A randomised crossover trial of two flat-fold cup respirators: BYD DE2322 N95 versus Care Essentials MSK-002 P2.

BACKGROUND

The use of respiratory protection remains important in protecting health care workers from airborne pathogens such as viruses. Respirator supply is constantly changing with new models regularly becoming available. Health services should consider a broad range of factors when procuring respirators, including the results of quantitative fit testing in a representative sample of the workforce. Subjective comfort factors and compatibility with a variety of workplace tasks, such as suitability for staff use near magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) environments where relevant, should also be considered. This article compares the quantitative fit factors and user assessments for two styles of flat-fold cup respirators, Care Essentials (CE) MSK-002 P2 and BYD DE2322 N95.

METHODS

Quantitative fit tests (QNFT) were performed on 300 participants on each model of respirator in this randomised crossover trial. Participants then completed a questionnaire on their assessments of each respirator.

RESULTS

The Care Essentials MSK-002 had a significantly higher quantitative fit test pass rate than the BYD DE2322 (57% vs 18%, p < 0.001). There was no concordance between fit test pass rates for each model. Additionally, the Care Essentials MSK-002 achieved significantly higher scores on each of the responses in the subjective usability survey.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the Care Essentials MSK-002 be made available for health care use due to higher QNFT pass rates, higher subjective usability assessment scores, plus its potential for use in MRI environments when compared to the BYD DE2322.