Harber P, Beck J, Brown C, Luo J
Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles 90024-1690.
Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1991 Sep;52(9):357-62. doi: 10.1080/15298669191364875.
The effect of alternate airflow path designs on full-face mask air-purifying respirators was assessed in 14 healthy volunteers during submaximal exercise. Respirator designs included no respirator (N), full-face mask, dual-cartridge with no nasal deflector (FN), full-face mask respirator with nasal deflector (FD), and a powered air-purifying respirator (PA). Physiologic effects were measured by using respiratory inductive plethysmography and subjective responses by two visual analog scales. There were significant effects of airflow path design upon the physiologic parameters of ventilation, tidal volume, and mean flow rate. There were no significant physiologic or subjective differences between the full-face mask respirators with and without the nasal deflector in place. The PA had less physiologic impact than the nonpowered models but did not show significant subjective benefit. The study suggests that both subjective and objective physiologic responses must be utilized in assessing respirator design.
在14名健康志愿者进行次最大运动期间,评估了交替气流路径设计对全面罩空气净化呼吸器的影响。呼吸器设计包括无呼吸器(N)、全面罩、无鼻导流器的双滤盒(FN)、有鼻导流器的全面罩呼吸器(FD)和动力空气净化呼吸器(PA)。通过呼吸感应体积描记法测量生理效应,并通过两个视觉模拟量表测量主观反应。气流路径设计对通气、潮气量和平均流速等生理参数有显著影响。有鼻导流器和无鼻导流器的全面罩呼吸器之间在生理或主观方面均无显著差异。PA比无动力型号的生理影响更小,但未显示出显著的主观益处。该研究表明,在评估呼吸器设计时必须同时利用主观和客观的生理反应。