To assess the physiological impact of the N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) on healthcare workers.
METHODS:
Ten healthcare workers each conducted multiple 1-hour treadmill walking sessions, at 1.7 miles/h, and at 2.5 miles/h, while wearing FFR with exhalation valve, FFR without exhalation valve, and without FFR (control session). We monitored heart rate, respiratory rate, tidal volume, minute volume, blood oxygen saturation, and transcutaneously measured PCO2. We also measured user comfort and exertion, FFR moisture retention, and the carbon dioxide and oxygen concentrations in the FFR's dead space.
RESULTS:
There were no significant differences between FFR and control in the physiological variables, exertion scores, or comfort scores. There was no significant difference in moisture retention between FFR with and without exhalation valve. Two subjects had peak PCO2 ≥ 50 mm Hg. The FFR with exhalation valve offered no benefit in physiological burden over the FFR without valve. The FFR dead-space oxygen and carbon dioxide levels did not meet the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's ambient workplace standards.
CONCLUSIONS:
In healthy healthcare workers, FFR did not impose any important physiological burden during 1 hour of use, at realistic clinical work rates, but the FFR dead-space carbon dioxide and oxygen levels were significantly above and below, respectively, the ambient workplace standards, and elevated PCO2 is a possibility. Exhalation valve did not significantly ameliorate the FFR's PCO2 impact.
EberhardP. The design, use, and results of transcutaneous carbon dioxide analysis: current and future directions. Anaesth Analg, 2007; 105(6):S48–S52.
4.
NeedJT, MothersheadJL. Strategic national stockpile program: implications for military medicine. Mil Med, 2006; 171(8):698–702.
5.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Respiratory protection: 29 CFR 1910.134. Washington: Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration; 1998.
6.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Laboratory performance evaluation of N95 filtering facepiece respirators, 1996. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 1998; 47(48):1045–1049.
7.
AinsworthBE, HaskellWL, WhittMC, IrwinML, SwartzAM, StrathSJ, et al. Compendium of physical activities: an update of activity codes and MET intensities. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2000; 32(9):S498–S516.
8.
LiY, TokuraH, GuoYP, WongAS, WongT, ChungJ, NewtonE. Effects of wearing N95 and surgical facemasks on heart rate, thermal stress and subjective sensations. Int Arch Occup Environ Health, 2005; 78:501–509.
9.
GuoYP, YiL, TokuraH, WongTK, ChungJWY, GohelMD, et al. Evaluation on masks with exhaust valves and with exhaust holes from physiological and subjective responses. J Physiol Anthropol, 2008; 27(2):93–102.
10.
MatthewsJI. Exercise responses during incremental and high intensity and low intensity steady state exercise in patients with obstructive lung disease and normal control subjects. Chest, 1989(1):96:11–17.
11.
SzekelyJ, AskanaziJ, RosenbaumSH, FosterR, Milic-EmiliJ, KinneyJM. Ventilatory patterns during steady state and progressive exercise. Clin Physiol, 1982; 2:391–400.
12.
BryceE, ForresterL, ScharfS, EshghpourM. What do healthcare workers think? A survey of facial protection equipment user preferences. J Hosp Infect, 2008; 68(3):241–247.
13.
BorgG. Borg's perceived exertion and pain scales. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 1998:49.
14.
AndersonCA, AndersonKB, DeuserWE. Examining an affective aggression framework: weapon and temperature effects on aggressive thoughts, affect, and attitudes. Person Social Psychol Bull, 1996; 22(4):366–376.
15.
SzeinukJ, BeckettWS, ClarkN, HailooWL. Medical evaluation for respirator use. Am J Ind Med, 2000; 37(1):142–157.
16.
JonesJG. The physiological cost of wearing a disposable respirator. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J, 1991; 52(6):219–225.
17.
KaoTW, HuangKC, HuangYL, TsaiTJ, HsiehBS, WuMS. The physiological impact of wearing an N95 mask during hemodialysis as a precaution against SARS in patients with end-stage renal disease. J Formos Med Assoc, 2004; 103(8):624–628.
18.
SaatciE, MillerDM, StellIM, LeeKC, MoxhamJ. Dynamic dead space in face masks used with noninvasive ventilators: a lung model study. Eur Respir J, 2004; 23(1):129–135.
19.
LafertyEA, McKayRT. Physiologic effects and measurement of carbon dioxide and oxygen levels during qualitative respirator fit testing. J Chem Health Safe, 2006; 13:22–28.
20.
KayeJ, BuchananF, KendrickA, JohnsonP, LowryC, BaileyJ, et al. Acute carbon dioxide exposure in healthy adults: evaluation of a novel means of investigating a stress response. J Neuroendocrinol, 2004; 16(3):256–264.
21.
BederA, BüyükkoçakU, SabuncuoğluH, KeskilZA, KeskilS. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia (Astur), 2008; 19(2):121–126.
22.
CarettiD, CoyneKM. Unmanned assessment of respirator carbon dioxide levels: comparison of methods of measurement. J Occup Environ Hyg, 2008; 5(5):305–312.
23.
Prevention Division, Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia. SARS: respiratory protection. Richmond, BC, Canada; June23, 2003.
24.
HuangJT, JuangVT. Evaluation of the efficiency of medical masks and the creation of new medical masks. J Intern Med Research, 2007; 35(2):213–223.
25.
HarberP, BeckJ, BrownC, LuoJ. Physiologic and subjective effects of respirator mask type. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J, 1991; 52(9):357–362.
26.
KhawKS, KeeWDN, TamYH, WongMK, LeeSWY. Survey and evaluation of modified oxygen delivery devices used for suspected severe acute respiratory syndrome and other high-risk patients in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Med J, 2008; 14(5 Suppl):27–31.
27.
LiY, WongT, ChungJ, GuoYP, HuJY, GuanYT, et al. In vivo protective performance of N95 respirator and surgical facemask. Am J Ind Med, 2006; 49(12):1056–1065.
28.
RadonovichLJJr., ChengJ, ShenalBV, HodgsonM, BenderBS. Respirator tolerance in health care workers. JAMA, 2009; 301(1):36–38.
29.
HarberP, BansalS, SantiagoS, LiuD, YunD, NgD, et al. Multidomain subjective response to respirator use during simulated work. J Occup Environ Med, 2009; 51(1):38–45.
30.
SpratleyE, JohnsonA, SochalskiJ, FritzM, SpencerW. The registered nurse population: findings from the national sample survey of registered nurses: March 2000. US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Service Administration, Bureau of Health Professions, Division of Nursing. ftp://ftp.hrsa.gov/bhpr/rnsurvey2000/rnsurvey00.pdf. Accessed February 22, 2010.
31.
ClarenbachCF, SennO, BrackT, KohlerM, BlochKE. Monitoring of ventilation during exercise by a portable respiratory inductive plethysmograph. Chest, 2005; 128(3):1282–1290.
32.
WittJD, FisherJR, GuenetteJA, CheongKA, WilsonBJ, SheelAW. Measurement of exercise ventilation by a portable respiratory inductive plethysmograph. Respir Physiol Neurobiol, 2006; 154(3):389–395.
33.
FiammaMN, SamaraZ, BaconnierP, SimilowskiT, StrausC. Respiratory inductive plethysmography to assess respiratory variability and complexity in humans. Respir Physiol Neurobiol, 2007; 156(2):234–239.
34.
RosnerV, HannhartB, ChabotF, PoluJM. Validity of transcutaneous oxygen/carbon dioxide pressure measurement in the monitoring of mechanical ventilation in stable chronic respiratory failure. Eur Respir J, 1999; 13(5):1044–1047.
35.
CarterR, BanhamSW. Use of transcutaneous oxygen and carbon dioxide tensions for assessing indices of gas exchange during exercise testing. Respir Med, 2000; 94(4):350–355.
36.
SridharMK, CarterR, MoranF, BanhamSW. Use of a combined oxygen and carbon dioxide transcutaneous electrode in the estimation of gas exchange during exercise. Thorax, 1993; 48(6):643–647.
37.
StegeG, van den ElshoutFJ, HeijdraYF, van de VenMJ, DekhuijzenPN, VosPJ. Accuracy of transcutaneous carbon dioxide tension measurements during cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Respiration, 2009; 78(2):147–153.
38.
PlanesC, LeroyM, ForayE, RaffestinB. Arterial blood gases during exercise: validity of transcutaneous measurements. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2001; 82(12):1686–1691.
