[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Dust Masks
Michael,
I know your question was not addressed to me but being a daring soul I'll
jump right in.
Filtering facepieces are usually grommetted to allow for the attachment of
the sampling device. A hole is punched into the filtering material of the
facepiece and a small grommet with a tube is attached to the facepiece. The
tube from the portacount is then attached to this tube. There is also an
attachment for the Portacount called the N95 companion that allows
quantative fit-testing of N95, P95, or R95 filtering facepieces in addition
to to P100, N100, & R100 facepieces.
Mr. Steinmeyer's e-mail highlights the vastly updated technology available
today in the filtering facepiece market. I have worn the filtering
facepieces with exhalation values and extra sealing devices that Mr.
Steinmeyer speaks of in his e-mail. I have also performed numerous
quantative fit tests on individuals wearing these items. They are very
effective, comfortable, & eliminate most of the hygiene & maintenance
problems that occurr today with non-disposable half-face respirators. I
personally feel that these devices will eventually replace 80 % of the
current non-disposalable half-face respirators on the market.
Wendell Rahorst, CIH
President
Quan'Fit, L.L.C.
E-mail rahorst@quanfit.com
Webpage http://www.quanfit.com
----- Original Message -----
From: McDonald, Michael P <mpmcdon@sandia.gov>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 10:20 AM
Subject: RE: Dust Masks
> Paul,
>
> Thanks for your detailed response to the dust mask question. Two
questions
> for you:
>
> How would a facility perform quantitative fit testing on these filtering
> facepieces, if a true quantitative fit test is required? Will the
> manufactures be producing a "fit testing" model, one with a sample port
> manufactured into the facepiece? Just wondering.
>
> Thanks
>
> Michael McDonald, CHP, RRPT
> Sandia National Laboratories, NM
> mpmcdon@sandia.gov
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: K P Steinmeyer [mailto:publish@gyral.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 9:48 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Dust Masks
>
>
> Joe Archer asked about the use of dust masks.
>
>
> NRC is in the process of amending its regulations (10 CFR 20 Subpart H
> and Regulatory Guide 8.15) to (among other things) permit the use of
> filtering facepieces (i.e., "dust masks"). Under NIOSH's relatively new
> certification system for negative-pressure air purifying respirators (42
> CFR 84), all such filtering facepieces are at least 95% efficient,
> although non-NIOSH-certified "comfort masks" of uncertain efficiency are
> still available. A thorough explanations of this certification system
> can be found in Steinmeyer, K. Paul. "NIOSH Approval Requirements for
> Respiratory Protection Equipment." <italic>Radiation Protection
> Management</italic> Vol. 15, No. 5, Sept/Oct 1997.
>
>
> NRC is considering treating filtering facepieces in two groups, which
> I'll refer to here as upper division and lower division. Upper division
> filtering facepieces have adjustable straps AND a rubber (or plastic)
> seal-enhancing material applied to the entire face-sealing surface.
> Also, most of the upper division devices have an exhalation valve, but
> the presence of one of these is not considered critical. All other
> filtering facepieces would be considered to be in the lower division.
> NRC would consider the upper division devices to be half facepieces with
> APF = 10, as recommended by ANSI, as long as all other program
> requirements are met (medical screening, training, fit testing, etc.).
> Lower division facepieces would not be given an APF but could be used
> with an APF = 10 if all the program elements, including fit testing, are
> in place.
>
>
> Licensees, however, will be able to use lower division facepieces (NOT
> upper division) on a VOLUNTARY BASIS without medically screening or fit
> testing the volunteer users, as long as they are provided with a very
> brief and basic training program (possibly 5 minutes long). This
> practice is also permitted by OSHA. Respirator use is voluntary when one
> is not required, but workers request a device. It sounds like carrying a
> filtering facepiece for ALARA reasons in case an unexpected release were
> to occur would be an appropriate application for these devices.
>
>
> In your case, a NIOSH-certified device should be used. While it may cost
> a bit more than 50-cents, it is a real respirator designed to fit well
> and to remove a large percentage of airborne particulate contaminants.
> Don't use a medical or surgical mask since there is no requirement for
> these to be NIOSH certified, and they are just not designed for an
> industrial environment. All NIOSH-certified filtering facepieces are
> REAL RESPIRATORS, and will be much more effective than a surgical mask or
> a shirt wrapped around a person's face.
>
>
> These filtering facepieces are designed to be reuseable, within
> reasonable limits, so a new one would probably not be required each day
> or each shift. The carrying of such devices by workers, to be used in
> case of a release, is certainly ALARA, and the upcoming revision of
> Subpart H would require that ALARA be the determining factor for
> assigning (or not assigning) respirators to workers. Professional
> discretion would also be given a lot of weight in NRC's new scheme.
>
>
> As a point of clarification, the term HEPA is not and never was applied
> to respirator filters. Under NIOSH's old rule (30 CFR 11) dust-fume-mist
> respirators were required to be 99.97% efficient at collecting 0.3 micron
> particles generated by hot DOP, but the term HEPA is not found. NIOSH
> now permits the use of NaCl and non-thermally generated DOP to test
> filter media, since hot DOP presents an exposure problem to the test
> equipment operators.
>
>
> The NRC's proposed new table of assigned protection factors (APFs) are
> consistent with those listed in ANSI Z88.2-1992. While these may be
> conservative, there is potentially a vast difference between quality of
> fit obtained during fit testing and average quality of fit maintained in
> the workplace. The efficiency of the filter medium isn't the problem.
> It's the face-to-facepiece seal that is the weak link, and in the
> workplace average fit factors (when they can be measured) are often
> dramatically lower than those obtained during fit testing. NRC's new
> rule would contain clear guidance on what constitutes an acceptable fit
> before the APF can be applied in the field.
>
>
> Further input from Radsafers on this and related topics would be most
> welcome.
>
>
> K. Paul Steinmeyer, RRPT
>
> Senior Health Physicist
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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