Comparison of Filtration Efficiency and Pressure Drop in Anti-Yellow Sand Masks, Quarantine Masks, Medical Masks, General Masks, and Handkerchiefs

Particulate respirators have been used in both general environments and in the workplace. Despite the existence of certified respirators for workers, no strict regulations exist for masks worldwide. The aims of this study were to evaluate the filter efficiency of various mask types using the Korean...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Aerosol and Air Quality Research 2014, Vol.14 (3), p.991-1002
Hauptverfasser: Jung, Hyejung, Kim, Jongbo, Lee, Seungju, Lee, Jinho, Kim, Jooyoun, Tsai, Perngjy, Yoon, Chungsik
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Particulate respirators have been used in both general environments and in the workplace. Despite the existence of certified respirators for workers, no strict regulations exist for masks worldwide. The aims of this study were to evaluate the filter efficiency of various mask types using the Korean Food and Drug Administration (KFDA) [similar to the European Union (EU) protocol] and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) protocol and to compare the test results. We tested a total of 44 mask brands of four types (anti-yellow sand, medical, quarantine, general) and handkerchiefs with a TSI 8130 Automatic Filter Tester. A wide variation of penetration and pressure drops was observed by mask types. The overall mean penetration and pressure drop of all tested masks were respectively 35.6 ± 34.7%, 2.7 ± 1.4 mm H 2 O with the KFDA protocol, and 35.1 ± 35.7%, 10.6 ± 5.88 mm H 2 O with the NIOSH protocol. All tested quarantine masks satisfied the KFDA criterion of 6%. Six-ninths and four-sevenths of the anti-yellow sand masks for adults and children satisfied the criterion of 20%, respectively. Medical masks, general masks, and handkerchiefs were found to provide little protection against respiratory aerosols.
ISSN:1680-8584
2071-1409
DOI:10.4209/aaqr.2013.06.0201