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.
We take your privacy seriously. You can review and change the way we collect information below.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.
Cookies used to make website functionality more relevant to you. These cookies perform functions like remembering presentation options or choices and, in some cases, delivery of web content that based on self-identified area of interests.
Cookies used to track the effectiveness of CDC public health campaigns through clickthrough data.
Cookies used to enable you to share pages and content that you find interesting on CDC.gov through third party social networking and other websites. These cookies may also be used for advertising purposes by these third parties.