4.5 Article

Quantifying exposure risk: Surgical masks and respirators

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL
卷 38, 期 7, 页码 501-508

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2010.06.002

关键词

Aerosol; tidal breathing; infection control; workplace protection factors

资金

  1. Crosstex International Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The interaction between the source of respiratory infectious aerosols and the receiver has not been investigated. Using a bench model, we measured the effects of filtration and deflection achieved with surgical masks and N95 respirators. Methods: We constructed a chamber designed to produce radiolabeled wet aerosols simulating contaminated particles exhaled during tidal breathing (source). Particles within the chamber were exposed to either 6 or 0 air exchanges/hr. Aerosols were defined by cascade impaction. Source aerosols were exhaled via a ventilated mannequin head suitable for mask protection. A similar ventilated head within the chamber assessed recipient exposure (receiver). A filter within the receiver quantified exposure. Two types of masks, an N95 respirator and surgical mask, were tested. Data were presented as percent of nebulized particles on the receiver filter (exposure) and simulated workplace protection factor (sWPF). Results: In the presence of chamber air exchange, applying a mask on the source (primarily deflection) resulted in significant reduction in exposure to the receiver (sWPF170-320). Masks on receiver (filtration) did not significantly reduce exposure from that of no masks (sWPF1.37-2.21), except with a Vaseline seal (sWPF118). With 0 air exchanges/hr, only Vaseline seal was effective in reducing exposure (sWPF 16-101). Conclusion: In a ventilated space, deflection of exhaled particles with a mask worn at the source achieved far greater levels of protection than any mask on the receiver. Mask filtration at source or receiver did not play a significant role in reducing exposure. Key Words: Aerosol; tidal breathing; infection control; workplace protection factors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据