Comparison of six respirator fit-test methods with an actual measurement of exposure in a simulated health care environment: Part II--Method comparison testing.

This article, the second in a series of three, describes the method comparison testing portion of a study conducted to compare the fit factors from six quantitative fit-tests (QNFT) with a measure of a respirator wearer's actual exposure assessed by end-exhaled air analysis for 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (Freon-113) under the same conditions. The six QNFT methods were (1) continuous low flow, flush probe; (2) continuous high flow, deep probe (CHD); (3) exhalation valve discharge (EVD); (4) controlled negative pressure; (5) 10-minute Ambient Aerosol 1 (AA1); and (6) 30-minute Ambient Aerosol 2. The first three methods utilized corn oil and a forward light scattering photometer. The last two methods used the TSI Portacount. Respirators used in the study were both disposable and elastomeric organic vapor/high efficiency half-masks. The characterization equations from the preliminary research (described previously) were used to determine the actual exposure to Freon-113 during the method comparison testing. The fit factors resulting from the QNFT methods were then individually correlated with the Freon-113 exposures using the coefficient of determination, R2. The lowest R2 value, 0.20, was found with the EVD method. The highest R2 values, 0.81 and 0.78, were associated, respectively, with the CHD and AA1 methods. This study suggests that some QNFT methods may be used to estimate actual respirator performance under laboratory conditions.