Respiratory protection (letter to the editor).
Appl Occup Environ Hyg 1996 May; 11(5):432-434
This letter to the editor considered reasons why assigned protection factors should not be revised based on the results of an earlier study (Respirator Protection and Acceptability among Agricultural Workers, Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 10(7): pages 595 to 605, 1995) designed to evaluate the protection received by 116 agricultural workers who wore respirators from various classes. The current authors compared the assigned protection factors of the three respirator classes with the fifth percentile protection factors calculated from the study's data. From the data in the subject article, a fifth percentile protection factor was calculated for each of the three respirator categories using the dust workplace protection factor (WPF) results for all settings. The test subjects were largely inexperienced in wearing respirators, some using them for the first time. None of the test subjects who had previously worn respirators used them in the context of a full respiratory protection program. The current authors state that the protection factor of this study should not be used to support lowering the assigned protection factors of the respirator classes evaluated. The results of a study designed to evaluate WPFs achieved by agricultural workers before and after implementation of a respiratory protection program may be beneficial for providing insight to this issue.
NIOSH-Author; Respirators; Respiratory-protection; Personal-protective-equipment; Respiratory-protective-equipment; Breathing; Agricultural-industry; Agricultural-workers
Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene