Abstract
Background This study evaluated the differences in respiratory protection between replaceable particulate respirators (RPRs) and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs), with different wearing methods, during exercising tasks.
Methods Ten participants wore either RPR or PAPR according to the recommended method, with a knit cover placed between the facepiece cushion and the face, or with the headband on a helmet. We measured the number of particles inside and outside the respiratory protective equipment (RPE) during exercising tasks for each wearing variation. The exercise state was set to exercise with an ergometer set at 80W load. While exercising tasks, the participants performed five actions adopted from JIS T8150 in 2018 (1. Normal breathing, 2. Deep breathing, 3. Turning head side to side, 4. Moving head up and down, 5. Talking). Each action was performed for 1 min. For measurements of exercise state, after 10 minutes of exercise tasks, we measured while the exercise was continued. The fit factor was calculated by dividing the concentration within the RPE by the concentration outside of it. Data were analyzed after they were log-transformed with a linear mixed model, with fit factor as the dependent variable.
Results We compared the results with experimental data of resting state reported in our previous studies. Fit factor of RPRs in the exercise state was significantly lower (p<0.001) than that in the resting state, indicating inadequate respiratory protection. In contrast, the fit factor of PAPRs during exercising tasks was significantly lower (p<0.001) than that at rest; however, respiratory protection was maintained. PAPR did not show a significant decrease (p=1.000) in fit factor owing to the wearing variations during exercising tasks.
Conclusions PAPRs were found to be superior to RPRs in terms of respiratory protection. PAPRs are better than RPRs for workers who have to wear RPE inappropriately due to health problems.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the Industrial Disease Clinical Research Grants.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Ethics and Informed Consent Procedure for this study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Medical Research, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan (Receipt No. H30-58). Informed consent was obtained from all the participants.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Funding This study was funded by the Industrial Disease Clinical Research Grants.
Data Availability
Data are not available due to ethical restrictions.
