RE: dust mask usage

[Brian Rees <brees@lanl.gov>]

I was incredulous too, but after a few iterations of questions, I am sure
we were talking about the same PF.  Remember, the (OSHA) assigned PFs are
nowhere near the attainable and frequently demonstrated PFs during fit
tests.  I remember seeing somewhere (?) that a handkerchief had a PF of 25.
 200 doesn't sound that far off....  Not that I'm recommending either.

Brian Rees

At 04:38 PM 4/26/99 -0500, you wrote:
>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>  
>
>
>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
>
>
>

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html