Search

The coronavirus 2019 pandemic has increased the use of powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) devices, which produce appreciable noise levels during filtration. Our objective was to determine if active PAPR usage significantly impairs auditory communication in health care providers. We additionally sought to assess what volume of speech presentation was required for adequate communication with providers wearing a PAPR. In subjects with normal hearing at baseline, audiometric data demonstrated a 93% (95% CI, 86%-99%) decrease in word recognition scores during active PAPR usage. Presentation at 85 to 90 dB was needed to obtain word recognition scores similar to baseline in subjects with normal hearing without a PAPR. Pure tone averages also significantly decreased with PAPR usage, by 54 dB (95% CI, 46-62). Active PAPR usage has a substantial impact on auditory perception when utilized by health care providers. The potential longer-term effect of these devices on providers with regular active usage is of interest for future study.

The aim of the work was to conduct experimental studies aimed at determining the protection factor of the filter respirator with forced air supply by volunteers in different modes of operation and to establish the dependence of the amount of air supplied by the fan from the air purification device to the filter’s resistance. Simulation studies to determine the protective effectiveness of the filter respirator on the testers were performed according to the procedure for determining the penetration coefficient of test aerosol – sodium chloride, as the ratio of the submask concentration of test aerosol to the ambient concentration formed in a special chamber that meets the requirements of DSTU EN 13274. Determination of the amount of air supplied by the air purification unit to the submask space and assessment of the value of positive pressure inside the mask was performed according to the procedure described in DSTU EN 12941: 2004. As a result of simulated laboratory tests to determine the protective effectiveness of filter respirators with forced air supply to the testers, it was found that the average result of the protection factor of the test samples ranged from 99.93 to 99.97, which meets the requirements of DSTU EN 12941: 2004. In addition, it was found that the amount of air treated by the fan of the air purification device for clean filters is 165 and 215 dm3/min for operating modes “Normal” and “Turbo”, while for the polluted filters it is reduced to 131 and 185 dm3/min, respectively. During the study, the compliance of the value of excess pressure in the submask space with the requirements of DSTU EN 12941: 2004, which should not exceed 2.5 mbar, was confirmed. It is also determined that the stability of the technical parameters of the air purification device is maintained in the specified range when charging the “Dinogy Li-Pol 11000mAh 14.8V 4S 25C” brand battery not less than 12 V to ensure the current value of not less than 1.6 A. The practical value of the results lies in determining the duration of protective action of the filter respirator, the choice of filter resistance to establish the scope and modes of operation in the developed personal respiratory protection equipment.

The COVID-19 pandemic has strained health care system resources and reduced the availability of life-sustaining and medical-grade personal protective equipment (PPE) though the combination of increased demand and disrupted manufacturing supply chains. As a result of these shortages, many health care providers have temporarily used largely untested, improvised PPE (iPPE). Lack of quality control for makeshift PPE and frequent repurposing of used items to conserve supplies increase both the risk of provider infection and nosocomial spread to uninfected patients. One strategy to reduce risk of infection and preserve existing equipment is the implementation of secondary barrier devices placed directly over patients or providers. The authors describe an inexpensive, disposable, positive-pressure head isolation unit that can be rapidly constructed from materials readily available in nearly all health care settings for under five US dollars. The unit was successfully deployed in Taiwan during the 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak, and again during the COVID-19 pandemic. The iPPE worn directly by the health care workers (HCWs) can be donned prior to patient contact in the presence of an air source. This strategy may be more protective than a covering placed over the patient in an aerosol-generating environment, which requires the HCW to be in close contact with the patient prior to securing the protective device.

This study evaluated the performance of two respirators, a replaceable particulate respirator (RPR) and a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR), worn according to non-recommended methods. Ten subjects wore either an RPR or PAPR according to the recommended method, or according to a non-recommended method, with a knit cover placed between the facepiece cushion and face, with a towel placed between the facepiece cushion and face, or with the headband on a helmet. The leakage rate of each wearing variation was then measured, according to the procedure for determining the protection factor of respiratory protective equipment, using atmospheric dust as required by JIS T8150. The average leakage rate for the RPR was 1.82-10.92%, whereas that of the PAPR was 0.18-0.42%. The performance of the RPR decreased when worn in methods outside of recommendations; however, there was no significant decrease in the performance of PAPR under any method of wear. Therefore, a PAPR is recommended for work in which a replaceable or disposable particulate respirator fails to provide sufficient protection against hazardous dust substances, or for workers who are unable to use a particulate respirator according to the recommended method owing to the work environment or health conditions.

Introduction: During the COVID-19 pandemic, multiple guidelines have recommended the videolaryngoscope for tracheal intubation. However, there is no evidence that videolaryngoscope reduces time to tracheal intubation, which is important for COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure. Methods: To simulate intubation of COVID-19 patients, we randomised 28 elective surgical patients to be intubated with either the McGrath™ MAC videolaryngoscope or the direct laryngoscope by specialist anaesthetists donning 3M™ Jupiter™ powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR) and N95 masks. Primary outcome was time to intubation. Results: The median (IQR) times to intubation were 61s (37–63 s) and 41.5s (37–56 s) in the videolaryngoscope and direct laryngoscope groups respectively (p = 0.35). The closest mean (SD) distances between the anaesthetist and the patient during intubation were 21.6 cm (4.8 cm) and 17.6 cm (5.3 cm) in the videolaryngoscope and direct laryngoscope groups, respectively (p = 0.045). There were no significant differences in the median intubation difficulty scale scores, proportion of successful intubation at first laryngoscopic attempt and proportion of intubations requiring adjuncts. Intubations for all the patients were successful with no adverse event. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in the time to intubation by specialist anaesthetists who were donned in PAPR and N95 masks on elective surgical patients with either the McGrath™ videolaryngoscope or direct laryngoscope. The distance between the anaesthetist and patient was significantly further with the videolaryngoscope. The direct laryngoscope could be an equal alternative to videolaryngoscope for specialist anaesthetists when resources are limited or disrupted due to the pandemic.

Powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR) are a high level of respiratory personal protective equipment. Like all mechanical devices, they are vulnerable to failure. The precise physiological consequences of failure in live subjects have not previously been reported. We conducted an observational safety study simulating PAPR failure in a group of nine healthy volunteers, wearing loose-fitting hoods, who were observed for a period of ten minutes, or until they requested the experiment be aborted, with continuous monitoring of gas exchange. Relative to baseline, participants demonstrated median reductions in peripheral oxygen saturation of 3.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) –4% to –2%; P = 0.0039) and fraction of inspired oxygen of 0.045 (95% CI –0.05 to –0.04; P = 0.0039), and median increases in inspired partial pressure of carbon dioxide of 27 mmHg (95% CI 23.5–32 mmHg; P = 0.0039), end-tidal partial pressure of carbon dioxide of 11 mmHg (95% CI 7–16 mmHg; P = 0.0039) and minute ventilation of 30 l/min (95% CI 19.4–35.9 l/min; P = 0.0039). Median collateral entrainment of room air into the hood was 17.6 l/min (interquartile range 12.3–27.0 l/min). All subjects reported thermal discomfort, with two (22.2%) requesting early termination of the experiment. Whilst the degree of rebreathing in this experiment was not sufficient to cause dangerous physiological derangement, the degree of reported thermal discomfort combined with the consequences of entrainment of possibly contaminated air into the hood, pose a risk to wearers in the event of failure.

Background. Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, interventions in the upper airways are considered high-risk procedures for otolaryngologists and their colleagues. The purpose of this study was to evaluate limitations in hearing and communication when using a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) system to protect against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission and to assess the benefit of a headset. Methods. Acoustic properties of the PAPR system were measured using a head and torso simulator. Audiological tests (tone audiometry, Freiburg speech test, Oldenburg sentence test (OLSA)) were performed in normal-hearing subjects (n = 10) to assess hearing with PAPR. The audiological test setup also included simulation of conditions in which the target speaker used either a PAPR, a filtering face piece (FFP) 3 respirator, or a surgical face mask. Results. Audiological measurements revealed that sound insulation by the PAPR headtop and noise, generated by the blower-assisted respiratory protection system, resulted in significantly deteriorated hearing thresholds (4.0 ± 7.2 dB hearing level (HL) vs. 49.2 ± 11.0 dB HL, p

Background The use of personal protective equipment for respiratory infection control during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a physical burden to healthcare providers. The duration for which CPR quality according to recommended guidelines can be maintained under these circumstances is important. We investigated whether a 2-min shift was appropriate for chest compression and determined the duration for which chest compression was maintained in accordance with the recommended guidelines while wearing personal protective equipment. Methods This prospective crossover simulation study was performed at a single center from September 2020 to October 2020. Five indicators of CPR quality were measured during the first and second sessions of the study period. All participants wore a Level D powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR), and the experiment was conducted using a Resusci Anne manikin, which can measure the quality of chest compressions. Each participant conducted two sessions. In Session 1, the sequence of 2 min of chest compressions, followed by a 2-min rest, was repeated twice; in Session 2, the sequence of 1-min chest compressions followed by a 1-min rest was repeated four times. Results All 34 participants completed the study. The sufficiently deep compression rate was 65.9 ± 31.1% in the 1-min shift group and 61.5 ± 30.5% in the 2-min shift group. The mean compression depth was 52.8 ± 4.3 mm in the 1-min shift group and 51.0 ± 6.1 mm in the 2-min shift group. These two parameters were significantly different between the two groups. There was no significant difference in the other values related to CPR quality. Conclusions Our findings indicated that 1 min of chest compressions with a 1-min rest maintained a better quality of CPR while wearing a PAPR.

This research will present reverse engineering’s utility to provide assistance systems and rehabilitation technology in the medical field [34]. According to the fast and widespread COVID-19 contagion globally, the demand for ventilators and PPE materials is very high after the factories look-down. There are limitations in the chain of supply and delivery of critical medical equipment thought worldwide. In this urgent drum, reverse engineering is the right solution at a low price and a short time to provide safety equipment to healthcare professionals, hospitals, and pharmaceuticals. Reverse manufacturer necessitates a series of phases to collect precise information on a product’s dimensions. 3D printing, 3D scanning, and PCB fast prototyping it is the best solution and low cost with a short time of prototyping for most existing technologies. We are looking forward to making a new design of the Powered Air Purifier with Hood (PAPR) Ventilator, which features a lightweight, long-lasting battery and three airflow rates that change according to the doctor’s need. Therefore, this work aimed to explore the possibility of reverse engineering, such as the speed of obtaining the biomedical and healthcare device’s prototype in a critical time. We are working on upgrading the existing PAPR from regular use to COVID-19 use with high performance. We will add the germicidal ultraviolet light between the HE filter and hood to ensure the airbreathing purifier from any virus. A UV drum for sanitizing different respirator parts after used and charging it battery wirelessly inside the drums simultaneously. We are also adding IoT technology in the respirator for physical distancing and healthcare staff tracking and recording.

The coronavirus pandemic has affected millions of lives around the world. The availability of personal protective equipment at a low cost has been an important factor in determining the well-being of frontline health workers who are integral to the global response to COVID-19. This paper discusses the design and development of a low-cost open-source powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) for medical professionals which costs approximately INR 10,000. We detail the assembling process for this respirator using widely available components that allows for easy scale-up and replication in any country, thereby ensuring the safety of frontline health and sanitation workers who are at an elevated risk of contracting COVID-19. We worked with doctors at Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences to test the prototype for airflow under varying battery life conditions and found it to provide 10 CFM airflow (1.7 times the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) airflow requirements) for over 7 hours without any long term effects due to noise from the actuators.

Highlights • Although PAPRs have been recommended for high risk procedures on suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients, this recommendation remains controversial due to lack of evidence. • Guidelines for appropriate use of PAPR during the current pandemic are sparse; • In well-resourced PAPR availability and deployment have formed a cornerstone of pandemic preparedness; • Field observational studies do not indicate a difference in healthcare worker infection utilizing PAPR devices versus other compliant respiratory equipment, The last two decades have seen an increasing frequency of zoonotic origin viral diseases including Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2. Respiratory component of the infectious disease program against SARS-CoV-2 incorporates use of protective airborne respiratory equipment. In this narrative review, we explore the features of Powered Air Purifying Respirators (PAPR) as well as logistical and evidence based advantages and disadvantages. Simulation study findings support increased heat tolerance and wearer comfort with a PAPR. Although PAPRs have been recommended for high risk procedures on suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients, this recommendation remains controversial due to lack of evidence. International regulatory bodies do not mandate the use of PAPR for high risk aerosol generating procedures in patients with SARS-CoV-2. Current reports of the choice of protective respiratory technology during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic are disparate. Patterns of use appear to be related to geographical locations. Field observational studies do not indicate a difference in healthcare worker infection utilizing PAPR devices versus other compliant respiratory equipment in healthcare workers performing AGPs. Whether a higher PAPR filtration factor translates to decreased infection rates of HCWs remains to be elucidated. Utilization of PAPR with high filtration efficiency may represent an example of “precautionary principle”. Action taken to reduce risk may be guided by logistical advantages of the PAPR system, rather than high level evidence.

Health care personnel (HCP) caring for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) might be at high risk for contracting SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Understanding the prevalence of and factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection among frontline HCP who care for COVID-19 patients are important for protecting both HCP and their patients. During April 3-June 19, 2020, serum specimens were collected from a convenience sample of frontline HCP who worked with COVID-19 patients at 13 geographically diverse academic medical centers in the United States, and specimens were tested for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Participants were asked about potential symptoms of COVID-19 experienced since February 1, 2020, previous testing for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, and their use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the past week. Among 3,248 participants, 194 (6.0%) had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Seroprevalence by hospital ranged from 0.8% to 31.2% (median = 3.6%). Among the 194 seropositive participants, 56 (29%) reported no symptoms since February 1, 2020, 86 (44%) did not believe that they previously had COVID-19, and 133 (69%) did not report a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Seroprevalence was lower among personnel who reported always wearing a face covering (defined in this study as a surgical mask, N95 respirator, or powered air purifying respirator [PAPR]) while caring for patients (5.6%), compared with that among those who did not (9.0%) (p = 0.012). Consistent with persons in the general population with SARS-CoV-2 infection, many frontline HCP with SARS-CoV-2 infection might be asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic during infection, and infection might be unrecognized. Enhanced screening, including frequent testing of frontline HCP, and universal use of face coverings in hospitals are two strategies that could reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) are at particular risk during pandemics and epidemics of highly virulent diseases with significant morbidity and case fatality rate. These diseases include severe acute respiratory syndrome coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2, Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), and Ebola. With the current (SARS-CoV-2) global pandemic, it is critical to delineate appropriate contextual respiratory protection for HCWs. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) as part of respiratory protection versus another device (egN95/FFP2) on HCW infection rates and contamination.MethodsOur primary outcomes included HCW infection rates with SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-1, Ebola, or MERS when utilizing PAPR. We included randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, and observational studies. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CENTRAL). Two reviewers independently screened all citations, full-text articles, and abstracted data. Due to clinical and methodological heterogeneity, we did not conduct a meta-analysis. Where applicable, we constructed evidence profile (EP) tables for each individual outcome. Confidence in cumulative evidence for each outcome was classified according to the GRADE system.ResultsWe identified 689 studies during literature searches. We included 10 full-text studies. A narrative synthesis was provided. Two on-field studies reported no difference in the rates of healthcare workers performing airway procedures during the care of critical patients with SARS-CoV-2. A single simulation trial reported a lower level of cross-contamination of participants using PAPR compared to alternative respiratory protection. There is moderate quality evidence that PAPR use is associated with greater heat tolerance but lower scores for mobility and communication ability. We identified a trend towards greater self-reported wearer comfort with PAPR technology in low-quality observational simulation studies.ConclusionField observational studies do not indicate a difference in healthcare worker infection utilizing PAPR devices versus other compliant respiratory equipment. Greater heat tolerance accompanied by lower scores of mobility and audibility in PAPR was identified. Further pragmatic studies are needed in order to delineate actual effectiveness and provider satisfaction with PAPR technology.Systematic review registrationThe protocol for this review was prospectively registered with the International Register of Systematic Reviews identification numberCRD42020184724.

BackgroundPowered air-purifying respirators are in short supply and can break down with extended use. Replacement parts can become hard to acquire. The aim of this study was to create an innovative quality improvement proof of concept using rapid prototyping.MethodsHere we report three cases of 3D printed powered air-purifying respirator parts. 3D printing was performed on all parts using fused deposition modeling with standard polylactic acid, in the same way that presurgical models would be created. Measurements using an electronic caliper as well as CT scans were used to compare an original part to its corresponding 3D printed parts for accuracy.ResultsElectronic caliper and computed tomography measurements both showed accuracy consistant with current published norms.ConclusionsUltimately, there will be questions surrounding intellectual property, effectiveness and potential long-term safety for these types of 3D printed parts. Future research should look into the addition of specific nanoparticles from the position of cost, efficacy, safety and improved accuracy.

BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) are at particular risk during pandemics and epidemics of highly virulent diseases with significant morbidity and case fatality rate. These diseases include Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2, Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Ebola. With the current (SARS-CoV-2) global pandemic, it is critical to delineate appropriate contextual respiratory protection for HCWs. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of Powered Air Purifying Respirators (PAPR’s) as part of respiratory protection versus another device (egN95/FFP2) on HCW infection rates and contamination.MethodsOur primary outcomes included HCW infection rates with SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-1, Ebola or MERS when utilizing PAPR. We included randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, and observational studies. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CENTRAL). Two reviewers independently screened all citations, full-text articles, and abstracted data. Due to clinical and methodological heterogeneity, we did not conduct a meta-analysis. Where applicable, we constructed Evidence Profile (EP) tables for each individual outcome. Confidence in cumulative evidence for each outcome was classified according to the GRADE system.ResultsWe identified 689 studies during literature searches. We included 10 full text studies. A narrative synthesis was provided. Two on-field studies reported no difference in the rates of healthcare workers performing airway procedures during care of critical patients with SARS-CoV-2. A single simulation trial reported a lower level of cross-contamination of participants using PAPR compared to alternative respiratory protection. There is moderate quality evidence that PAPR use is associated with greater heat tolerance but lower scores for mobility and communication ability. We identified a trend toward greater self-reported wearer comfort with PAPR technology in low quality observational simulation studies.ConclusionField observational studies do not indicate a difference in healthcare worker infection utilizing PAPR devices versus other compliant respiratory equipment. Greater heat tolerance accompanied by lower scores of mobility and audibility in PAPR were identified. Further pragmatic studies are needed in order to delineate actual effectiveness and provider satisfaction with PAPR technology.Please note: Protocol for this review was prospectively registered with the International Register of Systematic Reviews identification number CRD42020184724.

Graphical abstract, To assist firefighters and other first responders to use their existing equipment for respiration during the COVID-19 pandemic without using single-use, low-supply, masks, this study outlines an open source kit to convert a 3M-manufactured Scott Safety self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) into a powered air-purifying particulate respirator (PAPR). The open source PAPR can be fabricated with a low-cost 3-D printer and widely available components for less than $150, replacing commercial conversion kits saving 85% or full-fledged proprietary PAPRs saving over 90%. The parametric designs allow for adaptation to other core components and can be custom fit specifically to fire-fighter equipment, including their suspenders. The open source PAPR has controllable air flow and its design enables breathing even if the fan is disconnected or if the battery dies. The open source PAPR was tested for air flow as a function of battery life and was found to meet NIOSH air flow requirements for 4 h, which is 300% over expected regular use.

The correct selection and utilization of respiratory personal protective equipment is of the utmost importance in the current COVID-19 pandemic. This is especially true for health care workers exposed to high-risk aerosol-generating procedures, including otolaryngologists, ophthalmologists, neurosurgeons, maxillofacial surgeons, and laparoscopic surgeons. This communication provides a review of approved forms of respiratory protection and compares their characteristics, including surgical masks, N95 respirator, elastomeric respirators, powered air-purifying respirators, and controlled air-purifying respirators. For standard airborne precautions, N95 respirator are appropriate for respiratory protection. However, high-risk aerosol-generating procedures may create aerosolization of high viral loads that represent increased risk to health care workers. In these situations, enhanced respiratory protection with filters certified as 99, 100, or HEPA (high-efficiency particulate air) may be appropriate.

Introduction:Physicians’ management of hazardous material (HAZMAT) incidents requires personal protective equipment (PPE) utilization to ensure the safety of victims, facilities, and providers; therefore, providing effective and accessible training in its use is crucial. While an emphasis has been placed on the importance of PPE, there is debate about the most effective training methods. Circumstances may not allow for a traditional in-person demonstration; an accessible video training may provide a useful alternative.Hypothesis:Video training of Emergency Medicine (EM) residents in the donning and doffing of Level C PPE is more effective than in-person training.Null Hypothesis:Video training of EM residents in the donning and doffing of Level C PPE is equally effective compared with in-person training.Methods:A randomized, controlled pilot trial was performed with 20 EM residents as part of their annual Emergency Preparedness training. Residents were divided into four groups, with Group 1 and Group 2 viewing a demonstration video developed by the Emergency Preparedness Team (EPT) and Group 3 and Group 4 receiving the standard in-person demonstration training by an EPT member. The groups then separately performed a donning and doffing simulation while blinded evaluators assessed critical tasks utilizing a prepared evaluation tool. At the drill’s conclusion, all participants also completed a self-evaluation survey about their subjective interpretations of their respective trainings.Results:Both video and in-person training modalities showed significant overall improvement in participants’ confidence in doffing and donning PPE equipment (P .05). Based on these results, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. However, these results were limited by the small sample size and the study was not sufficiently powered to show a difference between training modalities.Conclusion:In this pilot study, video and in-person training were equally effective in training for donning and doffing Level C PPE, with similar error rates in both modalities. Further research into this subject with an appropriately powered study is warranted to determine whether this equivalence persists using a larger sample size.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome‐coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid‐19), is highly contagious with devastating impacts for healthcare systems worldwide. Medical staff are at high risk of viral contamination and it is imperative to know what personal protective equipment is appropriate for each situation. Furthermore, elective clinics and operations have been reduced in order to mobilize manpower to the acute specialties combatting the outbreak; appropriate differentiation between patients who require immediate care and those who can receive telephone consultation or whose treatment might viably be postponed is therefore crucial. Italy was one of the earliest and hardest‐hit European countries and therefore the Italian Skull Base Society board has promulgated specific recommendations based on consensus best practices and the literature, where available. Only urgent surgical operations are recommended and all patients should be tested at least twice (on days 4 and 2 prior to surgery). For positive patients, procedures should be postponed until after swab test negativization. If the procedure is vital to the survival of the patient, FFP3 and/or PAPRs devices, goggles, full‐face visor, double gloves, water‐resistant gowns and protective caps, are mandatory. For negative patients, use of at least FFP2 mask is recommended. In all cases the use of drills, which promote the aerosolization of potentially infected mucous particles, should be avoided. Given the potential neurotropism of SARS‐CoV‐2, dura handling should be minimized. It is only through widely‐agreed protocols and teamwork that we will be able to deal with the evolving and complex implications of this new pandemic. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Objectives Infection control policies and guidelines recommend using facemasks and respirators to protect healthcare workers (HCWs) from respiratory infections. Common types of respirators used in healthcare settings are filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs). Aims of this study were to examine the current attitudes and practices of HCWs regarding the selection and use of respiratory protection and determine the acceptability of a novel PAPR. Methods In-depth interviews were undertaken with 20 HCWs from a large tertiary hospital in Sydney, Australia. Participants were fit tested with a lightweight tight-fitting half-facepiece PAPR (CleanSpace2™ Power Unit, PAF-0034, by CleanSpace Technology®) using the TSI™ Portacount quantitative fit test method. Results Interview results showed that HCWs had a limited role in the selection and use of facemasks and respirators and had been using the devices provided by the hospital. The majority of subjects had no knowledge of hospital policy for the use of facemasks and respirators, had not been trained on the use of respirators, and had not been fit tested previously. Compliance with the use of facemasks and respirators was perceived as being low and facemasks and respirators were typically used only for short periods of time. All 20 participants were successfully fit tested to the CleanSpace2™ PAPR (overall geometric mean fit factor—6768). According to the exit surveys, CleanSpace2™ PAPRs were easy to don (14/20) and doff (15/20) and comfortable to wear (14/20). Most participants believed that PAPRs provide higher protection, comfort and reusability over N95 FFR and can be used during pandemics and other high-risk situations. Conclusions HCWs should be aware of infection control policies and training should be provided on the correct use of respiratory protective devices. PAPRs can be used in hospital settings to protect HCWs from certain highly infectious and emerging pathogens, however, HCWs require adequate training on storage, use, and cleaning of PAPRs.

Background Health care facilities are considering the use of reusable respiratory protective devices (RPDs) to mitigate a potential N95 filtering facepiece respirator shortage caused by an influenza pandemic. US regulators are also considering stockpiling reusable RPDs for pandemic preparedness, but limited data exist on the effectiveness of cleaning and disinfection of these devices. This study defines reprocessing protocols and evaluates their effectiveness against a pandemic influenza strain in a laboratory setting. Methods Five half-mask elastomeric respirator models and 3 powered air-purifying respirator models were contaminated with influenza virus and artificial skin oil on multiple surfaces. RPDs were then manually treated with 1 of 2 methods: cleaned or cleaned and disinfected. Presence of viable influenza was determined via swab sampling and a median tissue culture infectious dose assay. Results Across 41 RPD surfaces, a mean log reduction in viable influenza of 4.54 ± 0.97 log10 median tissue culture infectious dose was achieved for all treated surfaces, which included both cleaned and cleaned and disinfected surfaces. Conclusions The methods defined as part of this study are effective for eliminating viable influenza in the presence of artificial skin oil on most of the RPD surfaces tested. Material type and RPD design should be considered when implementing RPD reprocessing protocols.

ObjectivesTo design a low-cost 3D printable powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) that meets National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) standard for flow rate and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard for particle filtration for loose-fitting PAPRs and that can be made with a 3D printer and widely available materials.DesignDetailed description of components, assembly instructions and testing of a novel PAPR design in an academic laboratory following respective protocols. The assembled PAPR must meet NIOSH standards of flow rate, 170 L/min; OSHA fit factor for particle filtration, ≥250 and maintain positive pressure during regular and deep breathing.Main outcome measuresThe PAPR design was run through a series of tests: air flow (L/min), particle filtration (quantitative and qualitative) and positive pressure measured inside the helmet (mm Hg).ResultsFlow rate was 443.32 L/min (NIOSH standard: minimum 170 L/min) and overall fit factor for particle filtration was 1362 (OSHA pass level: ≥500), n=1. The device passed qualitative particle filtration, n=2, and measured peak pressure of 6mm Hg (>0 mm Hg indicates positive pressure) in the helmet, n=1.ConclusionsThe Hygieia PAPR is a low-cost, easily accessible, just-in-time 3D printable PAPR design that meets minimum NIOSH and OSHA standards for flow-rate and particle filtration for loose-fitting PAPR devices to be made and used when industry-made designs are unavailable.

Background and Aims During the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic, N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) use was required while performing aerosol-generating procedures. We studied the physiologic effects of N95 FFR use in a cohort of gastroenterologists performing simulated colonoscopies. Methods Data collection and comparisons included (1) symptoms and change in vital signs in 12 gastroenterologists performing simulated colonoscopy for 60 minutes while wearing a surgical mask (SM) and faceshield (FS); N95 FFR, SM, and FS; and powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) and (2) respiratory belt plethysmography and continuous electrocardiographic frequency-based heart rate (HR) variability indices including very low frequency power (measures intracardiac sympathetic tone) and low frequency to high frequency ratios (intracardiac sympathetic to vagal ratio) in 11 gastroenterologists performing simulated colonoscopy while wearing an SM (15 minutes), N95 FFR and SM (60 minutes), and SM (15 minutes) in rapid sequence. Results Ten of 12 gastroenterologists (83%) reported symptoms with N95 FFR use, most commonly breathing difficulty, frustration, fatigue, and headache. Nine of these gastroenterologists (75%) had associated significant HR elevation. Respiratory peak to trough measurement showed a significant increase (F(2) = 7.543, P = .004) during the N95 FFR stage, which resolved after removal of the N95 FFR. Although not statistically different, all gastroenterologists showed a decrease in sympathetic to vagal ratios and an increase in intracardiac sympathetic effects in the N95 FFR stage. PAPR use was better tolerated but was associated with headache and elevated HR in 4 gastroenterologists (33%). Conclusions N95 FFR use by gastroenterologists is associated with development of acute physiologic changes and symptoms.

Bone-sawing procedures are routinely performed during veterinary and human autopsies and represent an important source for infectious aerosols. Here we investigate the generation of aerosols during bone-sawing procedures using 5 different saws regularly used in veterinary and human pathology. In particular, the electrical bone band saw produced vast amounts of aerosolized particles less than 5 µm in diameter, which spread rapidly throughout the entire autopsy hall, leading to an exposure of all personnel. Other sawing devices tested were a diamond-coated cut grinder, an oscillating saw, a reciprocating saw, and a hand bone saw. Although these saws, especially the handsaw, generated fewer aerosolized particles than the band saw, the level of exposure of the saw operator would still be of concern in cases where infectious material would require sawing. Contamination of the entire autopsy area was successfully prevented by the construction of a separately ventilated sawing cabin inside the existing autopsy room. Saw operators in this cabin, however, were exposed to even higher aerosol concentrations. Protection of saw operators was achieved by using a powered air-purifying respirator. In conclusion, our results demonstrate that all bone-sawing procedures applied in veterinary and human pathology can generate aerosols that are of concern for the health of autopsy personnel. To reduce the risk of aerosol infections from bone-sawing procedures, efficient and properly designed ventilation systems to limit the spread of aerosols and appropriate personal protective equipment against aerosols for exposed personnel should be implemented.

Background: High-level personal protective equipment (PPE) protects healthcare workers (HCWs) during the care of patients with serious communicable diseases. Doffing body fluid–contaminated PPE presents a risk of self-contamination. A study assessing HCW failure modes and self-contamination with viruses during PPE doffing found that, of all PPE items, the highest number of doffing failure modes and highest self-contamination risk occurred during removal of the 1-layer powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) hood. Hood type may affect contamination risk; however, no experimental evidence exists comparing hood types. Objective: We quantified and compared the risk of self-contamination with viruses during doffing of a 1e-layer versus a 2-layer PAPR hood. Methods: In this study, 8 HCWs with experience using high-level PPE donned PPE contaminated on 4 prespecified areas with 2 surrogate human viruses, bacteriophage MS2 (a nonenvelope virus) and Φ6 (an enveloped virus). They completed a clinical task then doffed PPE according to a standard protocol. Following doffing, inner gloves, hands, face, and scrubs were sampled for viral contamination using infectivity assays. HCWs performed the entire sequence twice, first with a 1-layer hood with 1 shroud then with a 2-layer hood with 2 shrouds. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare viral contamination between the 2 hood types. HCWs were video-recorded to identify failure modes in their doffing process using a failure modes and effects analysis to identify ways that individual actions deviated from optimal behavior. Results: Φ6 transfer to hands, inner gloves, and scrubs were observed for 1 HCW using the 1-layer hood versus scrubs only for 1 HCW using the 2-layer hood. MS2 transfer to hands was observed for 2 HCWs using the 1-layer hood versus none using the 2-layer hood. Inner glove contamination was observed for 6 of 8 HCWs using the 1-layer hood versus 2 of 8 using the 2-layer hood. Conclusions: A significantly higher number of MS2 virus was recovered on the inner gloves of HCWs using the 1-layer versus the 2-layer hood (median difference, 2.27×104; P = .03). In addition, 31 failure modes were identified during removal of the 2-layer hood versus 13 failure modes for the 1-layer hood. The magnitude of self-contamination depends on the type of PAPR hood used. The 2-layer hood resulted in significantly less inner glove contamination than the 1-layer hood. However, more failure modes were identified during the doffing process for the 2-layer hood. In conclusion, the failure modes identified during the use of the 2-layer hood were less likely to result in self-contamination compared to the failure modes identified during use of the 1-layer hood.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

Background The safe removal of personal protective equipment (PPE) can limit transmission of serious communicable diseases, but this process poses challenges to healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods We observed 41 HCWs across 4 Ebola treatment centers in Georgia doffing PPE for simulated patients with serious communicable diseases. Using human factors methodologies, we obtained the details, sequences, and durations of doffing steps; identified the ways each step can fail (failure modes [FMs]); quantified the riskiness of FMs; and characterized the workload of doffing steps. Results Eight doffing steps were common to all hospitals—removal of boot covers, gloves (outer and inner pairs), the outermost garment, the powered air purifying respirator (PAPR) hood, and the PAPR helmet assembly; repeated hand hygiene (eg, with hand sanitizer); and a final handwashing with soap and water. Across hospitals, we identified 256 FMs during the common doffing steps, 61 of which comprised 19 common FMs. Most of these common FMs were above average in their riskiness at each hospital. At all hospitals, hand hygiene, removal of the outermost garment, and removal of boot covers were above average in their overall riskiness. Measurements of workload revealed that doffing steps were often mentally demanding, and this facet of workload correlated most strongly with the effortfulness of a doffing step. Conclusions We systematically identified common points of concern in protocols for doffing high-level PPE. Addressing FMs related to hand hygiene and the removal of the outermost garment, boot covers, and PAPR hood could improve HCW safety when doffing high-level PPE. We identified ways that doffing protocols for high-level personal protective equipment may fail to protect healthcare workers. Hand hygiene, removing the outermost garment, boot covers, and respirator hood harbored the greatest risk and failed in similar ways across different hospitals., Healthcare workers at 4 Ebola treatment centers were observed doffing personal protective equipment for simulated patients with serious communicable diseases. Using human factors methodologies, we identified common points of concern and conclude with potential interventions to alleviate these issues.

Powered Air Purifying Respirator (PAPRs) are respirators that utilise a small centrifugal blower to aid in drawing air through a filter. If the dynamic behaviour of PAPRs with filters can be modelled, adaptive controllers can be made so that air is only supplied through the filter when a user inhales. This paper presents the identification of a Wiener model using a separable least squares method with experimental application to a PAPR. The linear dynamics are shown to fit to an output error model structure, with the nonlinearity being a quadratic function. The model structure is then validated on a PAPR constructed in open loop formation. The validation is furthered by altering the filter resistance to check the performance of the model.

N95 respirator masks are recommended for protection against respiratory viruses. Despite passing fit-testing 10% of N95 respirator users encountered breakthroughs with exposure to influenza virus compared to full protection provided by a powered air purifying respirator. The current recommendation of N95 respirators should be evaluated for endemic and emerging scenarios.

The production process of a tool is very important in a manufacturing company, especially in producing medical equipment. The use of medical masks by health workers in handling COVID-19 patients for hours will make medical personnel uncomfortable when wearing them, one of which is congestion. Therefore, the LCC RESPIRA V.01 PAPR (Powered Air Purifying Respirator) was produced, designed by Mr. Ahmad Juang Pratama, who is a lecturer at Al Azhar University Indonesia. In the production of LCC RESPIRA V.01, a standardization of the production process is needed, so that the reliability of the product can be guaranteed. For this reason, the design of the SOP (Standard Operational Procedure) and the layout of the production floor are carried out in the production process of the LCC RESPIRA V.01 tool. The results of this study include the design of a production SOP in which several departments take part in it, namely team leader, head of the production, production operator, research and development department, head of the warehouse, and quality control department. Besides, a production floor layout design is obtained, where the total production floor area is 8.2 x 6.0 m2 with manual and trolley material handling types.Keywords – Covid-19, Layout production floor, Medical equipment, Standard operational procedure

The objective of this study was to investigate the protection level offered by a Powered Air-Purifying Respirator (PAPR) equipped with an improperly sized or stretched-out loose-fitting facepiece using constant and cyclic flow conditions. Improperly sized PAPR facepieces of two models as well as a stretched-out facepiece were tested. These facepieces were examined in two versions: with and without exhaust holes. Loose-fitting facepieces (size "large") were donned on a small manikin headform and challenged with sodium chloride (NaCl) aerosol particles in an exposure chamber. Four cyclic flows with mean inspiratory flows (MIFs) of 30, 55, 85, and 135 L/min were applied using an electromechanical Breathing Recording and Simulation System (BRSS). The manikin Fit Factor (mFF) was determined as the ratio of aerosol concentrations outside (Cout) to inside (Cin) of the facepiece, measured with a P-Trak condensation particle counter (CPC). Results showed that the mFF decreased exponentially with increasing MIF. The mFF values of the stretched-out facepiece were significantly lower than those obtained for the undamaged ones. Facepiece type and MIF were found to significantly affect the performance of the loose-fitting PAPR. The effect of the exhaust holes was less pronounced and depended on the facepiece type. It was concluded that an improperly sized facepiece might potentially offer relatively low protection (mFF250) at high to strenuous workloads. The testing was also performed at a constant inhalation flow to explore the mechanism of the particle-facepiece interaction. Results obtained with cyclic flow pattern were consistent with the data generated when testing the loose-fitting PAPR under constant flow conditions. The time-weighted average values of mFF calculated from the measurements conducted under the constant flow regime were capable of predicting the protection under cyclic flow regime. The findings suggest that program administrators need to equip employees with properly sized facepieces and remove stretched-out ones from workplace. Manufacturers should emphasize the importance of proper sizing with their user instructions.

The study of and experimentation with zoonotic pathogens such as highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) requires risk mitigation strategies including laboratory engineering controls and safety eq...

Background and aim COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an unprecedented increased usage of Personal protective equipment (PPE) by healthcare-workers. PPE usage causes headache in majority of users. We evaluated changes in cerebral hemodynamics among healthcare-workers using PPE. Methods Frontline healthcare-workers donning PPE at our tertiary center were included. Demographics, co-morbidities and blood-pressure were recorded. Transcranial Doppler (TCD) monitoring of middle cerebral artery was performed with 2-MHz probe. Mean flow velocity (MFV) and pulsatility index (PI) were recorded at baseline, after donning N95 respirator-mask, and after donning powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR), when indicated. End-tidal carbon-dioxide (ET-CO2) pressure was recorded for participants donning PAPR in addition to the N95 respirator-mask. Results A total of 154 healthcare-workers (mean age 29 ± 12 years, 67% women) were included. Migraine was the commonest co-morbidity in 38 (25%) individuals while 123 (80%) developed de-novo headache due to N95 mask. Donning of N95 respirator-mask resulted in significant increase in MFV (4.4 ± 10.4 cm/s, p, Highlights • Most N95 mask users develop de novo headache or worsening of pre-existing headache. • End-tidal carbon dioxide levels increase while donning N95 respirator mask. • Significant cerebral hemodynamic changes occur during donning of N95 mask. • Powered air-purifying respirator restores N95 mask induced cerebral hemodynamic changes.

Airborne isolation of patients and use of respirators are a foundational strategy to prevent transmission of pathogens like tuberculosis and novel respiratory viruses via airborne route in healthcare settings. Healthcare personnel respiratory protection programs utilize respirators, which may or may not require fit testing for each individual. This chapter reviews the different types of respirators, which include the more common N95 respirator masks and the somewhat less commonly used powered air-purifying respirators, and the levels of protection offered by each type. The chapter also reviews considerations and controversies regarding use of N95 respirators and PAPRs and situations when a PAPR-only approach might work. In each healthcare facility, the epidemiology and risk assessment of the facility, available evidence in published literature, and certain regulatory standards must inform the clinical policies, protocols, and procedures. Key unanswered questions and further areas for research are outlined.

Primary barriers range from a basic laboratory coat to a biological safety cabinet (BSC). This chapter addresses some of the more common primary containment devices and personal protective equipment and a variety of equipment-associated hazards. The history of laboratory-acquired illnesses amply demonstrates how important primary barriers are and how equally important it is to select appropriate primary barriers and use them correctly. Personal protective equipment includes all clothing and other work accessories designed to serve or be worn as a barrier against workplace hazards. Employers and employees must be conscious of the fact that personal protective equipment alone does not eliminate the hazard. If the primary containment fails or is insufficient, personal protective equipment often becomes an important barrier against exposure. This chapter illustrates the four biosafety levels (BSLs) and their corresponding primary barriers. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards outline the specific provisions for the various types of personal protective equipment. The choice of style and fabric should be based on the job tasks to be performed, and the material or hazards to which the wearer may be exposed. The selection and use of the appropriate primary barriers constitute just one important component of the overall laboratory safety program. Laboratory-acquired infections have occurred due to the lack of or misuse of primary containment devices and personal protective equipment. Personal protective equipment should be chosen carefully and utilized appropriately.

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) worn by the workers, and to investigate the effect of this application on exposure and preclinical effects in terms of workplace measuring and biomarker monitoring in ITO sputter target manufacturing plants and workers, respectively. Fifty-four workers were recruited and investigated from 2010-2012, during which PAPRs were provided to on-site workers in September 2011. Each worker completed questionnaires and provided blood and urine samples for analysis of biomarkers of indium exposure and preclinical effects. Area and personal indium air samples were randomly collected from selected worksites and from participants. The penetration percentage of the respirator (concentration inside respirator divided by concentration outside respirator) was 6.6%. Some biomarkers, such as S-In, SOD, GPx, GST, MDA, and TMOM, reflected the decrease in exposure and showed lower levels, after implementation of PAPRs. This study is the first to investigate the efficacy of PAPRs for reducing indium exposure. The measurement results clearly showed that the implementation of PAPRs reduces levels of indium-related biomarkers. These findings have practical applications for minimizing occupational exposure to indium and for managing the health of workers exposed to indium.

Virulent respiratory infectious diseases may present a life-threatening risk for health care professionals during aerosol-generating procedures, including endotracheal intubation. The 2009 Pandemic Influenza A (H1N1) brings this concern to the immediate forefront. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have stated that, when performing or participating in aerosol-generating procedures on patients with virulent contagious respiratory diseases, health care professionals must wear a minimum of the N95 respirator, and they may wish to consider using the powered air purifying respirator (PAPR). For influenza and other diseases transmitted by both respiratory and contact modes, protective respirators must be combined with contact precautions. The PAPR provides 2.5 to 100 times greater protection than the N95, when used within the context of an Occupational Safety and Health Administration-compliant respiratory protection program. The relative protective capability of a respirator is quantified using the assigned protection factor. The level of protection designated by the APF can only be achieved with appropriate training and correct use of the respirator. Face seal leakage limits the protective capability of the N95 respirator, and fit testing does not assure the ability to maintain a tight face seal. The protective capability of the PAPR will be defeated by improper handling of contaminated equipment, incorrect assembly and maintenance, and improper don (put on) and doff (take off) procedures. Stress, discomfort, and physical encumbrance may impair performance. Acclimatization through training will mitigate these effects. Training in the use of PAPRs in advance of their need is strongly advised. "Just in time" training is unlikely to provide adequate preparation for groups of practitioners requiring specialized personal protective equipment during a pandemic. Employee health departments in hospitals may not presently have a PAPR training program in place. Anesthesia and critical care providers would be well advised to take the lead in working with their hospitals' employee health departments to establish a PAPR training program where none exists. User instructions state that the PAPR should not be used during surgery because it generates positive outward airflow, and may increase the risk of wound infection. Clarification of this prohibition and acceptable solutions are currently lacking and need to be addressed. The surgical hood system is not an acceptable alternative. We provide on line a PAPR training workshop. Supporting information is presented here. Anesthesia and critical care providers may use this workshop to supplement, but not substitute for, the manufacturers' detailed use and maintenance instructions.

IntroductionManagement of contaminated patients in the decontamination corridor requires the use of hazardous material (HazMat) personal protective equipment (PPE). Previous studies have demonstrated that HazMat PPE may increase the difficulty of airway management. This study compared the efficiency of video laryngoscopy (VL) with traditional direct laryngoscopy (DL) during endotracheal intubation (ETI) while wearing HazMat PPE.MethodsPost-graduate year (PGY) 1-3 Emergency Medicine residents were randomized to VL or DL while wearing encapsulating PPE. Video laryngoscopy was performed using the GlideScope Cobalt AVL video laryngoscope. The primary outcome measure was time to successful ETI in a high-fidelity simulation mannequin. Three time points were utilized in the analysis: Time 0 (blade at lips), Time 1 (blade removed from lips after endotracheal tube placement), and Time 2 (bag valve mask [BVM] attached to endotracheal tube). Secondary outcome measures were perceived ease of use and feasibility of VL and DL ETI modalities.ResultsTwenty-one of 23 (91.3%) eligible residents participated. Mean time to ETI was 10.0 seconds (SD=5.3 seconds) in the DL group and 7.8 seconds (SD=3.0 seconds) in the VL group (P=.081). Mean times from blade insertion until BVM attachment were 17.4 seconds (SD=6.0 seconds) and 15.6 seconds (SD=4.6 seconds), respectively (P=.30). There were no unsuccessful intubation attempts. Seventeen out of 20 participants (85.0%) perceived VL to be easier to use when performing ETI in PPE. Twelve out of 20 participants (60%) perceived DL to be more feasible in an actual HazMat scenario.ConclusionThe time to successful ETI was not significantly different between VL and DL. Video laryngoscopy had a greater perceived ease of use, but DL was perceived to be more feasible for use in actual HazMat situations. These findings suggest that both DL and VL are reasonable modalities for use in HazMat situations, and the choice of modality could be based on the clinical situation and provider experience.AberleSJ,SandefurBJ,SungaKL,CampbellRL,LohseCM,Alecastro PulsH,LaudonS,SztajnkrycerMD.Intubation efficiency and perceived ease of use of video laryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy while wearing HazMat PPE: a preliminary high-fidelity mannequin study.Prehosp Disaster Med.2015;30(3):1–5.

Nanoparticle (particles with diameter ≤100 nm) exposure is recognized as a potentially harmful size fraction for pulmonary particle exposure. During nanoparticle synthesis, the number concentrations in the process room may exceed 10 × 106 cm−3. During such conditions, it is essential that the occupants in the room wear highly reliable high-performance respirators to prevent inhalation exposure. Here we have studied the in-use program protection factor (PPF) of loose-fitting powered air purifying respirators, while workers were coating components with TiO 2 or Cu x O y nanoparticles under a hood using a liquid flame spray process. The PPF was measured using condensation particle counters, an electrical low pressure impactor, and diffusion chargers. The room particle concentrations varied from 4 × 106 to 40 × 106 cm−3, and the count median aerodynamic diameter ranged from 32 to 180 nm. Concentrations inside the respirator varied from 0.7 to 7.2 cm−3. However, on average, tidal breathing was assumed to increase the respirator concentration by 2.3 cm−3. The derived PPF exceeded 1.1 × 106, which is more than 40 × 103 times the respirator assigned protection factor. We were unable to measure clear differences in the PPF of respirators with old and new filters, among two male and one female user, or assess most penetrating particle size. This study shows that the loose-fitting powered air purifying respirator provides very efficient protection against nanoparticle inhalation exposure if used properly. © 2015, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

Summary From early March 2003 to late May 2003, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) was detected in Singapore. The increase in workload and new infection control procedures were thought to affect resuscitation and airway management. Our aim was to study the effects of wearing of personal protective equipment (PPE) and powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) and the restriction in the number of resuscitation personnel on airway management during the SARS crisis. Data was collected prospectively through an ongoing emergency airway registry. The data was divided into three periods: (1) before PPE was instituted from 1 November 2002 to 31 March 2003; (2) during SARS (when PPE use was mandatory) from 1 April to 31 July 2003; (3) post-SARs (when PPE use was non-mandatory but encouraged) from 1 August to 31 March 2004. There was no change in patient demographics during the three periods. There were significant increases in the proportion of resuscitation cases and airway interventions during the SARS period compared to the pre-SARS period. The resident medical officer intubation rate decreased from 45.1% pre-SARS to 35.2% during SARS and 17.7% post-SARS. The complication rates were 10.5%, 9.9% and 9.4% in periods 1–3, respectively. Restriction in the number of healthcare staff attending to each patient may have influenced the department's decision to allow only the most confident or experienced personnel to manage the airway. The exposure of junior medical officers in emergency airway management during SARS and the immediate post-SARS period was decreased. This trend should be monitored further and intervention may be necessary should it continue to decline.

At this time in Japan, buildings built about 40 to 50 years ago are aging, and demands for demolition or renewal are increasing. Asbestos materials were used in many parts, and for many purposes in these buildings. But now, using asbestos and asbestos containing materials is prohibited by law, because its toxicity has been confirmed around the world. Therefore all trace of asbestos must be removed safety and properly in advance of demolishing or renewing any old building. Works to scrape asbestos by human workers are very hard and dangerous. The workers have to wear protective suits and full facepiece powered air purifying respirator, and the working space must be completely isolated in order to prevent the leak of any asbestos fibers. We have developed a robot system for removing asbestos sprayed on steel beams or elsewhere to reduce manual work. This research and development was started in 2007, and the system has been evolved gradually through many experiments in our laboratory. The most recent robot system consists of a multi-DOF manipulator mounted on a vehicle with a lifting platform, vacuum suction unit, and manipulator control unit. The tool for scraping asbestos is a rotary wire brush, which is driven by a strong electric motor, and is set on the end of the manipulator. The scraped and ground asbestos is automatically sucked into a special bag by air. We have tested this robot system on an actual demolition site. As a result, we have confirmed the practical problems and evaluated the efficiency.

A study was performed at the Arvida Works of Alcan to determine the suitability of a helmeted Powered Air Purifying Respirator (PAPR) in a primary aluminum smelting plant using the horizontal stud Soderberg process. Participants in the test program were worker volunteers drawn from various jobs performed by the anode crews. The research protocol was developed to complement the work methodologies used by Alcan with as little change as possible in their work schedules. Half the crews wore dual cartridge half-mask negative pressure respirators and the other half wore helmeted PAPRs. The dual cartridge half-mask negative pressure respirators were equipped with organic vapors/acid gas cartridges and dust/mist/fumes or dust/mist prefilters; the PAPRs were equipped with organic vapors/HEPA filter cartridges. B(a)P was selected as the measurable contaminant. Under the conditions of this study—that is, strict adherence to the test protocol—we found that 95 percent of the Workplace Protection Factors (also...