Particle Size-Selective Assessment of Protection of European Standard FFP Respirators and Surgical Masks against Particles-Tested with Human Subjects
Particle Size-Selective Assessment of Protection of European Standard FFP Respirators and Surgical Masks against Particles-Tested with Human Subjects
复制标题
DOI：
10.1155/2016/8572493
复制
发表时间：
2016-01-01
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Chen, Jen-Kun
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lee, Shu-An;Hwang, Dong-Chir;Chen, Jen-Kun
为了解不同等级的一次性过滤半面式口罩对0.093~1.61µm颗粒物的防护效果，采用个人采样系统对口罩的防护效果进行了粒度选择性评价。结果表明，约10.9%的FFP-2口罩和28.2%的FFP-3口罩的指定防护系数(APF)低于英国标准为这些口罩指定的保护系数(APF)10和20。平均而言，FFP口罩的防护系数是外科口罩的11.5~15.9倍。0.263~0.384微米颗粒物的防护系数最小，不同口罩种类和不同颗粒大小的防护因子无显著差异。研究发现，适合性因素和保护因素之间存在很强的相关性。研究表明，FFP口罩可能达不到预期的保护水平，可能需要修改这些类型的口罩的APFS。
This study was conducted to investigate the protection of disposable filtering half-facepiece respirators of different grades against particles between 0.093 and 1.61 mu m. A personal sampling system was used to particle size-selectively assess the protection of respirators. The results show that about 10.9% of FFP2 respirators and 28.2% of FFP3 respirators demonstrate assigned protection factors (APFs) below 10 and 20, which are the levels assigned for these respirators by the British Standard. On average, the protection factors of FFP respirators were 11.5 to 15.9 times greater than those of surgical masks. The minimum protection factors (PFs) were observed for particles between 0.263 and 0.384 mu m. No significant difference in PF results was found among FFP respirator categories and particle size. A strong association between fit factors and protection factors was found. The study indicates that FFP respirators may not achieve the expected protection level and the APFs may need to be revised for these classes of respirators.