[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: dust mask usage
The assignment of any PF for surgical masks is fraught with a number of major
concern if any credit is to be taken for such use or suggested for such use in a
written procedure.
Two issues that come to mind are:
1. Surgical masks are notorious for efficiency degradation after only 1 hour
usage.
2. Also, they are not rated as are HEPA type of devises, for the [.1,1] micron
range where there is a considerable inhalation impact of radiological concern.
Aside from the liability issue, they are probably better than nothing!
Something to consider before use where liability may be an issue.
martin_haas@ymp.gov
"Reynolds, Harold" <harold.reynolds@rfets.gov> on 04/26/99 02:45:49 PM
Please respond to radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
cc: (bcc: Martin Haas/YM/RWDOE)
Subject: RE: dust mask usage
I can believe a PF of 200 for a surgical mask. The approved PFs are
extremely conservative. I have seen actual PFs of 10,000 in a fit test
booth for both half-face and full-face NP respirators when properly worn and
fitted.
Harry
Harold.Reynolds@RFETS.gov
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charris, Rafael G. TSgt
> [SMTP:rafael.charris%med.edwards.af.mil@inet.rfets.gov]
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 1999 3:39 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: RE: dust mask usage
>
> A protection factor higher than a full-face, negative pressure, air
> purifying respirator? I highly doubt the surgical mask, with its
> questionable seal and fit around a wearer's face would provide that high
> PF.
> Perhaps their idea of a protection factor is different than ours...?
>
>
> RAFAEL G. CHARRIS, TSGT, USAF, OHST, RRPT
> Supervisor, Occupational Health Risk Assessments
> Bioenvironmental Engineering Flight
> Edwards AFB, CA
> (805) 277-3272 DSN 527-3272
> charrisr@med.edwards.af.mil <mailto:charrisr@med.edwards.af.mil>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Rees [mailto:brees@lanl.gov]
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 1999 2:30 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Re: dust mask usage
>
>
> For what it's worth... In a conversation I had with some Russian visitors
> about 2 years ago, they claimed a protection factor of 200 for surgeon's
> mask! We were discussing Pu-238 work, so I'm fairly confident they had
> some sort of testing data, with 238 your margin's pretty slim. They wore
> the masks all the time in case a release occurred, and were surprised that
> we didn't. They did understand the importance of keeping the material on
> the other side of the glovebox, but said that the consequences were high
> enough that continuous mask use was indicated.
>
> (Obviously) my own opinion
>
> Brian Rees
> Plutonium Facility and LACEF Health Physics Operations
> Los Alamos National Laboratory
> brees@lanl.gov
>
>
>
> At 03:08 PM 4/26/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >We are a facility where the potential for an accident is very low but
> >the consequences could be large. I would not shackle our workers with
> >respirators for a very low probability event even if I could take
> >precautions that are not legally required. However, I am interested in
> >evaluating the performance of paper/cloth dust masks worn around the
> >neck as a cheap, simple, and "reasonable" measure to minimize the
> >consequences of an unlikely, but potentially serious accident. I also
> >believe they could be justified as a cheap personal air sampler if
> >nothing else. Our IH guy has a problem with any inferrence that a dust
> >mask provides respiratory protection and opposes any argument that they
> >can provide any benefit from a worker protection standpoint.
> >
> >My questions to all Radsafers is this "Does the idea of wearing a 50
> >cent surgeons masks around your neck and covering your mouth with it as
> >you exit a room where a potential release has occurred seem like a
> >reasonable suggestion?". Would you say it qualifies as ALARA? Does the
> >fact that a dust mask does not guarantee a specific level of protection
> >invalidate it as a reasonable tool for mitigating an uptake? Would the
> >use of a rag be more likely to indicate an uptake than a nasal smear?
> >If you were in a room where a release occurred and you had a dust mask
> >handy, would you breath through the mask as you exited or would you not
> >breath through the mask on the grounds that it was not NIOSH approved?
> >Your comments are greatly appreciated.
> >
> >Joe Archer
> >************************************************************************
> >The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> >information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html