logo
Call us: +44 (0)1865 244727

  • Home
  • Scope
  • News
  • Products
    • RADAR
    • CALL-OFF PROJECTS
  • Clients
  • Contact
  • How we work
    • Independent
      • Common law orthodoxies
      • Sensationalism
      • Expert witness
      • Regulation and Politics
      • Tied services
    • Up-to-date
      • Timely
      • Insurance Scenarios
      • Probabilistic Methods
    • Expert
      • Personal Injury
      • Trends
    • Innovative
  • Database
    • Member’s login
    • Member’s Settings
    • Register
    • RADAR Database
  • Recent projects
    • EMFs
    • STRESS AT WORK
    • WHIPLASH
    • WELDING RODS: MANGANESE EXPOSURE
    • ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE
    • Other Projects



2006: Do standard face masks work for nanoparticles?

Jul 04, 2012
by Andrew@Reliabilityoxford.co.uk
0 Comment

Standard N95 face mask dust filters were found not to perform well enough against particles < 100 nm effective diameter.

Evidence from:

A Balazy et al. Ann. Occup. Hyg. (2006)Vol. 50(3) p. 259–269
“Manikin-Based Performance Evaluation of N95 Filtering-Facepiece Respirators Challenged with Nanoparticles”

N95 filters were tested for their ability to exclude nano particles (sodium chloride). Standard procedures require that penetration in excess of 5% be regarded as failure.

Particle diameters ranged from10 to 300 nm diameters with a mode at 30 nm. At flow rates of 85 l/min there was significant penetration of nanoparticles. Penetration was reduced for the so-called high fit masks. There were no failures at 30 l/min. Penetration peaked at 40 to 50 nm.

30 l /min represents light work load, 85l/min represents heavy work load. Filters must pass the 85l/min condition.

Comment
The N95 filters tested here were, by current standards, not adequate.

The question that is not answered is whether or not current standards are the right standards for nano particle exposure.  In particular, for which size of nanoparticle is protection needed?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

*
*

captcha *

Search Documents


Categories

  • Causation
    • de minimis
    • material contribution
  • Date of knowledge
  • Diagnosis
  • Duty of Care
  • Exposure estimation data
  • Mitigation
  • Motor related injury
  • News
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • November 2020
  • January 2020
  • November 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • April 2018
  • November 2017
  • July 2017
  • April 2017
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • November 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • July 2014
  • April 2014
  • February 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012

© Re: Liability (Oxford) Ltd. 2012. All rights reserved.
Website Design by The Big Picture