Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McCullough, N. V.
Right arrow Articles by Vesley, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by McCullough, N. V.
Right arrow Articles by Vesley, D.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Ann. occup. Hyg., Vol. 41, No. 6, pp. 677-690, 1997
© 1997 British Occupational Hygiene Society
Published by Oxford University Press


research-article

COLLECTION OF THREE BACTERIAL AEROSOLS BY RESPIRATOR AND SURGICAL MASK FILTERS UNDER VARYING CONDITIONS OF FLOW AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY

N. V. McCullough, L. M. Brosseau and D. Vesley

University of Minnesota, School of Public Health, Division of Environmental and Occupational Health 420 Delaware Street SE, UMHC Box 807, Minneapolis MN 55455, U.S.A.

A variety of respirator filters and surgical masks were challenged with three aerosolized bacteria: Mycobacterium abscessus (M.a.) (a rod), Staphylococcus epidermidis (S.e.) (a sphere), and Bacillus subtilis (B.s.) (a rod). Tests were conducted at two flow rates (45 and 85 1./min) and two humidity levels (30 and 70%). Aerosols were measured with a total-particle, direct-reading, spectrometer and a viable particle cascade impactor. Measurements up- and downstream of the filter or mask were used in determining aerosol penetration; respirator or surgical mask fit was not evaluated.

Bioaerosol penetration measured with two aerosol sampling instruments was found to correlate. Additionally, bioaerosol test parameters were evaluated with respect to their effect on penetration. Increasing flow resulted in increased penetration of all organisms while an increase in relative humidity did not exert a consistent effect on all organisms. Of the respirators approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), filter efficiency was as expected with dust/mist respirators having the lowest and HEPA filters the highest efficiency. Surgical masks were the least efficient of all filters tested; these are not certified by NIOSH.

Bioaerosol penetration was compared to that of a polystyrene latex sphere (PSL) aerosol. Penetration of the test aerosols was predicted on the basis of particle aerodynamic diameter and was expected to be in this order: PSL > M.a. > S.e. = B.s. The PSL aerosol was the most penetrating, as predicted. However, results showed that B.s. was more penetrating than S.e. The aerodynamic diameter may not be the best parameter for predicting aerosol penetration of nonspherical particles in these filters © 1997 British Occupational Hygiene Society. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JAMAHome page
M. Loeb, N. Dafoe, J. Mahony, M. John, A. Sarabia, V. Glavin, R. Webby, M. Smieja, D. J. D. Earn, S. Chong, et al.
Surgical Mask vs N95 Respirator for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Workers: A Randomized Trial
JAMA, November 4, 2009; 302(17): 1865 - 1871.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ANN OCCUP HYGHome page
A. BALAZY, M. TOIVOLA, T. REPONEN, A. PODGORSKI, A. ZIMMER, and S. A. GRINSHPUN
Manikin-Based Performance Evaluation of N95 Filtering-Facepiece Respirators Challenged with Nanoparticles
Ann. Hyg., April 1, 2006; 50(3): 259 - 269.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.