Department of Work Systems and Health, Institute of Industrial Ecological Sciences, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan.
Ind Health. 2023 Jul 29;61(4):275-282. doi: 10.2486/indhealth.2021-0268. Epub 2022 May 13.
This study evaluated the differences in respiratory protection between replaceable particulate respirators (RPRs) and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) based on different wearing methods during exercise tasks. Ten participants wore RPRs and PAPRs alternately in ways comparable to those adopted by workers in actual workplaces. We measured the fit factor of the respiratory protective equipment (RPE) during exercise tasks for each wearing variation. The exercise load was set to 80W using an ergometer. The exercise tasks comprised five actions described in the Japan Industrial Standard T8150 in 2018. We compared the results with experimental data obtained at rest in our previous studies. The fit factor of RPRs during exercise was significantly lower than (p<0.001) and about half that measured at rest, indicating inadequate respiratory protection. On the other hand, the fit factor of PAPRs during exercise tasks was also significantly lower than (p<0.001) and about half that at rest, but respiratory protection was maintained. This suggests that the protection provided by PAPRs is independent of wearing method during exercise. PAPRs may thus be better than RPRs for workers who have to wear RPE inappropriately due to health problems.
本研究评估了在运动任务中,根据不同的佩戴方式,可更换式颗粒物呼吸器(RPR)和动力空气净化呼吸器(PAPR)在呼吸防护方面的差异。10 名参与者交替佩戴 RPR 和 PAPR,佩戴方式与实际工作场所工人采用的方式相似。我们测量了每种佩戴变化在运动任务期间呼吸防护设备(RPE)的适合系数。使用测功计将运动负荷设置为 80W。运动任务包括日本工业标准 T8150 2018 年规定的五个动作。我们将结果与我们之前在休息时获得的实验数据进行了比较。RPR 在运动期间的适合系数明显低于(p<0.001),约为休息时的一半,表明呼吸防护不足。另一方面,PAPR 在运动任务期间的适合系数也明显低于(p<0.001),约为休息时的一半,但呼吸防护得到了维持。这表明 PAPR 提供的保护不受运动期间佩戴方式的影响。因此,对于因健康问题而不得不佩戴不适当的 RPE 的工人来说,PAPR 可能比 RPR 更好。