Respirator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Respirators)

Template:Short description Script error: No such module "about". Template:DMCA Template:DMCA Template:Infobox regulated PPE

A respirator is type of mask designed to protect the wearer from inhaling hazardous atmospheres including lead fumes, vapors, gases and particulate matter such as dusts and airborne pathogens such as viruses. There are two main categories of respirators: the air-purifying respirator, in which respirable air is obtained by filtering a contaminated atmosphere, and the air-supplied respirator, in which an alternate supply of breathable air is delivered. Within each category, different techniques are employed to reduce or eliminate noxious airborne contaminants.

File:Air-Purifying Respirator.jpg
A half-face elastomeric air-purifying respirator. This kind of respirator is reusable, with the filters being replaced periodically.

Air-purifying respirators range from relatively inexpensive, single-use, disposable face masks, known as filtering facepiece respirators, reusable models with replaceable cartridges called elastomeric respirators, to powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR), which use a pump or fan to constantly move air through a filter and supply purified air into a mask, helmet or hood.

History

Earliest records to 19th century

File:Medico peste.jpg
Plague doctor

The history of protective respiratory equipment can be traced back as far as the first century, when Pliny the Elder (c. 23 AD–79) described using animal bladder skins to protect workers in Roman mines from red lead oxide dust.[1] In the 16th century, Leonardo da Vinci suggested that a finely woven cloth dipped in water could protect sailors from a toxic weapon made of powder that he had designed.[2]

Alexander von Humboldt introduced a primitive respirator in 1799 when he worked as a mining engineer in Prussia.[3]

Julius Jeffreys first used the word "respirator" as a mask in 1836.[4]

File:John Stenhouse's mask.png
Woodcut of Stenhouse's mask

In 1848, the first US patent for an air-purifying respirator was granted to Lewis P. Haslett[5] for his 'Haslett's Lung Protector,' which filtered dust from the air using one-way clapper valves and a filter made of moistened wool or a similar porous substance.[6] Hutson Hurd patented a cup-shaped mask in 1879 which became widespread in industrial use.[7]

Inventors in Europe included John Stenhouse, a Scottish chemist, who investigated the power of charcoal in its various forms, to capture and hold large volumes of gas. He built one of the first respirators able to remove toxic gases from the air, paving the way for activated charcoal to become the most widely used filter for respirators.[8] Irish physicist John Tyndall took Stenhouse's mask, added a filter of cotton wool saturated with lime, glycerin, and charcoal, and in 1871 invented a 'fireman's respirator', a hood that filtered smoke and gas from air, which he exhibited at a meeting of the Royal Society in London in 1874.[9] Also in 1874, Samuel Barton patented a device that 'permitted respiration in places where the atmosphere is charged with noxious gases, or vapors, smoke, or other impurities.'[10][11]

In the 1890s, the German surgeon Johannes Mikulicz began using a "mundbinde" ("mouth bandage") of sterilized cloth as a barrier against microorganisms moving from him to his patients. Along with his surgical assistant Wilhelm Hübener, he adapted a chloroform mask with two layers of cotton mull. Experiments conducted by Hübener showed that the "mouth bandage" or "surgical mask" (German: Operationsmaske, as Hübener called it) blocked bacteria.[12][13]

20th century

File:How a Man may Breath Safely in a Poisonous Atmosphere b10154140 010 tif zw12z649n.tiff
"How a Man may Breathe Safely in a Poisonous Atmosphere", an apparatus providing oxygen while using caustic soda to absorb carbon dioxide, 1909

Template:Excerpt

World War I

Template:Excerpt

United States

Template:Excerpt

In the 1970s, the successor to the United States Bureau of Mines and NIOSH developed standards for single-use respirators, and the first single-use respirator was developed by 3M and approved in 1972.[14] 3M used a melt blowing process that it had developed decades prior and used in products such as ready-made ribbon bows and bra cups; its use in a wide array of products had been pioneered by designer Sara Little Turnbull.[15]

1990s

Template:Excerpt

21st century

Continuing mesothelioma litigation

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".

File:30 cfr part11 label.png
30 CFR 11 label, with asbestos approval

NIOSH certifies B Readers, people qualified to testify or provide evidence in mesothelioma personal injury lawsuits,[16] in addition to regulating respirators. However, since 2000, the increasing scope of claims related to mesothelioma started to include respirator manufacturers to the tune of 325,000 cases, despite the primary use of respirators being to prevent asbestos and silica-related diseases. Most of these cases were not successful, or reached settlements of around $1000 per litigant, well below the cost of mesothelioma treatment.[17]

One reason is due to the fact that respirator manufacturers are not allowed to modify a respirator once it is certified by NIOSH. In one case, a jury ruled against 3M for a respirator that was initially approved for asbestos, but was quickly disapproved once OSHA permissible exposure limits for asbestos changed. Combined with testimony that the plaintiff rarely wore a respirator around asbestos, the lack of evidence, and the limitation of liability from static NIOSH approval, the case was overturned.[17]

Nonetheless, the costs of litigation reduced the margins for respirators, which was blamed for supply shortages for N95 respirators for anticipated pandemics, like avian influenza, during the 2000s.[17]

2020

China normally makes 10 million masks per day, about half of the world production. During the COVID-19 pandemic, 2,500 factories were converted to produce 116 million daily.[18]

During the COVID-19 pandemic, people in the United States, and in a lot of countries in the world, were urged to make their own cloth masks due to the widespread shortage of commercial masks.[19]

2024

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". Template:Excerpt

Summary of modern respirators

File:N95-respirator-protection-types-508.jpg
Types of respirators by physical form.

All respirators have some type of facepiece held to the wearer's head with straps, a cloth harness, or some other method. Facepieces come in many different styles and sizes to accommodate all types of face shapes.

A full facepiece covers the mouth, nose and eyes and if sealed, is sealed round the perimeter of the face. Unsealed versions may be used when air is supplied at a rate which prevents ambient gas from reaching the nose or mouth during inhalation.

Respirators can have half-face forms that cover the bottom half of the face including the nose and mouth, and full-face forms that cover the entire face. Half-face respirators are only effective in environments where the contaminants are not toxic to the eyes or facial area.

An escape respirator may have no component that would normally be described as a mask, and may use a bite-grip mouthpiece and nose clip instead. Alternatively, an escape respirator could be a time-limited self-contained breathing apparatus.

For hazardous environments, like confined spaces, atmosphere-supplying respirators, like SCBAs, should be used.

A wide range of industries use respirators including healthcare & pharmaceuticals, defense & public safety services (defense, firefighting & law enforcement), oil and gas industries, manufacturing (automotive, chemical, metal fabrication, food and beverage, wood working, paper and pulp), mining, construction, agriculture and forestry, cement production, power generation, painting, shipbuilding, and the textile industry.[20]

Respirators require user training in order to provide proper protection.

Use

User seal check

File:Обучение использованию СИЗОД (проверка правильности одевания избыточным давлением).jpg
Multiple people doing positive pressure user seal checks.

Each time a wearer dons a respirator, they must perform a seal check to be sure that they have an airtight seal to the face so that air does not leak around the edges of the respirator. (PAPR respirators may not require this because they don't necessarily seal to the face.) This check is different than the periodic fit test that is performed using testing equipment. Filtering facepiece respirators are typically checked by cupping the hands over the facepiece while exhaling (positive pressure check) or inhaling (negative pressure check) and observing any air leakage around the facepiece. Elastomeric respirators are checked in a similar manner, except the wearer blocks the airways through the inlet valves (negative pressure check) or exhalation valves (positive pressure check) while observing the flexing of the respirator or air leakage. Manufacturers have different methods for performing seal checks and wearers should consult the specific instructions for the model of respirator they are wearing. Some models of respirators or filter cartridges have special buttons or other mechanisms built into them to facilitate seal checks.[21][22]

Fit testing

Template:Excerpt

Contrast with surgical mask

Template:Excerpt

Surgical N95

File:3M Surgical N95 Respirator.png
A 3M 1860 surgical N95, with a non-surgical 3M 8210 in the background

Template:Excerpt

Respirator selection

Air-purifying respirators are respirators that draw in the surrounding air and purify it before it is breathed (unlike air-supplying respirators, which are sealed systems, with no air intake, like those used underwater). Air-purifying respirators filter particulates, gases, and vapors from the air, and may be negative-pressure respirators driven by the wearer's inhalation and exhalation, or positive-pressure units such as powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs).

According to the NIOSH Respirator Selection Logic, air-purifying respirators are recommended for concentrations of hazardous particulates or gases that are greater than the relevant occupational exposure limit but less than the immediately dangerous to life or health level and the manufacturer's maximum use concentration, subject to the respirator having a sufficient assigned protection factor. For substances hazardous to the eyes, a respirator equipped with a full facepiece, helmet, or hood is recommended. Air-purifying respirators are not effective during firefighting, in oxygen-deficient atmosphere, or in an unknown atmosphere; in these situations a self-contained breathing apparatus is recommended instead.[23]

Types of filtration

Mechanical filter

Main Article: Mechanical filter respirator (and regulatory ratings)
File:What it Means to be NIOSH-Approved - A look into N95 Certification Testing.webm
A video describing N95 certification testing

Mechanical filters remove contaminants from air in several ways: interception when particles following a line of flow in the airstream come within one radius of a fiber and adhere to it; impaction, when larger particles unable to follow the curving contours of the airstream are forced to embed in one of the fibers directly; this increases with diminishing fiber separation and higher air flow velocity; by diffusion, where gas molecules collide with the smallest particles, especially those below 100 nm in diameter, which are thereby impeded and delayed in their path through the filter, increasing the probability that particles will be stopped by either of the previous two mechanisms; and by using an electrostatic charge that attracts and holds particles on the filter surface.

There are many different filtration standards that vary by jurisdiction. In the United States, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health defines the categories of particulate filters according to their NIOSH air filtration rating. The most common of these are the N95 respirator, which filters at least 95% of airborne particles but is not resistant to oil.

Other categories filter 99% or 99.97% of particles, or have varying degrees of resistance to oil.[24]

In the European Union, European standard EN 143 defines the 'P' classes of particle filters that can be attached to a face mask, while European standard EN 149 defines classes of "filtering half masks" or "filtering facepieces", usually called FFP masks.[25]

According to 3M, the filtering media in respirators made according to the following standards are similar to U.S. N95 or European FFP2 respirators, however, the construction of the respirators themselves, such as providing a proper seal to the face, varies considerably. (For example, US NIOSH-approved respirators never include earloops because they don't provide enough support to establish a reliable, airtight seal.) Standards for respirator filtration the Chinese KN95, Australian / New Zealand P2, Korean 1st Class also referred to as KF94, and Japanese DS.[26]

Canister or chemical cartridge

File:Respirator canister with ESLI for asid gases -1.JPG
Combined gas and particulate gas mask canister, type BKF (БКФ), for protection against acid gases. It has a transparent body and a special sorbent that changes color upon saturation. This color change may be used for timely replacement of respirators' filters (like an end-of-service-life indicator, ESLI).

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".

Chemical cartridges and gas mask canisters remove gases, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and other vapors from breathing air by adsorption, absorption, or chemisorption. A typical organic vapor respirator cartridge is a metal or plastic case containing from 25 to 40 grams of sorption media such as activated charcoal or certain resins. The service life of the cartridge varies based, among other variables, on the carbon weight and molecular weight of the vapor and the cartridge media, the concentration of vapor in the atmosphere, the relative humidity of the atmosphere, and the breathing rate of the respirator wearer. When filter cartridges become saturated or particulate accumulation within them begins to restrict air flow, they must be changed.[27][non-primary source needed]

If the concentration of harmful gases is immediately dangerous to life or health, in workplaces covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Act the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration specifies the use of air-supplied respirators except when intended solely for escape during emergencies.[28] NIOSH also discourages their use under such conditions.[29] Template:Excerpt

Air-purifying respirators

Filtering facepiece

A white cup-type filtering facepiece respirator with an exhalation valve and red head and neck straps
Filtering facepiece half mask with exhalation valve (class: FFP3)

Template:Excerpt

Elastomeric

Head-only portrait of a male police officer wearing a navy blue peaked cap emblazoned with the New York City coat of arms and navy uniform shirt with gold collar insignia identifying him as a member of the 112th Precinct. His nose and mouth are covered by a gray rubber respirator with bright pink filters.
New York Police Department officer wearing a 3M elastomeric respirator with P100-standard particulate filters in the aftermath of the 2007 New York City steam explosion

Template:Excerpt

Powered air-purifying respirators

Template:Excerpt

Atmosphere-supplying respirators

These respirators do not purify the ambient air, but supply breathing gas from another source. The three types are the self contained breathing apparatus, in which a compressed air cylinder is worn by the wearer; the supplied air respirators, where a hose supplies air from a stationary source; and combination supplied-air respirators, with an emergency backup tank.[30]

Self-contained breathing apparatus

Template:Excerpt

Supplied air respirator

Template:Excerpt

Escape respirators

File:Escape-filter Fluchtfilter Dräger-Parat-3200-02.jpg
A simple Dräger escape respirator. This model has no hood, and instead comes with noseclips to ensure the wearer breathes only through the filter.

Smoke hood

Template:Excerpt

Self-contained breathing apparatus

Continuous-flow

Template:Excerpt

Self-rescue device

Template:Excerpt

Issues

Template:US respirator topics

Under 30 CFR 11

Script error: No such module "labelled list hatnote". In 1992, NIOSH published a draft report on the effectiveness of respirator regulations under the then-current 30 CFR 11. Particulate respirators back then were mainly classified as either DM, DFM, or HEPA.[31]

Respirator risk modelling

Assigned protection factors (APF) are predicated on the assumption that users are trained in the use of their respirators, and that 100% of users exceed the APF.[32] This "simulated workplace protection factor" (SWPF) was said to be problematic:

Page Template:Blockquote/styles.css has no content.

By inference, these data are equally at odds with the protection factors established by OSHA for various types of respirator, which were based on QNFT [quantitative fit testing] data obtained by the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the 1970s. Until recently, the SWPFs gathered during QNFT were more or less assumed to translate directly into the protection afforded by a particular respirator, or class of respirators, while worn in the workplace.

Apparently this is now a questionable assumption which has thrown the entire concept of fit testing into doubt.[33]

The ideal assumption of all respirator users exceeding the APF is termed the zero control failure rate by NIOSH. The term control failure rate here refers to the number of respirator users, per 100 users, that fail to reach the APF.[34] The risk of user error affecting the failure rate, and the studies quantifying it, was, according to NIOSH, akin to the study of contraception failure rates.[35]

This is despite there being a "reasonable expectation, of both purchasers and users, [that] none of the users will receive less protection than the class APF (when the masks are properly selected, fit tested by the employer, and properly worn by the users)". NIOSH expands on the methods for measuring this error in Chapter 7 of the draft report.[34]

Qualitative fit testing

Qualitative fit testing with isoamyl acetate, irritant smoke, and saccharin were proposed as alternatives to quantitative fit testing in the 1980s, but doubts were raised as to its efficacy.[36]

With regards to the effectiveness of fit testing in general, others have said:[36] Page Template:Blockquote/styles.css has no content.

First of all, it is unfortunate that fit testing results apparently cannot be used as a reliable indication of respirator performance in the workplace. Life would be simpler if the converse were to continue to be true...

In my opinion, we are left with respirator fit testing, whether qualitative or quantitative, playing the role as a means of obtaining the best possible fit of a given respirator on a given person at a given time. We should not make any representation as to the ultimate efficiency in the workplace.[33]

Exercise protocols

With regards to fit test protocols, it was noted by NIOSH that "time pressures" resulted in the exclusion of intense exercises meant to simulate workplace use:[37] Page Template:Blockquote/styles.css has no content.

Part of the original test procedure called for test subjects to be stressed by treadmill, while undergoing a quantitative respirator leak evaluation. The purpose of this stressing was to simulate actual workplace use of the respirators. We accordingly abandoned the "stress" portion of the exercises, and substituted a period to be spent in a hot humid chamber, to work up a sweat, as a substitute for physical activity.[38]

Neither exercise was included in the OSHA fit test protocols. Put another way, it has been said:[37] Page Template:Blockquote/styles.css has no content.

The exercise time limits are very short. The required exercises are sedentary and do not replicate movements of workers that may occur in workplaces.[39]

Noncompliance with regulation

In spite of the requirement to fit test by OSHA, the following observations of noncompliance with respirator regulations were made by NIOSH and OSHA:[40]

  • Almost 80% of negative-pressure respirator wearers were not receiving fit testing.
  • Over 70% of 123,000 manufacturing plants did not perform exposure-level monitoring, when selecting respirators to use in the plants.
  • Noncompliance increased to almost 90% for the smallest plants.
  • 75% of manufacturing plants did not have a written program.
  • 56% of manufacturing plants did not have a professional respirator-program administrator (i.e., qualified individual supervising the program).
  • Almost 50% of wearers in manufacturing plants did not receive an annual examination by a physician.
  • Almost 50% of wearers in manufacturing plants did not receive respirator-use training.
  • 80% of wearers in manufacturing plants did not have access to more than one facial-size mask, even though nearly all reusable masks were available in at least three sizes.[40]

These noncompliance errors make up what NIOSH calls the program protection factor:[41]Page Template:Blockquote/styles.css has no content.

...NIOSH has concluded that all respirator workplace studies reported in the 1980s and early 1990s are respirator-performance studies, not respirator program evaluation studies. That is, they evaluate workplace protection factors, not program protection factors.

WPF studies frequently are conducted primarily to demonstrate "adequate protection" from a particular make and model respirator. Thus, in effect, WPF studies generally are designed and conducted to measure only respirator performance in the most favorable light possible. This is done to avoid reducing or "biasing" (i.e., systematically distorting) the observed respirator protection resulting from poorly-performed or inadequately-performed respirator program elements that are typically found in actual programs. A major objective in respirator-performance (WPF) studies is to minimize the effects of human errors, even though these errors may typically occur in actual workplace use of respirators...[41]

Adherence to the regulatory minimum

Table of final APFs for Part 11
Final Part 11 APFs proposed by NIOSH for air-purifying respirators, with DM respirator APFs lowered to 2.

APFs may be based on the filtration performance from one or two manufacturers that barely pass the regulation. When the DM and DFM respirator filter standards at the time were found to have an unacceptably high filter leakage, NIOSH proposed lowering the APF for DM respirators from 10 to 2. On this scale, 1 is a completely ineffective respirator. Some respirator manufacturers, like 3M, complained that DM and DFM respirators with superior filtration, that would normally receive an APF well above 2, were being "held hostage" by poorly-performing respirators.[42] While NIOSH acknowledged the predicament poorly-performing respirators were having on superior respirators in the same class, they concluded that the APFs, for respirator classes like DFM halfmask respirators, should be lowered to at least 6, despite APFs of 6 through 10 being allowed previously for DFM halfmasks.[43]

ANSI suggested additional contaminant monitoring by employers to allow for the use of DM and DFM respirators, when the mass median aerodynamic diameter of dusts in contaminated workplaces is such that DM and DFM respirators could work. However, NIOSH pointed out that the poor adherence to OSHA regulations on exposure-level monitoring by employers, as well as lack of expertise in interpreting the collected data, would likely result in more workers being put at risk.[44] In addition, NIOSH pointed out that the ANSI recommendations would effectively mandate the use of expensive Part 11 HEPA filters under Part 11 regulations,[45] due to lack of adherence to exposure-level monitoring rules.[46]

Hierarchy of Controls point of view under 42 CFR 84

Script error: No such module "labelled list hatnote".

File:NIOSH’s “Hierarchy of Controls infographic” as SVG.svg
Placing an overemphasis on respirator usage can neglect other, more effective ways of remedying risk, but PPE may still be necessary under certain conditions (for example, during a TB outbreak)

The Hierarchy of Controls, noted as part of the Prevention Through Design initiative started by NIOSH with other standards bodies, is a set of guidelines emphasizing building in safety during design, as opposed to ad-hoc solutions like PPE, with multiple entities providing guidelines on how to implement safety during development[47] outside of NIOSH-approved respirators. US Government entities currently and formerly involved in the regulation of respirators follow the Hierarchy of Controls, including OSHA[48] and MSHA.[49]

However, some HOC implementations, notably MSHA's, have been criticized for allowing mining operators to skirt engineering control noncompliance by requiring miners to wear respirators instead if the permissible exposure limit (PEL) is exceeded, without work stoppages, breaking the hierarchy of engineering controls. Another concern was fraud related to the inability to scrutinize engineering controls,[50][51] unlike NIOSH-approved respirators, like the N95, which can be fit tested by anyone, are subject to the scrutiny of NIOSH, and are trademarked and protected under US federal law.[52] NIOSH also noted, in a 2002 video about TB respirator use, that "engineering controls, like negative pressure isolation rooms may not control the TB hazard completely. The use of respirators is necessary".[53]

Respirator non-compliance

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". With regards to people complying with requirements to wear respirators, various papers note high respirator non-compliance across industries,[54][55] with a survey noting non-compliance was due in large part due to discomfort from temperature increases along the face, and a large amount of respondents also noting the social unacceptability of provided N95 respirators during the survey.[56] For reasons like mishandling, ill-fitting respirators and lack of training, the Hierarchy of Controls dictates respirators be evaluated last while other controls exist and are working. Alternative controls like hazard elimination, administrative controls, and engineering controls like ventilation are less likely to fail due to user discomfort or error.[57][58]

A U.S. Department of Labor study[59] showed that in almost 40 thousand American enterprises, the requirements for the correct use of respirators are not always met. Experts note that in practice it is difficult to achieve elimination of occupational morbidity with the help of respirators:

Page Template:Blockquote/styles.css has no content.

It is well known how ineffective ... trying to compensate the harmful workplace conditions with ... the use of respirators by employees.[60] Unfortunately, the only certain way of reducing the exceedance fraction to zero is to ensure that Co (note: Co - concentration of pollutants in the breathing zone) never exceeds the PEL value.[61]

Beards
File:Facial hairstyles and filtering facepiece respirators.pdf
Beards can significantly affect the integrity of the respirator's face seal.

Certain types of facial hair can reduce fit to a significant degree. For this reason, there are facial hair guidelines for respirator users.[62]

Counterfeiting, modification, and revocation of regulated respirators

Another disadvantage of respirators is that the onus is on the respirator user to determine if their respirator is counterfeit or has had its certification revoked.[52] Customers and employers can inadvertently purchase non-OEM parts for a NIOSH-approved respirator which void the NIOSH approval and violate OSHA laws, in addition to potentially compromising the fit of the respirator.[63]

Page Module:Side box/styles.css has no content.

Page Template:Plainlist/styles.css has no content.
Wikisource logo
Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:Plain text' not found.

Issues with fit testing

If respirators must be used, under 29 CFR 1910.134, OSHA requires respirator users to conduct a respirator fit test, with a safety factor of 10 to offset lower fit during real world use.[48] However, NIOSH notes the large amount of time required for fit testing has been a point of contention for employers.[64]

Other opinions concern the change in performance of respirators in use compared to when fit testing, and compared to engineering control alternatives:

Page Template:Blockquote/styles.css has no content.

The very limited field tests of air-purifying respirator performance in the workplace show that respirators may perform far less well under actual use conditions than is indicated by laboratory fit factors. We are not yet able to predict the level of protection accurately; it will vary from person to person, and it may also vary from one use to the next for the same individual. In contrast, we can predict the effectiveness of engineering controls, and we can monitor their performance with commercially available state-of-the-art devices.[65]

Issues with respirator design

Extended or off-label use of certain negative-pressure respirators, like a filtering facepiece respirator paired with a surgical mask,[66] can result in higher levels of carbon dioxide from dead space and breathing resistance (pressure drop) which can impact functioning and sometimes can exceed the PEL.[66][67][68] This effect was significantly reduced with powered air purifying respirators.[69] In various surveys among healthcare workers, headaches,[70] dermatitis and acne have been reported.[71]

Complaints have been leveled at early LANL NIOSH fit test panels (which included primarily military personnel) as being unrepresentative of the broader American populace.[72] However, later fit test panels, based on a NIOSH facial survey conducted in 2003, were able to reach 95% representation of working US population surveyed.[73] Despite these developments, 42 CFR 84, the US regulation NIOSH follows for respirator approval, allows for respirators that don't follow the NIOSH fit test panel provided that: more than one facepiece size is provided, and no chemical cartridges are made available.[74]

Issues with lack of regulation

Respirators designed to non-US standards may not be subject to as much or any scrutiny:

  • In China, under GB2626-2019, which includes standards like KN95, there is no procedure for fit testing.[75]

Some jurisdictions allow for respirator filtration ratings lower than 95%, respirators which are not rated to prevent respiratory infection, asbestos, or other dangerous occupational hazards. These respirators are sometimes known as dust masks for their almost exclusive approval only against dust nuisances:

  • In Europe, regulation allows for dust masks under FFP1, where 20% inward leakage is allowed, with a minimum filtration efficiency of 80%.[76]
  • South Korea allows 20% filter leakage under KF80.

In the US, NIOSH noted that under standards predating the N95, 'Dust/Mist' rated respirators could not prevent the spread of TB.[77]

Regulation

The choice and use of respirators in developed countries is regulated by national legislation. To ensure that employers choose respirators correctly, and perform high-quality respiratory protection programs, various guides and textbooks have been developed:

For standard filter classes used in respirators, see Mechanical filter (respirator)#Filtration standards.

Voluntary respirator use

United States

Page Module:Side box/styles.css has no content.

Page Template:Plainlist/styles.css has no content.
Wikisource logo
Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Template:Excerpt

See also

References

Page Template:Reflist/styles.css has no content.

  1. ^ Template:If first display bothScript error: No such module "template wrapper".
  2. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Women in the US Military – History of Gas Masks". Chnm.gmu.edu. 11 September 2001. Archived from the original on 12 May 2011. Retrieved 18 April 2010.
  3. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Humboldt, Alexander von (1799). "Ueber die unterirdischen Gasarten und die Mittel ihren Nachtheil zu vermindern". WorldAtlas. Retrieved 27 March 2020.
  4. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.David Zuck (1990). "Julius Jeffreys: Pioneer of humidification" (PDF). Proceedings of the History of Anaesthesia Society. 8b: 70–80. Archived (PDF) from the original on 4 November 2021. Retrieved 16 August 2020.
  5. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Christianson, Scott (2010). Fatal Airs: The Deadly History and Apocalyptic Future of Lethal Gases that Threaten Our World. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9780313385520.
  6. ^ Page Template:Citation/styles.css has no content.US patent 6529A, Lewis P. Haslett, "Lung Protector", published Script error: No such module "auto date formatter"., issued Script error: No such module "auto date formatter".  Script error: No such module "webarchive".
  7. ^ Page Template:Citation/styles.css has no content.[1], "Improvement in inhaler and respirator", issued Script error: No such module "auto date formatter". 
  8. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Britain, Royal Institution of Great (1858). Notices of the Proceedings at the Meetings of the Members of the Royal Institution, with Abstracts of the Discourses. W. Nicol, Printer to the Royal Institution. p. 53.
  9. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Tyndall, John (1873). "On Some Recent Experiments with a Fireman's Respirator". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. 22: 359–361. Bibcode:1873RSPS...22R.359T. ISSN 0370-1662. JSTOR 112853.
  10. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Gas Mask Development (1926)". 67.225.133.110. Archived from the original on 27 February 2021. Retrieved 27 March 2020.
  11. ^ Page Template:Citation/styles.css has no content.US patent 148868A, Samuel Barton, "Respirator", published Script error: No such module "auto date formatter"., issued Script error: No such module "auto date formatter".  Script error: No such module "webarchive".
  12. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Lowry, H. C. (1947). "Some Landmarks in Surgical Technique". The Ulster Medical Journal. 16 (2): 102–113. PMC 2479244. PMID 18898288.
  13. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Schlich, T; Strasser, BJ (2022). "Making the medical mask: surgery, bacteriology, and the control of infection (1870s–1920s)". Medical History. 66 (2): 116–134. doi:10.1017/mdh.2022.5. PMC 9272539.
  14. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Wilson, Mark (24 March 2020). "The untold origin story of the N95 mask". Fast Company. Fast Company and Mansueto Ventures, LLC. Archived from the original on 19 May 2020. Retrieved 9 April 2020.
  15. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Rees, Paula; Eisenbach, Larry (2020). "Ask Why: Sara Little Turnbull". Design Museum Foundation. Archived from the original on July 20, 2020. Retrieved April 1, 2020.
  16. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Brickman, Lester (2004). "Fraud and Abuse in Mesothelioma Litigation". Tul. L. Rev. 31 (33): 47–48.
  17. ^ a b c Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Schwartz, Victor E.; Silverman, Cary; Appel., Christopher E. (2009). "Respirators to the Rescue: Why Tort Law Should Encourage, Not Deter, the Manufacture of Products that Make Us Safer" (PDF). Am. J. Trial Advoc. 33 (13): 48–51.
  18. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Xie, John (19 March 2020). "World Depends on China for Face Masks But Can Country Deliver?". Voice of America. Voice of America. Archived from the original on 21 March 2020.
  19. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Dwyer, Colin (3 April 2020). "CDC Now Recommends Americans Consider Wearing Cloth Face Coverings In Public". NPR.
  20. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Respirator use and practices". U.S. Bureau of Labour Statistics. Archived from the original on 17 October 2020. Retrieved 29 March 2020.
  21. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Filtering out Confusion: Frequently Asked Questions about Respiratory Protection, User Seal Check (2018)" (PDF). NIOSH. Retrieved 8 December 2021.
  22. ^ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:Footnotes/anchor_id_list' not found.
  23. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Bollinger, Nancy (1 October 2004). "NIOSH respirator selection logic". U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: 5–16. doi:10.26616/NIOSHPUB2005100. Archived from the original on 15 July 2020. Retrieved 20 April 2020.
  24. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Metzler, R; Szalajda, J (2011). "NIOSH Fact Sheet: NIOSH Approval Labels - Key Information to Protect Yourself" (PDF). DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2011-179. ISSN 0343-6993. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 July 2018. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
  25. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."A Guide to Respiratory Protective Equipment" (PDF). hsa.ie. Archived (PDF) from the original on 30 June 2024. Retrieved 12 July 2024.
  26. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Technical Bulletin: Comparison of FFP2, KN95, and N95 and Other Filtering Facepiece Respirator Classes" (PDF). 3M Personal Safety Division. January 2020. Archived (PDF) from the original on 14 April 2020. Retrieved 3 April 2020.
  27. ^ The document describes the methods used previously and currently used to perform the timely replacement of cartridges in air purifying respirators.
  28. ^ OSHA standard 29 CFR 1910.134 Script error: No such module "webarchive". "Respiratory Protection"
  29. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Bollinger, Nancy; et al. (2004). NIOSH Respirator Selection Logic. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2005-100. Cincinnati, Ohio: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. p. 32. doi:10.26616/NIOSHPUB2005100. Archived from the original on 23 June 2017. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
  30. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Respirator Selection: Air-purifying vs. Atmosphere-supplying Respirators". U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Archived from the original on 17 April 2020. Retrieved 9 April 2020.
  31. ^ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:Footnotes/anchor_id_list' not found.
  32. ^ "NIOSH has concluded that APFS based on APF definitions from Myers et al. and the Guy Committee are derived from WPF data that were obtained after each test subject has been properly fitted and trained"... Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:Footnotes/anchor_id_list' not found.
  33. ^ a b Quote from: Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Open Forum: Respirator Testing-Old Values, Ind. Safety and Hyg. News, May 1989
  34. ^ a b Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:Footnotes/anchor_id_list' not found.
  35. ^ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:Footnotes/anchor_id_list' not found.
  36. ^ a b Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:Footnotes/anchor_id_list' not found.
  37. ^ a b Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:Footnotes/anchor_id_list' not found.
  38. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Douglas, D. D. (August 1976), Respirator Studies for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, July 1, 1974-June 30, 1975, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Progress Report LA-6386-PR, Los Alamos, New Mexico: Office of Scientific and Technical Information, pp. 35–36
  39. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Revoir, W. H. (30 May 1990), Comments on OSHA's Proposal to Modify Existing Provisions for Controlling Employee Exposure to Toxic Substances Found in 29 CFR 1910.1000(3) and 29 CFR 1910.134(a)(1). Comments submitted to OSHA, p. 20
  40. ^ a b Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:Footnotes/anchor_id_list' not found.
  41. ^ a b Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:Footnotes/anchor_id_list' not found.
  42. ^ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:Footnotes/anchor_id_list' not found.
  43. ^ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:Footnotes/anchor_id_list' not found.
  44. ^ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:Footnotes/anchor_id_list' not found.
  45. ^ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:Footnotes/anchor_id_list' not found.
  46. ^ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:Footnotes/anchor_id_list' not found.
  47. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."The State of the National Initiative on Prevention through Design" (PDF). NIOSH. May 2014. Archived (PDF) from the original on 3 June 2024. Retrieved 3 June 2024.
  48. ^ a b Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."MAJOR REQUIREMENTS OF OSHA'S RESPIRATORY PROTECTION STANDARD 29 CFR 1910.134" (PDF). United States Department of Labor, OSHA. Archived (PDF) from the original on 27 January 2024. Retrieved 3 June 2024.
  49. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Summary of Key MSHA Requirements for a Respiratory Protection Program" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 June 2024. Retrieved 3 June 2024.
  50. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."RE: Lowering Miners' Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica and Improving Respiratory Protection (RIN 1219-AB36)" (PDF). 11 September 2023.
  51. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."MSHA's proposed rule on silica has 'shortcomings,' lawmakers say". 21 September 2023. Archived from the original on 5 June 2024. Retrieved 3 June 2024.
  52. ^ a b Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Counterfeit Respirators / Misrepresentation of NIOSH Approval". NIOSH. 23 May 2024.
  53. ^ Template:If first display bothScript error: No such module "template wrapper".
  54. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Fukakusa, J.; Rosenblat, J.; Jang, B.; Ribeiro, M.; Kudla, I.; Tarlo, S. M. (2011). "Factors influencing respirator use at work in respiratory patients". Occupational Medicine. 61 (8): 576–582. doi:10.1093/occmed/kqr132. PMID 21968940.
  55. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Biering, Karin; Kinnerup, Martin; Cramer, Christine; Dalbøge, Annett; Toft Würtz, Else; Lund Würtz, Anne Mette; Kolstad, Henrik Albert; Schlünssen, Vivi; Meulengracht Flachs, Esben; Nielsen, Kent J. (2024). "Use, failure, and non-compliance of respiratory personal protective equipment and risk of upper respiratory tract infections—A longitudinal repeated measurement study during the COVID-19 pandemic among healthcare workers in Denmark". Annals of Work Exposures and Health. 68 (4): 376–386. doi:10.1093/annweh/wxae008. PMID 38373246.
  56. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Baig, Aliya S.; Knapp, Caprice; Eagan, Aaron E.; Radonovich, Lewis J. (2010). "Health care workers' views about respirator use and features that should be included in the next generation of respirators". American Journal of Infection Control. 38 (1): 18–25. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2009.09.005. PMC 7132692. PMID 20036443.
  57. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."The Hierarchy of Controls, Part Four: Personal Protective Equipment". Simplified Safety. Archived from the original on 3 June 2024. Retrieved 3 June 2024.
  58. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Protect the Worker with PPE". NIOSH. 5 May 2023. Archived from the original on 3 June 2024. Retrieved 3 June 2024.
  59. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Respirator Usage in Private Sector Firms, 2001 (PDF). Morgantown, WV: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. p. 273. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 November 2017. Retrieved 22 January 2019.
  60. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Letavet A.A. [in русский] (1973). Институт гигиены труда и профессиональных заболеваний в составе АМН СССР [Research Institute of industrial hygiene and occupational diseases of AMS USSR]. Occupational medicine and industrial ecology [Гигиена труда и профессиональные заболевания] (in русский) (9): 1–7. ISSN 1026-9428. Archived from the original on 23 January 2019. Retrieved 22 January 2019.
  61. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.M. Nicas & R. Spear (1992). "A Probability Model for Assessing Exposure among Respirator Wearers: Part II - Overexposure to Chronic versus Acute Toxicants". American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal. 53 (7): 419–426. doi:10.1080/15298669291359889. PMID 1496932. Archived from the original on 7 April 2023. Retrieved 22 January 2018.
  62. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."To Beard or not to Beard? That's a good Question!". NIOSH. 2 November 2017. Archived from the original on 18 March 2020. Retrieved 27 February 2020.
  63. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Transcript for the OSHA Training Video Entitled Counterfeit & Altered Respirators: The Importance of Checking for NIOSH Certification". US Department of Labor, OSHA. January 2012. Archived from the original on 3 June 2024. Retrieved 3 June 2024.
  64. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Zhuang, Ziqing; Bergman, Michael; Krah, Jaclyn (5 January 2016). "New NIOSH Study Supports the OSHA Annual Fit Testing Requirements for Filtering Facepiece Respirators". NIOSH.
  65. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Edwin C. Hyatt (1984). "Respirators: How well do they really protect?". Journal of the International Society for Respiratory Protection. 2 (1): 6–19. ISSN 0892-6298. Archived from the original on 22 October 2016. Retrieved 22 January 2018.
  66. ^ a b "...as compared with FFRs without SM [surgical mask], higher average inhaled CO2 were observed in four of six workloads among FFRs with SM". Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.E.J. Sinkule; J.B. Powell; F.L. Goss (2013). "Evaluation of N95 respirator use with a surgical mask cover: effects on breathing resistance and inhaled carbon dioxide". Annals of Occupational Hygiene. 57 (3). Oxford University Press: 384–398. doi:10.1093/annhyg/mes068. ISSN 2398-7308. PMID 23108786.
  67. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.R.J. Roberge; A. Coca; W.J. Williams; J.B. Powell; A.J. Palmiero (2010). "Physiological Impact of the N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirator on Healthcare Workers". Respiratory Care. 55 (5). American Association for Respiratory Care (AARC): 569–577. ISSN 0020-1324. PMID 20420727. Archived from the original on 31 October 2020. Retrieved 28 February 2021.
  68. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Carmen L. Smith; Jane L. Whitelaw; Brian Davies (2013). "Carbon dioxide rebreathing in respiratory protective devices: influence of speech and work rate in full-face masks". Ergonomics. 56 (5). Taylor & Francis: 781–790. doi:10.1080/00140139.2013.777128. ISSN 0014-0139. PMID 23514282. S2CID 40238982. Archived from the original on 1 November 2020. Retrieved 28 February 2021.
  69. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Rhee, Michelle S. M.; Lindquist, Carin D.; Silvestrini, Matthew T.; Chan, Amanda C.; Ong, Jonathan J. Y.; Sharma, Vijay K. (2021). "Carbon dioxide increases with face masks but remains below short-term NIOSH limits". BMC Infectious Diseases. 21 (1): 354. doi:10.1186/s12879-021-06056-0. PMC 8049746. PMID 33858372.
  70. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Ong, Jonathan J. Y.; Chan, Amanda C. Y.; Bharatendu, Chandra; Teoh, Hock Luen; Chan, Yee Cheun; Sharma, Vijay K. (2021). "Headache Related to PPE Use during the COVID-19 Pandemic". Current Pain and Headache Reports. 25 (8): 53. doi:10.1007/s11916-021-00968-x. PMC 8203491. PMID 34129112.
  71. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Chris C.I. Foo; Anthony T.J. Goon; Yung-Hian Leow; Chee-Leok Goh (2006). "Adverse skin reactions to personal protective equipment against severe acute respiratory syndrome – a descriptive study in Singapore". Contact Dermatitis. 55 (5). John Wiley & Sons: 291–294. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2006.00953.x. ISSN 0105-1873. PMC 7162267. PMID 17026695.
  72. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Determination of Sample Size and Passing Criteria for Fit Test Panels" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 8 August 2023. Retrieved 3 June 2024.
  73. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Zhuang, Ziqing; Bradtmiller, Bruce; Shaffer, Ronald E. (2007). "New Respirator Fit Test Panels Representing the Current U.S. Civilian Work Force". Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. 4 (9): 647–659. doi:10.1080/15459620701497538. PMID 17613722.
  74. ^ §135, §198, and §205. Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."PART 84—APPROVAL OF RESPIRATORY PROTECTIVE DEVICES". Archived from the original on 15 March 2024. Retrieved 3 June 2024.
  75. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."国家标准|Gb 2626-2019". Archived from the original on 3 June 2024. Retrieved 3 June 2024.
  76. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Protection levels: FFP1 masks, FFP2 masks, FFP3 masks". Moldex Europe. Archived from the original on 2 June 2024. Retrieved 3 June 2024.
  77. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guidelines for Preventing the Transmission of Mycobacterium Tuberculosis in Health-Care Facilities, 1994" (PDF). US Federal Register. Archived (PDF) from the original on 8 June 2024. Retrieved 8 May 2024.
  78. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Nancy J. Bollinger, Robert H. Schutz; et al. (1987). NIOSH Guide to Industrial Respiratory Protection. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No 87-116. Cincinnati, Ohio: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. p. 305. doi:10.26616/NIOSHPUB87116. Archived from the original on 23 November 2017. Retrieved 10 June 2018.
  79. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Nancy Bollinger; et al. (2004). NIOSH Respirator Selection Logic. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No 2005-100. Cincinnati, Ohio: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. p. 32. doi:10.26616/NIOSHPUB2005100. Archived from the original on 23 June 2017. Retrieved 10 June 2018.
  80. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Linda Rosenstock; et al. (1999). TB Respiratory Protection Program In Health Care Facilities - Administrator's Guide. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No 99-143. Cincinnati, Ohio: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. p. 120. doi:10.26616/NIOSHPUB99143. Archived from the original on 2 April 2020. Retrieved 10 June 2018.
  81. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Kathleen Kincade; Garnet Cooke; Kaci Buhl; et al. (2017). Janet Fults (ed.). Respiratory Protection Guide. Requirements for Employers of Pesticide Handlers. Worker Protection Standard (WPS). California: Pesticide Educational Resources Collaborative (PERC). p. 48. Archived from the original on 22 March 2021. Retrieved 10 June 2018. PDF Script error: No such module "webarchive".
  82. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Occupational Safety and Health Administration (1998). "Respiratory Protection eTool". OSHA (in English and español). Washington, DC. Archived from the original on 22 March 2021. Retrieved 10 June 2018.
  83. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Hilda L. Solis; et al. (2011). Small Entity Compliance Guide for the Respiratory Protection Standard. OSHA 3384-09. Washington, DC: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. p. 124. Archived from the original on 22 March 2021. Retrieved 10 June 2018. PDF Script error: No such module "webarchive".
  84. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.OSHA; et al. (2015). Hospital Respiratory Protection Program Toolkit. OSHA 3767. Resources for Respirator Program Administrators. Washington, DC: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. p. 96. Archived from the original on 22 March 2021. Retrieved 10 June 2018. PDF Script error: No such module "webarchive".
  85. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.J. Edgar Geddie (2012). A Guide to Respiratory Protection. Industry Guide 44 (2 ed.). Raleigh, North Carolina: Occupational Safety and Health Division, N.C. Department of Labor. p. 54. Archived from the original on 22 March 2021. Retrieved 10 June 2018.
  86. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Patricia Young; Phillip Fehrenbacher; Mark Peterson (2014). Breathe Right! Oregon OSHA's guide to developing a respiratory protection program for small-business owners and managers. Publications: Guides 440-3330. Salem, Oregon: Oregon OSHA Standards and Technical Resources Section, Oregon Occupational Safety and Health. p. 44. Archived from the original on 22 March 2021. Retrieved 10 June 2018. PDF Script error: No such module "webarchive".
  87. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Patricia Young; Mark Peterson (2016). Air you breathe: Oregon OSHA's respiratory protection guide for agricultural employers. Publications: Guides 440-3654. Salem, Oregon: Oregon OSHA Standards and Technical Resources Section, Oregon Occupational Safety and Health. p. 32. Archived from the original on 22 March 2021. Retrieved 10 June 2018.
  88. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Oregon OSHA (2014). "Section VIII / Chapter 2: Respiratory Protection". Oregon OSHA Technical Manual. Rules. Salem, Oregon: Oregon OSHA. p. 38. Archived from the original on 22 March 2021. Retrieved 10 June 2018. PDF Script error: No such module "webarchive".
  89. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.California Department of Industrial Relations. Respiratory Protection in the Workplace. A Practical Guide for Small-Business Employers (3 ed.). Santa Ana, California: California Department of Industrial Relations. p. 51. Archived from the original on 22 March 2021. Retrieved 10 June 2018. PDF Script error: No such module "webarchive".
  90. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.K. Paul Steinmeyer; et al. (2001). Manual of Respiratory Protection Against Airborne Radioactive Material. NUREG/CR-0041, Revision 1. Washington, DC: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. p. 166. Archived from the original on 22 March 2021. Retrieved 10 June 2018. PDF Script error: No such module "webarchive".
  91. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Gary P. Noonan; Herbert L. Linn; Laurence D. Reed; et al. (1986). Susan V. Vogt (ed.). A guide to respiratory protection for the asbestos abatement industry. NIOSH IA 85-06; EPA DW 75932235-01-1. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) & National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). p. 173. Archived from the original on 22 March 2021. Retrieved 10 June 2018.
  92. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Jaime Lara; Mireille Vennes (2002). Guide pratique de protection respiratoire. Projet de recherche: 0098-0660 (in français) (1 ed.). Montreal, Quebec (Canada): Institut de recherche Robert-Sauve en sante et en securite du travail (IRSST), Commission de la sante et de la securite du travail du Quebec. p. 56. ISBN 978-2-550-37465-7. Archived from the original on 12 June 2018. Retrieved 10 June 2018.; 2 edition: Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Jaime Lara; Mireille Vennes (26 August 2013). Guide pratique de protection respiratoire. DC 200-1635 2CORR (in français) (2 ed.). Montreal, Quebec (Canada): Institut de recherche Robert-Sauve en sante et en securite du travail (IRSST), Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail du Québec. p. 60. ISBN 978-2-550-40403-3. Archived from the original on 22 August 2019. Retrieved 10 June 2018.; online version: Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Jaime Lara; Mireille Vennes (2016). "Appareils de protection respiratoire". www.cnesst.gouv.qc.ca (in français). Quebec (Quebec, Canada): Commission des normes, de l'equite, de la sante et de la securite du travail. Archived from the original on 22 March 2021. Retrieved 10 June 2018.
  93. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Jacques Lavoie; Maximilien Debia; Eve Neesham-Grenon; Genevieve Marchand; Yves Cloutier (22 May 2015). "A support tool for choosing respiratory protection against bioaerosols". www.irsst.qc.ca. Montreal, Quebec (Canada): Institut de recherche Robert-Sauve en sante et en securite du travail (IRSST). Archived from the original on 7 May 2021. Retrieved 10 June 2018. Publication no.: UT-024; Research Project: 0099-9230.
  94. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Jacques Lavoie; Maximilien Debia; Eve Neesham-Grenon; Genevieve Marchand; Yves Cloutier (22 May 2015). "Un outil d'aide a la prise de decision pour choisir une protection respiratoire contre les bioaerosols". www.irsst.qc.ca (in français). Montreal, Quebec (Canada): Institut de recherche Robert-Sauve en sante et en securite du travail (IRSST). Archived from the original on 7 May 2021. Retrieved 10 June 2018. N° de publication : UT-024; Projet de recherche: 0099-9230.
  95. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.M. Gumon (2017). Les appareils de protection respiratoire. Choix et utilisation. ED 6106 (in français) (2 ed.). Paris: Institut National de Recherche et de Securite (INRS). p. 68. ISBN 978-2-7389-2303-5. Archived from the original on 7 May 2021. Retrieved 10 June 2018.
  96. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Spitzenverband der gewerblichen Berufsgenossenschaften und der Unfallversicherungsträger der öffentlichen Hand (DGUV) (2011). BGR/GUV-R 190. Benutzung von Atemschutzgeräten (in Deutsch). Berlin: Deutsche Gesetzliche Unfallversicherung e.V. (DGUV), Medienproduktion. p. 174. Archived from the original on 7 May 2021. Retrieved 10 June 2018. PDF Script error: No such module "webarchive".
  97. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.The Health and Safety Executive (2013). Respiratory protective equipment at work. A practical guide. HSG53 (4 ed.). Crown. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-71766-454-2. Archived from the original on 9 August 2015. Retrieved 10 June 2018.
  98. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.The UK Nuclear Industry Radiological Protection Coordination Group (2016). Respiratory Protective Equipment (PDF). Good Practice Guide. London (UK): IRPCG. p. 29. Archived (PDF) from the original on 7 May 2021. Retrieved 10 June 2018.
  99. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.The Health and Safety Authority (2010). A Guide to Respiratory Protective Equipment. HSA0362. Dublin (Ireland): HSA. p. 19. ISBN 978-1-84496-144-3. Archived from the original on 7 May 2021. Retrieved 10 June 2018. PDF Script error: No such module "webarchive".
  100. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Occupational Safety and Health Service (1999). A guide to respiratory protection (8 ed.). Wellington (New Zealand): NZ Department of Labour. p. 51. ISBN 978-0-477-03625-2. Archived from the original on 12 June 2018. Retrieved 10 June 2018. PDF Script error: No such module "webarchive".
  101. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Christian Albornoz, Hugo Cataldo (2009). Guia para la seleccion y control de proteccion respiratoria. Guia tecnica (in español). Santiago (Chile): Departamento de salud occupational, Instituto de Salud Publica de Chile. p. 40. Archived from the original on 22 August 2019. Retrieved 10 June 2018. PDF Script error: No such module "webarchive".
  102. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Instituto Nacional de Seguridad, Salud y Salud en el Trabajo (INSST). Guia orientativa para la seleccion y utilizacion de protectores respiratorios. Documentos técnicos INSST. Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Seguridad y Salud en el Trabajo (INSST).

Works cited on this page

Page Template:Refbegin/styles.css has no content.

ND2. Page Template:Citation/styles.css has no content.
Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."STANDARD APPLICATION PROCEDURES FOR THE CERTIFICATION OF RESPIRATORS" (PDF). CDC NIOSH. January 2001. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 March 2003.
C1. Page Template:Citation/styles.css has no content.
Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Federal Register (PDF), vol. 59, 24 May 1994, pp. 26850–26893
C4. Page Template:Citation/styles.css has no content.
Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Federal Register (PDF), vol. 60, 8 June 1995, pp. 30336–30397
C5. Page Template:Citation/styles.css has no content.
Template:If first display bothScript error: No such module "template wrapper".
N1. Page Template:Citation/styles.css has no content.
Template:If first display bothScript error: No such module "template wrapper".
N2. Page Template:Citation/styles.css has no content.
Template:If first display bothScript error: No such module "template wrapper". [scan Wikisource link]

Further reading

Page Module:Side box/styles.css has no content.

Page Template:Plainlist/styles.css has no content.
Wikisource logo
Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Page Template:Refbegin/styles.css has no content.

Page Template:Sister-inline/styles.css has no content.Script error: No such module "Sister project logo". Related media at Wikimedia Commons:

Page Module:Side box/styles.css has no content.Page Template:Sister project/styles.css has no content.

Page Template:Plainlist/styles.css has no content.
Script error: No such module "Sister project logo".
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Respirators.Template:Preview warning

Template:Breathing apparatus Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:Authority control/config' not found.

Retrieved from "https://cosmopedia.co/index.php?title=Respirator&oldid=670388"