Translation:On Individual protective means for workers' respiratory organs (review of literature)

by V.F. Kirilov, A.A. Boutchnev, A.V. Chirkin

Abstract

The article covers topics of selecting and organizing the applications of individual protective means for respiratory organ in RF and abroad. The autors reviewed reccomendatins of the national autors on respiratory selection (over last 50 years) and demonstrated the inconsistency witw contemporary worldwide practice. Absent legal regulation of respirators selection and respiratory organ protective programms, lack of training programms and tutorals based on legislation requirements can be potentially harmful for workers' health. The autors therefore suggested ways to lower this potential harm, based on practice of selection and application of respiratory protection systems in foreign countries and on increased control over respirators certification and outdated model replacement.

Key words: individual protective means for respiratory organs, respirator, protection coefficients, legal regulation

Respiratory protective equipment (RPD) is one of the important parts of the industrial hygiene. Their use is explained primarily by the fact that in some cases, measures of engineering and technology and sanitary-technical nature are not able to reduce the concentration of harmful substances in the air in the breathing zone to acceptable levels, safe for health. In such circumstances, the value of the use of the respiratory protective equipment for protection of workers is difficult to overestimate.

Table 1. Documents governing the selection and application of RPD

Country	Standard	The title of the standard
USA	29 CFR 1910.134	Respiratory protection
Canada	CS Z94.4-02	Selection, Use, and Care of Respirators
Australia and New Zealand	AS/NZS 1715:2009	Selection, use and maintenance of respiratory protective equipment
UK	BS 4275:1997	Guide to implementing an effective respiratory protective device programme
France	NF EN 529 (2006)	Appareil de Protection Respiratoire – Recommandations Pour le Choix, L’utilisation, L’entretien et la Maintenance
Germany	DIN EN 529:2006	Atemschutzgeräte - Empfehlungen für Auswahl, Einsatz, Pflege und Instandhaltung
European Union	EN 529:2005	Respiratory protective devices - Recommendations for selection, use, care and maintenance
Japan	JIS T 8150:2006	Guide to selection, use and maintenance of respiratory protective equipment
China	GB/T 18664-2002	Selection, use and maintenance of respiratory protective equipment
Индия	IS 9623:2008	Recommendations for the selection, use and maintenance of respiratory protective devices

In Western countries have developed respiratory protection program, which was based on the results of measurements of the effectiveness of respirators (conducted both in the laboratory and at workplaces). These programs are reflected in the sanitary legislation, which have state-wide application. Table 1 presents the documents adopted in several countries over the past decades, which define the requirements for such programs. It should be emphasized that the documents governing the execution of programs for respiratory protection in enterprises, based on the minimum technical requirements for respirators (as a stand-alone device) specified in the relevant standards. Such documents relating to the technical characteristics of respirators - RF GOSTs [6-9] - to a certain extent harmonized with the standards of the European Union (EU). However, state standards of the RF there is a serious drawback. For example, in the United States and China for the certification of respirators are selected such trial participants whose size and shape individuals cover a minimum of 95% of individuals of working people [42,43]. And the state standards of the RF require the opposite - the trial participants are selected so that their faces should correspond to the mask respirator in shape and size. It is not possible to sufficiently ensure the protection of numerous working groups, because the difference of the shape of the mask from the face contributes to the formation of gaps and the leakage of unfiltered air into in-mask space.

It should be emphasized that in contrast to countries where there are regulations that define the requirements for the selection of respirators while performing a respiratory protection program in the RF choice RPD is based on the recommendations of the individual authors and catalogues of manufacturers of respirators.

Figure 1. The maximum levels of the exeeding of PEL (with using half=mask respirators - as recommended by the Russian authors)

Table 2. Limit the scope of application of the half-face masks on mass concentration of dust according to RF sources, mg/m³

Reference, year	Models of half-mask respirator
	Ф-62Ш	У-2К	РП-К	ПРШ-741
[19] 1976	fig. 1	50 (coarse dust)	50 (coarse dust)	-
[32] 1979	200	200	-
[11] 1982	fig. 1	fig. 1	fig. 1	400
[23] 1982	-	50	100	fig. 1
[12] 1999	fig. 1	50 (coarse dust)	30 (coarse dust)	-
[20] 2005	400	200	-	-
[2] 2011	500	100	-	-

"-" - there is no information; fig. 1 - limits are shown in the Fig.1.

Table 3. The protection coefficients of half-masks of 1, 2 and 3 classes (state standards of the RF GOSTs)

Reference, year	The class of respirator (filter)
	FFP1 (P1)	FFP2 (P2)	FFP3 (P3)
[10] 1998	2.5	25	50
[22] 2002	2.5	25	50
[1] 2002	4-10	10-40	>40
[24] 2005	4	12	50
[15] 2010	4	12	50

In Fig. 1 and in tables 2 and 3 lists recommendations from different years belonging to the same models of respirators - half-facepices, and table 4 – to a full-facepices masks. These tables use the term - expected protection factor (PF) [assigned protection factor (APF) - the multiplicity of reducing the harmful substances concentration in the in-mask space of the respirator to the concentration outside the mask, in the breathing zone] [33].

As one can see in the tables and Fig. 1, the expected value of the protection factors of different authors vary within wide limits: the half-facepiece masks with high efficiency filters - from ~12 to 1000, and full-facepiece masks of modern design - from 100 to 2000. It is important to emphasize that the recommendations (provided by these authors) based solely on the results of laboratory tests. And only in the works of B. M. Tyurikov and V. I. Gavrishuk (1983, 1988) presents the results of testing of respirators Kama, Lepestok-40 and RP-K in the workplace conditions. They show that the protection factors in such circumstances may be in the range of from 2.5 to 125. It should be noted that at the last exhibition for occupational health and safety (БИОТ) in December 2012 in Moscow, respirator’s manufacturers advertisements indicated protection factors equal to shown in Fig. 1. For example, a respirator "Lepestok-200" (ОАО «Кимрская фабрика им. Горького») aerosols “provides” a protection factor of 200, and a half-mask "ARTIX" (ОАО "АРТИ") - more than 5000.

Noteworthy is the fact that the documents regulating the implementation of the respiratory protection programs abroad, contain other values of the assigned protection factors for respirators similar types. In table. 5 summarizes the recommendations made in the National standard for respiratory protection (tab. 1), and guidelines for selection and use of respirators National Institute of occupational safety NIOSH (USA) [34,36]. These recommendations are based on the results of numerous estimates of the rates of workplace protection factors in workplace [40], who showed that respirator protection factors (average per shift) can vary within wide limits, decreasing in some cases, the half-facepiece masks to, for example, 2.2 (due to leakage of unfiltered air through the gaps between the mask and the face). The expected value of the protection factors of respirators, which in developed countries are used as criteria for the admissibility of application of RPD particular design (to protecl workers in known in workplace conditions) (tab. 5) take into account such reduction. Mentioned in this table, the expected protection factors show that for reliable protection of operating at high air pollution need respirators with forced air supply under the mask. The U.S. share of workers that make use of such respirators, exceeds 10% [38].

Thus, existing recommendations on selection of PPE for respiratory protection when working in a contaminated atmosphere in the RF carry some potential risks to the health of employees. It increases when taking into account the fact that in RF there are no legislative acts regulating individual selection of the mask with the verification of the correctness of the choice made with the help of instruments, and the system of learning the correct proper donning and use of PPE. It should be emphasized that unlike developed countries, where there is a wide free access to the academic literature (USA and others) [34,35], developed by experts on the basis of the requirements of national legislation in the Russian Federation there is no comparable textbooks.

Table 4. The protection coefficients of Full Facepiece masks (as recommended by the Russian authors)

Reference, year	Full Facepiece Mask
	Helmet-mask SHMP ШМП	Panoramic full facepiece mask ППМ-88	The mask meets the requirements of EN 136 / ГОСТ 12.4.189-99
[18] 1973	Depends on the filter
[30] 1974	Depends on the filter
[31] 1982	Depends on the filter, >100
[11] 1982	>100
[23] 1982	>100
[14] 1987	>100
[13] 1989	>100
[10] 1998	2 000	2 000
[12] 1999	~ > 100	~ > 100	3М “6000” - > 100
[1] 2002	-	-	> 100
[25] 2007	< 100 000	< 1000	-
[17] 2009	-	-	1000
[15] 2010	-	-	With filter P3 – < 200

“-“ - there is no information

Finally, for an effective respiratory protection is of great importance certification RPD used, the quality of which in RF requires major changes. The need for the latter can be justified by at least one example: "'Prodmashtest' issued the certificate of conformity № 0820927, who argues that filtering half mask "Lepestok-200", made by an individual entrepreneur Ivanchenko LV, complies to: GOST ГОСТ 12.4.189-99 [6] (EN 136), GOST ГОСТ 12.4.190-99 [7] (EN 140), GOST ГОСТ 12.4.191-99 [8] (EN 149) (although in violation of the standard the respirator is not marked), and even GOST ГОСТ 12.4.192-99 [9] (EN 405) at the same time. The issuance of such certificates greatly increases the degree of hazard for the workers, because it misleads the employer or whoever chooses the appropriate respirator for protection of workers in certain conditions of air pollution. It is necessary to stop the production of respirators that do not meet modern requirements for their quality.

For accurate and consistent implementation of the requirements of the standard for respiratory protection should also develop regulations governing the inspection of the implementation of the respiratory protection programs, similar to those used in the USA [37], and apply it during inspections [41].

Because there is a risk of a significant difference between the concentrations of harmful substances in the air of working zone and directly into the breathing zone of workers (about 40 times) [39], to clarify the degree of potential hazard conditions need to measure air pollution at workplaces only by means of individual samplers.

Conclusion: : in summary, it should be recognized that there are significant weaknesses in the practice of the use of respirators in the workplace in RF, evolving over decades. To reduce potential health hazards when working use of respirators, is necessary to develop sanitary and legislative documents regulating rules for the selection and use of respirators - that is, essentially, the documents governing the program respiratory protection in any enterprise in the RF.

Table 5. The Assigned Protection Factors of different designs of respirators in the U.S. [34,36]

PF1	The design (type) of the respirator
5а 5а	Filtering facepiece FFP2 or FFP3 with adequate filters3. Elastomeric half-mask with adequate filters3 Р2 or Р3.
10а 10а 10g	Filtering facepiece2 FFP2 or FFP3 with adequate filters3. Elastomeric half-mask2 with adequate filters3 противоаэрозольными фильтрами (или предфильтрами) Р2 или Р3. Elastomeric half-mask2 with adequate with adequate canisters or cartriges.
15а	Elastomeric full facepiece mask2 with adequate3 filters or prefilters P2.
25а 25g 25 а+g	Filtering RPD with forsed air supply with a helmet or a hood, and adequate3 filters P3. Filtering RPD with forsed air supply with a helmet or a hood, and relevant gas filters. Supplied air (hose) respirator with a continuous flow of air with a helmet or a hood.
50а 50g	Elastomeric full facepiece mask2 with adequate3 filters or prefilters P3. Elastomeric full facepiece mask2 with adequate canisters or cartriges.
1000 а+g	Supplied air (hose) respirator with a continuous positive pressure under half-mask2
2000 а+g	Supplied air respirator that maintain a constant positive pressure under full-facepiece mask2
10 000 а+g 10 000 а+g	Breathing apparatus that can maintain a continuous positive pressure under full facepiece mask2 Supplied air respirator that maintain a constant positive pressure under full-facepiece mask2 with additional breathing apparatus with a continious positive pressure

1. - Index “a” - on the aerosol; index “g” - gas, a+g - aerosol and gas
2. - If a full face mask or half mask not only selected individually, but also checks the tightness of its fit to face (fit test)/
3. - If the air is contaminated with oil mist or other aerosol, the capture of which would reduce the efficiency of electret filters, you must use filters or prefilters that maintains its performance in such conditions.

References

1. Басманов П.И. и др. Средства индивидуальной защиты органов дыхания. Справочное руководство. СПб: ГИИП “Искусство России”, 2002. - 400с.
2. Вознесенский В.В. Средства защиты органов дыхания и кожи. М.: Военные знания, 2011. - 80с.
3. Гаврищук В.И, Тюриков Б.М. Защита органов дыхания при работе с минеральными удобрениями // Пути ускорения нормализации условий труда работников сельского хозяйства Сб. трудов Орел: ВНИИОТ ГАП СССР, 1988.- С. 116-121.
4. Городинский С.М. Средства индивидуальной защиты для работы с радиоактивными веществами. М.: Атомиздат, 1967. - 320с.
5. Городинский С.М. Средства индивидуальной защиты для работы с радиоактивными веществами. М.: Атомиздат, 1979. - 320с.
6. ГОСТ 12.4.189-99 Маски (полнолицевые эластомерные). Общие технические условия.
7. ГОСТ 12.4.190-99 Полумаски и четвертьмаски из изолирующих материалов.
8. ГОСТ 12.4.191-99 Полумаски фильтрующие для защиты от аэрозолей. Общие технические условия.
9. ГОСТ 12.4.192-99 Полумаски фильтрующие с клапанами вдоха и несъемными противогазовыми и (или) комбинированными фильтрами.
10. Еременко С.Ю. Каталог отечественных средств индивидуальной защиты. М.: Всерос. центр охраны и производительности труда Минтруда России, 1998. - 205с.
11. Каминский С.Л., Басманов П.И. Средства индивидуальной защиты органов дыхания. М.: Машиностроение, 1982. - 126с.
12. Каминский С.Л. и др. Средства индивидуальной защиты органов дыхания. Выбор. Применение. Режимы труда. СПб: Крисмас+, 1999. - 399с.
13. Каминский С.Л. и др. Средства индивидуальной защиты: Справ. Издание. Л.: Химия: Ленингр. Отделение, 1989. - 400с.
14. Каминский С.Л. Методические указания по применению средств индивидуальной защиты органов дыхания. Л.: ВНИИОТ ВЦСПС, 1987. - 20с.
15. Карнаух Н.Н. и др. Учебно-методические материалы для обучения и повышения квалификации менеджеров средств индивидуальной защиты. М.: ЭНАС, 2010. - 488с.
16. Купчин А.П. Средства индивидуальной защиты работающих на производстве. М.: Профиздат 1977. - 112с.
17. Миронов Л.А. Применение средств индивидуальной защиты. Н. Новгород: БИОТА-ПЛЮС, 2009. - 123с.
18. Никифоров И.Н. и др. Методические рекомендации по выбору и применению средств индивидуальной защиты органов дыхания. Л.: ВЦСПС ВНИИ охраны труда, 1973. - 37с
19. Никифоров И.Н. и др. Методические указания по применению противопылевых респираторов. Л.: ВЦСПС ВНИИ охраны труда, 1976. - 22с.
20. Олонцев В.Ф. Российские промышленные противогазы и респираторы Каталог-справочник. Пермь: ГУ Пермского ЦНТИ, 2005. - 79с.
21. Петрянов-Соколов И.В. и др. Лепесток - лёгкие респираторы. М.: Наука, 1984. - 216с
22. Родин В.Е. Средства индивидуальной защиты работающих. Екатеринбург: Ур. гос. горно-технол. Акад., 2002. - 108с.
23. Смирнов К.М. и др. Методические рекомендации по применению средств индивидуальной защиты органов дыхания. Л.: ВНИИОТ ВЦСПС, 1982. - 44с.
24. Сорокин Ю.П., Сафонов А.Л. Средства индивидуальной защиты. Учебное пособие / М.: Минздравсоцразвития России, 2005. - 288с.
25. Тарасов В.И., Кошелев В.Е..Просто о непростом в использовании средств индивидуальной защиты. Пермь: Стиль-МГ, 2007. - 280с.
26. Торопов С.А. Средства защиты при работе с ядохимикатами на складах и базах "Сельхозтехника". М.: Бюро технической информации, 1966. - 21с.
27. Трумпайц Я.И., Афанасьева Е.Н. Индивидуальные средства защиты органов дыхания (альбом). Л.: Профиздат, 1962. - 54с.
28. Тюриков Б.М., Гаврищук В.И. Исследование средств индивидуальной защиты органов дыхания для работников кормопроизводства // Сб. науч. трудов: Безопасность труда в животноводстве. Орёл: ВНИИ охраны труда в сельском хозяйстве, 1983. - С. 86-90с.
29. Хлопцев В.П. Альбом средств индивидуальной защиты для работников предприятий чёрной металлургии. М.: Металлургия, 1981. - 27с.
30. Шкрабо М.Л. и др. Промышленные противогазы и респираторы. Каталог. Черкассы: Отделение НИИТЭХИМа, 1974. - 64с.
31. Шкрабо М.Л. и др. Промышленные противогазы и респираторы. Каталог. Черкассы: Отделение НИИТЭХИМа, 1982. - 42с.
32. Шпитонкова Л.А. Каталог средств индивидуальной защиты НИАТ. М.: НИАТ, 1979. - 170с
33. American Industrial Hygiene Association Respiratory Protection Committee. (2002) Respirator performance terminology (Letter to the editor) // American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal. 2002, Vol. 63, N 1, p. 130, 132.
34. Bollinger N. J. NIOSH Respirator Selection Logic. Cincinnati, Ohio: DNNS (NIOSH), 2004.
35. Bollinger N. J., Schutz R. H. NIOSH Guide to Industrial Respiratory Protection. Cincinnati, Ohio: DNNS (NIOSH) 1987 .
36. Miller J.D. NIOSH Respirator Decision Logic. Cincinnati, Ohio: DNNS (NIOSH), 1987.
37. OSHA Instruction, CPL 02-00-120 Inspection procedures for the Respiratory Protection Standard .
38. Respirator Usage in Private Sector Firms, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, September 2003.
39. Sherwood R. J. // American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal. 1966, Vol. 27, N 2, p. 98-109.
40. Thomas J. Nelson // American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 1996, Vol. 57, N 8, p. 735-740.
41. Usha Krishnana and Christopher Janicak // American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 1999, Vol. 60, N 2, p. 228-234.
42. Weihong Chen et al. // The Annals of Occupational Hygiene. 2009, Vol. 53, N 3, p. 297-305.
43. Ziqing Zhuang, Bruce Bradtmiller, Ronald E. Shaffer // Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. 2007 Vol. 4, N 9, p. 647-659.