Cited by 120Infection Control and VentilationOccupational Health and Safety in WorkplacesOccupational Health and Performance

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Fitting Characteristics of Eighteen N95 Filtering-Facepiece Respirators

Abstract

Four performance measures were used to evaluate the fitting characteristics of 18 models of N95 filtering-facepiece respirators: (1) the 5th percentile simulated workplace protection factor (SWPF) value, (2) the shift average SWPF value, (3) the h-value, and (4) the assignment error. The effect of fit-testing on the level of protection provided by the respirators was also evaluated. The respirators were tested on a panel of 25 subjects with various face sizes. Simulated workplace protection factor values, determined from six total penetration (face-seal leakage plus filter penetration) tests with re-donning between each test, were used to indicate respirator performance. Five fit-tests were used: Bitrex, saccharin, generated aerosol corrected for filter penetration, PortaCount Plus corrected for filter penetration, and the PortaCount Plus with the N95-Companion accessory. Without fit-testing, the 5th percentile SWPF for all models combined was 2.9 with individual model values ranging from 1.3 to 48.0. Passing a fit-test generally resulted in an increase in protection. In addition, the h-value of each respirator was computed. The h-value has been determined to be the population fraction of individuals who will obtain an adequate level of protection (i.e., SWPF >/=10, which is the expected level of protection for half-facepiece respirators) when a respirator is selected and donned (including a user seal check) in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions without fit-testing. The h-value for all models combined was 0.74 (i.e., 74% of all donnings resulted in an adequate level of protection), with individual model h-values ranging from 0.31 to 0.99. Only three models had h-values above 0.95. Higher SWPF values were achieved by excluding SWPF values determined for test subject/respirator combinations that failed a fit-test. The improvement was greatest for respirator models with lower h-values. Using the concepts of shift average and assignment error to measure respirator performance yielded similar results. The highest level of protection was provided by passing a fit-test with a respirator having good fitting characteristics.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15459620490433799

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 1995, Federal Register, 60, 30336
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1998, MMWR, 47, 1045
  3. American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 1992, American National Standard for Respiratory Protection (ANSI-Z88.2)
  4. Industrial Safety Equipment Association, 1996, Use and Selection Guide for Non-Powered Air Purifying Particulate Respirators
  5. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 1998, Final Rule Federal Register, 63, 1278
  6. Hyatt E. C., 1976, Respirator Protection Factors (LA-6084-MS)
  7. Hack A., 1974, Selection of respirator test panels representative of U.S. adult facial sizes (LA-5488)
  8. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), 1999, Policy Statement: Saccharin Use for Respirator Fit Testing
  9. Coffey C. C., 1998, J. Int. Soc. Respir. Protect., 16, 25
  10. American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 2001, American National Standard for Respirator Fit Testing Methods (ANSI/AIHA-Z88.10)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 120

Metadata

Authors
Coffey, C. C., Lawrence, R. B., Campbell, D. L., Zhuang, Z., Calvert, C. A., & Jensen, P. A.
Affiliations
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (US)
Venue
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
Published
2004-04
Volume
1
Issue
4
Pages
262-271
ISSN
  • 1545-9624 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-9632
OpenAlex
W2023424240
Cited by
119
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
FWCI
4.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Infection Control and Ventilation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Occupational Health and Performance
Keywords
N95 respirators, filtering facepiece respirators, respirator fit testing, workplace protection factor, H-value, respirator selection, filter penetration, face size
MeSH terms
Adult, Equipment Design, Face, Female, Filtration, Humans, Male, Materials Testing, Respiratory Protective Devices, Sensitivity and Specificity, Occupational Exposure, Workplace

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review