health and safety executive · protection - filtration efficiency, gas capacity, service life,...

Health and Safety Executive

© Crown Copyright, HSE 2016 HSL: HSE’s Health and Safety Laboratory

Understanding the performance of respiratory protective equipment

OH2016

Mike Clayton PPE Technical Team Lead Health and Safety Laboratory Health and Safety Executive

HSL: HSE’s Health and Safety Laboratory © Crown Copyright, HSE 2016 © Crown Copyright, HSE 2016

RPE performance - content

• Explore what we mean by performance

• What factors affect performance

• Specifying and measuring performance

• Future challenges

HSL: HSE’s Health and Safety Laboratory © Crown Copyright, HSE 2016

Do they have the same performance?

Scott Safety Scott Safety

APF 40 APF 25 or 1000


RPE Performance

• Are these examples of good performance?


Is the performance different?


RPE performance

• Good RPE + poor wear/selection = poor performance – It’s not you, it’s me!

• Quality of product Vs Quality of use

Minimum performance set by Standards

Governed by correct selection, use and maintenance


RPE performance Standards

• Protection - Filtration efficiency, gas capacity, service life, total inward leakage, etc. – Classifies the protection performance of the

RPE based on lab tests

• Wearability - Breathing resistance, rebreathed CO2, ergonomics, etc.

• Safety - Flammability, materials, design, temperature, etc.


Performance Standards

• CEN baseline performance - focus on RPE design

• ISO baseline performance based on human factors

• Standard testing ≠ performance in use


ISO: Filter testing

• Gas capacity at fixed flow rate of 30 l/min

• Filters tested for breakthrough / penetration at peak flow rates of up to 340 l/min

Scott Safety


ISO: Breathing resistance

• Complete RPE tested for breathing resistance and WoB at up to 135 l/min (approx. 420 l/min peak)

• Breathing resistance of RPE with standard thread filters tested at peak flow rates of up to 180 l/min

- Both facemask and filters tested


ISO: Total inward leakage

• Complete RPE tested for TIL

• Protocol - metabolic work rates low to high

ISO %TIL

Protection Class

Protection Level

<0.001 PC6 10,000 <0.01 PC5 2000 <0.1 PC4 250 <1 PC3 30 <5 PC2 10 <20 PC1 4

RPE Selection


Assigned protection factor

• APF designated by national regulator

• No harmonised approach – Workplace studies – Determination process

• Problematic to global harmonised approach – ISO standard on selection of RPE – SOP within multinationals


ISO: Total inward leakage

• Complete RPE tested for TIL

• Protocol - metabolic work rates low to high

ISO %TIL

Protection Class

Protection Level

<0.001 PC6 10,000 <0.01 PC5 2000 <0.1 PC4 250 <1 PC3 30 <5 PC2 10 <20 PC1 4

• Introduced as a mean to harmonised ‘APF’ across ISO members

• Subject to validation • Initial validation of N95

UK APF=10 (FFP2) OSHA APF=10

• However, depends on acceptance criteria


Performance in use

• How do RPE perform within an effective RPE programme? – Correct selection (fit testing) – Task/work rate – Correct use – Training – Supervision – Maintenance


Simulated workplace protection factor

• Not always possible to measure protection in actual workplaces against actual hazards – nature of the contamination – low exposure concentrations – RPE with high protection factors

• SWPF are an accepted alternative to WPF – matches actual work AFARP


SWPF (PPF) study

• SWPF (PPF) study conducted for the nuclear industry

• Three FFM types plus P3 filter, maintained by the industry – used ‘as is’

• 22 RPE wearers drawn from the nuclear industry

• Facial dimension measured

• Investigators observed the donning technique but offered no guidance nor corrected poor fits – worn ‘as-is’

• Test duration was 2hr which was determined from evidence provided by the industry on typical wear times

• Exercises activities and work rate levels were designed following a questionnaire on tasks and work rates completed by the nuclear industry – metabolic work rates low to high

• Sodium chloride aerosol was the challenge and detection was mass based


SWPF results

Mask All data With exclusions

Expected 5th percentile

95% confidence interval

Expected 5th percentile

95% confidence interval

Mask 1 3050 1550 to 27870 2920 1530 to 28260

Mask 2 1230 30 to 19750 3970 1650 to 28370

Mask 3 830 200 to 3390 1160 520 to 3830

Overall 1440 570 to 5540 2310 1260 to 13000

Exclusions – tests where the wearer did not fit the mask correctly e.g. head harness not central on head or hair caught in the face seal, or did not conduct a fit check


Application of a safety factor?

• To account for difference between SWPF and real work – ORC study (Cohen et al 2001) applied a SF

of 25 to PAPR study – ANSI/OSHA applied a SF of 10 for fit

testing criteria – What SF is any should be applied?

• SWPF data 5th percentile of 1000 PF – 1000/25=50; 1000/10=100


What next?

• Encourage greater debate and understanding on the real performance of RPE and its measurement

• Continue to improve selection and use of RPE

• Continue to validate the proposed ISO PLs and update APFs

• Continue to drive standards to better reflect actual use

The 18th ISRP International Conference in Yokohama

Respiratory Protection with Advanced Safety and Comfort

http://yokohama.isrp.com

7th - 11th November 2016

http://yokohama.isrp.com/index.php/conference/prague-overview

http://yokohama.isrp.com/

http://yokohama.isrp.com/


Questions?

Mike Clayton

[email protected]

This presentation includes work funded by HSE and the nuclear industry. Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.

mailto:[email protected]

health and safety executive · protection - filtration efficiency, gas capacity, service life,...

Documents