Authors response to: issues for variability.
Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1999 Jul/Aug; 60(4):428-431
In response we would like to point out that the main point of the article was methodological. It was to illustrate an approach to assessing the APF rather than to make a definitive assessment based on the approach. As was stated in the paper, the estimate of p might well change if and when new information regarding the joint distribution of C0 and C1 becomes available. The statement in the paper that "The authors believe the current APF of 10 for half-face-piece respirators is adequate," which is the evident focus of Dr. Nicas' letter, should be read in that light. Further, it should be pointed out that shortcomings in the currently available data will affect other methods of assessing the adequacy of a given APF to the same extent that they will affect the method proposed in this paper.
Respirators; Respiratory-equipment; Statistical-analysis; Occupational-exposure; Permissible-concentration-limits
Control Technology & Personal Protective Equipment
American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal