Spear T M, DuMond J, Lloyd C, Vincent J H
School of Mines, Montana Tech, University of Montana, Butte, USA.
Appl Occup Environ Hyg. 2000 Feb;15(2):235-44. doi: 10.1080/104732200301746.
An industrial hygiene study was conducted at a primary lead smelter to determine the effective protection factors for negative pressure and powered air purifying half-mask respirators. The study involved 99 paired personal samples taken in six different work areas, in which randomly chosen subjects from the workforce wore dual sampling pumps connected to closed-face 37-mm cassettes. The cassettes were attached either to the workers' lapels for exposure measurements outside the respirator or to a ported respirator for exposure measurements inside the respirator. Samples were collected throughout the work shift and analyzed for lead according to National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Method 7082. Using particle size distribution data obtained for the same workplaces, the within-mask samples were corrected for sampling bias. The negative pressure half-mask respirators showed a mean effective protection factor of 6.5 and a mean corrected effective protection factor of 4.56, with a 5th percentile less than 0.5. Approximately 80 percent and 90 percent of the effective protection factors and the corrected effective protection factors, respectively, were equal to or less than the assigned protection factor of 10. For the powered air purifying half-mask respirators, the means for effective protection factor and corrected effective protection factor were 18.20 and 11.92, respectively, with a 5th percentile of 1.0 or less. Approximately 90 percent and 95 percent of the effective protection factors and the corrected effective protection factors, respectively, were equal to or less than the assigned protection factor of 50. The uncorrected and corrected within-mask lead concentrations for both types of respirators exceeded the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) for lead by 19 percent to 58 percent. These results indicate that the straight application of assigned protection factors to actual workplace situations may not always be appropriate.
在一家铅冶炼厂进行了一项工业卫生研究,以确定负压式和动力送风空气净化半面罩呼吸器的有效防护因数。该研究涉及在六个不同工作区域采集的99对个人样本,其中从员工中随机挑选的受试者佩戴连接到封闭式37毫米采样盒的双采样泵。采样盒要么连接到工人的翻领上以测量呼吸器外部的暴露情况,要么连接到带端口的呼吸器上以测量呼吸器内部的暴露情况。在整个工作班次收集样本,并根据美国国家职业安全与健康研究所(NIOSH)方法7082对铅进行分析。利用从相同工作场所获得的粒径分布数据,对面罩内样本的采样偏差进行了校正。负压式半面罩呼吸器的平均有效防护因数为6.5,平均校正有效防护因数为4.56,第5百分位数小于0.5。有效防护因数和校正有效防护因数分别约有80%和90%等于或小于指定防护因数10。对于动力送风空气净化半面罩呼吸器,有效防护因数和校正有效防护因数的平均值分别为18.20和11.92,第5百分位数为1.0或更低。有效防护因数和校正有效防护因数分别约有90%和95%等于或小于指定防护因数50。两种呼吸器未经校正和校正后的面罩内铅浓度均超过美国职业安全与健康管理局(OSHA)规定的铅允许暴露限值(PEL)19%至58%。这些结果表明,将指定防护因数直接应用于实际工作场所情况可能并不总是合适的。