literature was examined to assess the extent to which performance data (respirator fit, comfort and usability) from N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) models are available to assist with FFR model selection and procurement decisions. Results Ten studies were identified that met the search criteria for fit, whereas 5 studies met the criteria for comfort and usability. Conclusion Analysis of these studies indicated that it is difficult to directly use the scientific literature to inform the FFR selection process because of differences in study populations, methodologies, and other factors. Although there does not appear to be a single best fitting FFR, studies demonstrate that fit testing programs can be designed to successfully fit nearly all workers with existing products. Comfort and usability are difficult to quantify. Among the studies found, no significant differences were noted.
    • Pubmed ID:
      25499425
    • Pubmed Central ID:
      PMC5039711
    • Document Type:
    • Collection(s):
    • Main Document Checksum:
    • File Type:

    Supporting Files

    More +

    You May Also Like

    Checkout today's featured content at stacks.cdc.gov