Particle Size-Selective Assessment of Protection of European Standard FFP Respirators and Surgical Masks against Particles-Tested with Human Subjects
Open accessAbstract
This study was conducted to investigate the protection of disposable filtering half-facepiece respirators of different grades against particles between 0.093 and 1.61 μ m. A personal sampling system was used to particle size-selectively assess the protection of respirators. The results show that about 10.9% of FFP2 respirators and 28.2% of FFP3 respirators demonstrate assigned protection factors (APFs) below 10 and 20, which are the levels assigned for these respirators by the British Standard. On average, the protection factors of FFP respirators were 11.5 to 15.9 times greater than those of surgical masks. The minimum protection factors (PFs) were observed for particles between 0.263 and 0.384 μ m. No significant difference in PF results was found among FFP respirator categories and particle size. A strong association between fit factors and protection factors was found. The study indicates that FFP respirators may not achieve the expected protection level and the APFs may need to be revised for these classes of respirators.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Respirators were found to be less protective when facing smaller particles.
“Respirators were found to be less protective when facing smaller particles (Lee et al., 2005a(Lee et al., , 2008(Lee et al., , 2016(Lee et al., , 2017))”
From Size-selective Assessment of Respirator Protection against Airborne Fungi and (1→3)-β-D-glucan in Farms (2018) · cites this paper as Lee et al., 2016
The Conclusion reports the worst protection at an intermediate particle size, 0.263–0.384 μm, and says protection factors for FFP respirators were not size dependent across the tested range. The Discussion likewise says smaller particles can be deposited by diffusion, rather than showing that protection consistently decreases as particles get smaller. (LLM, conf=0.89)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredParticle size is known to affect the protection factors of respirators.
“Particle size is known to affect the protection factors of respirators.”
From Size-selective Assessment of Respirator Protection against Airborne Fungi and (1→3)-β-D-glucan in Farms (2018) · cites this paper as Lee et al., 2016
The Discussion reports that earlier studies found protection factors to be significantly size-dependent for N95 respirators. But this paper’s Results (section 3.2) and Conclusion (section 5) found no significant size dependence for the FFP respirators it tested over 0.093–1.61 μm. The unqualified claim therefore overgeneralizes the evidence. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredA moderate correlation between FFs and PFs was also found for N95 FFRs against airborne irons in the welding workplace (Han, 2002); EN-specified FFP respirators and surgical masks against NaCl aerosols (Lee et al., 2016); and full facepiece respirators with HEPA filters (Lee et al., 2017).
“A moderate correlation between FFs and PFs was also found for the following: N95 FFRs against airborne irons in the welding workplace (Han, 2002); EN-specified FFP respirators and surgical masks against NaCl aerosols (Lee et al., 2016); full facepiece respirators with HEPA filters (Lee et al., 2017).”
From Size-selective Assessment of Respirator Protection against Airborne Fungi and (1→3)-β-D-glucan in Farms (2018) · cites this paper as Lee et al., 2016
Section 3.3 (page not available) reports significant correlations between fit factors and protection factors for FFP respirators (r = 0.378) and surgical masks (r = 0.482). The Methods (§§2.3 and 2.6; pages not available) confirm that NaCl aerosols were used. The paper describes the separate correlations as between weak and moderate, rather than simply moderate; it calls the combined-data correlation strong. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 20 · Cited by 134
Research works printed but not linked: 17
- 10.1080/15428119791012874 · DOI
- 10.1080/1047322X.1995.10387652 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jhin.2013.06.020 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.2009.1466 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/annhyg/mei058 · DOI
- 10.1080/15459620903120086 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/annhyg/meh097 · DOI
- 10.1093/annhyg/meq085 · DOI
- 10.1080/15459620490250026 · DOI
- 10.1093/annhyg/mes074 · DOI
- 10.1080/15459620500391668 · DOI · Paper page
- 2004, Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 4, 56, 10.4209/aaqr.2004.07.0005 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/15459624.2012.685838 · DOI
- 2015, Journal of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health, 23, 179
- 10.1080/15298669291360120 · DOI
- 10.1080/15459620701346925 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1202/475.1 · DOI
- Authors
- Lee, S.-A., Hwang, D.-C., Li, H.-Y., Tsai, C.-F., Chen, C.-W., & Chen, J.-K.
- Affiliations
- Feng Chia University (TW)
- Department of Environmental Engineering and Science, Feng Chia University, Taichung 40724, Taiwan
- Institute of Labor, Occupational Safety And Health, Ministry of Labor (TW)
- National Health Research Institutes (TW)
- Corresponding author
- Lee, Shu-An
- Venue
- Journal of Healthcare Engineering
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016
- Volume
- 2016
- Pages
- 1-12
- ISSN
- 2040-2295 (ISSN-L)
- 2040-2309
- PMC
- PMC5058571
- OpenAlex
- W2301162259
- Cited by
- 134
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 2.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Healthcare Engineering (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Ministry of Labor, Taiwan (IOSH99-H311)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Infection Control and Ventilation
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Aerosol Filtration and Electrostatic Precipitation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
- Keywords
- surgical masks, respiratory protection, personal protective equipment, fit factor
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Masks, Particle Size, Respiratory Protective Devices, Occupational Exposure, Research Subjects
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
