Requirements to respiratory protection for workers (World practices reviewed)

View or download the full article: 
PDF icon health-risk-analysis-2020-4-21.pdf
UDC: 
614.894
DOI: 
10.21668/health.risk/2020.4.21.eng
Authors: 

V.A. Kaptsov1, A.V. Chirkin2

Organization: 

1All-Russian Research Institute of Railway Hygiene, Bldg. 1, 1 Pakgauznoe shosse, Moscow, 125438, Russian Federation
2«Beta PRO» LLC, Bldg. 6, 2 2-ya Kabel'naya Str., Moscow, 111024, Russian Federation

Abstract: 

A great number of workplaces in Russia do not conform to sanitary-hygienic requirements and it results in wide use of personal respiratory protective equipment (PRPE). Choice on such equipment and its application are not regulated by the existing legislation in the RF in great detail as it is the case in developed countries. As a result, employers apply PRPE that is not efficient enough, or such equipment is not used properly, and it leads to diseases occurrence.
Our research goal was to reveal requirements to PRPE application which, when met, would reduce risks for workers’ life and health as greatly as it is only possible.
Our research object was personal respiratory protective equipment (PRPE).
We compared requirements to selecting and applying PRPE in the USA, Australia, Great Britain, Canada, and West Germany and also took into account requirement and experts’ recommendations existing in several other countries. When comparing, we tried to focus on key elements that determined whether PRPE applied in due time was able to prevent exposure to air contamination. Such key elements included choice on PRPE suitable for work under extremely hazardous conditions; permissible application of PRPE with different structure (expected protective efficiency); individual selection and testing whether a mask is fit for a face; timely replacement of respirator filters; requirements to skills of workers and their supervisors.
Our research revealed that results of PRPE application and requirements fixed for employers were most comprehensively estimated and well-grounded in the USA. The most favorable situation with quality and availability of materials on how to select and apply PRPE for workers, specialists, and supervisors is also in the USA. Results obtained via the performed comparison allow recommending US Standard 29 CFR 1910.134 as a basis for developing similar requirements in Russia.

Keywords: 
PRPE, efficiency of personal protective equipment, protective efficiency, respirators, prompt-hazardous concentration, insulating properties of a mask, respirator filters, health risk reduction
Kaptsov V.A., Chirkin A.V. Requirements to respiratory protection for workers (World practices reviewed). Health Risk Analysis, 2020, no. 4, pp. 188–195. DOI: 10.21668/health.risk/2020.4.21.eng
References: 
  1. Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health Values. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/ (22.08.2020).
  2. Nelson T.J. The Assigned Protection Factor According to ANSI. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J., 1996, vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 735–740. DOI: 10.1080/15428119691014594
  3. Assigned Protection Factors. RUSHING MARINE, 2019. Available at: http://www.rushingmarine.com/regulations/29CFR1910,15,26_06.06.03.pdf (18.06.2020).
  4. Ding S.-T., Yao H., Yang X.B. Respirator National Standard Development in China – A Perspective of Past Decade. Journal of the International Society for Respiratory Protection, 2010, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 71–81.
  5. Myers W.R., Peach M.J. 3rd. Performance measurements on a powered air-purifying respirator made during actual field use in a silica bagging operation. Ann. Occup. Hyg, 1983, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 251–259. DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/27.3.251
  6. Lenhart S.W., Campbell D.L. Assigned Protection Factors for two respirator types based upon workplace performance testing. Ann. Occup. Hyg, 1984, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 173–182. DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/28.2.173
  7. Myers W.R., Peach M.J., Cutright K., Iskander W. Workplace Protection Factor Measurements on Powered Air-Purifying Respirators at a Secondary Lead Smelter: Results and Discussion. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J, 1984, vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 681–688. DOI: 10.1080/15298668491400449
  8. Myers W.R., Peach M.J., Cutright K., Iskander W. Field Test of Powered Air-Purifying Respirators at a Battery Manufacturing Facility. Journal of the International Society for Respiratory Protection, 1986, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 62–89.
  9. Tannahil S.N., Willey R.J., Jackson M.H. Workplace protection factors of HSE approved negative pressure full-facepiece dust respirators during asbestos stripping: Preliminary findings. Ann. Occup. Hyg, 1990, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 547–552. DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/34.6.547
  10. Howie R., Johnstone J., Weston P., Aitken R.J., Groat S. Workplace effectiveness of respiratory protective equipment for asbestos removal work. Edinburgh, Institute of Occupational Medicine Publ., 1996, 90 p.
  11. Wu B., Leppänen M., Yermakov M., Grinshpun S. Evaluation of a New Instrument for Aerosol Quantitative Fit Testing. Journal of the International Society for Respiratory Protection, 2017, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 111–127.
  12. Chen W., Zhuang Z., Benson S., Du L., Yu D., Landsittel D., Wang L., Viscusi D., Shaffer R.E. New Respirator Fit Test Panels Representing the Current Chinese Civilian Workers. Ann. Occup. Hyg, 2009, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 297–305. DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/men089
  13. Zhuang Z., Bradtmiller B., Shaffer R. New Respirator Fit Test Panels Representing the Current U.S. Civilian Work Force. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg, 2008, vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 647–659. DOI: 10.1080/15459620701497538
  14. Murnane S.S., Lehocky A.H., Owens P.D. Odor Thresholds for Chemicals with Established Occupational Health Standards. 2-th edition. Falls Church, AIHA Publ., 2013, 192 p.¬¬¬
  15. MultiVapor™ Version 2.2.5 Application. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2010-124C (2018). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/multivapor/multivapor.html (22.07.2020).
  16. Checky M., Frankel K., Goddard D., Johnson E., Christopher Thomas J., Zelinsky M., Javner C. Evaluation of a passive optical based end of service life indicator (ESLI) for organic vapor respirator cartridges. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg, 2016, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 112–120. DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2015.1091956
  17. Respirator Usage in Private Sector Firms. Morgantown, WV, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Publ., 2003, 278 p.
  18. Kaptsov V.A., Chirkin A.V. About efficiency of individual protection equipment of respiratory organs as prophylactics of diseases (review). Toksikologicheskii vestnik, 2018, no. 2 (149), pp. 2–6 (in Russian).
  19. Roberge R.J., Coca A., Williams W.J., Powell J.B., Palmiero A.J. Physiological Impact of the N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirator on Healthcare Workers. Respir Care, 2010, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 569–577.
  20. Sinkule E., Turner N., Hota S. Automated breathing and metabolic simulator (ABMS) CO2 test for powered and non-powered air-purifying respirators, airline respirators, and gas mask. AIHce, 2003, no. 5, pp. 54. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33830.52804
Received: 
05.07.2020
Accepted: 
29.11.2020
Published: 
30.12.2020

You are here

Home