Introduction: This study aimed to determine if disposable filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) that come with an exhalation valve (EV) and a novel active venting system (AVS) provided greater perceived comfort and exertion when compared to standard N95 FFRs without these features among male military personnel performing prolonged essential outdoor duties.
Methods: We used a randomised open-label controlled crossover study design to compare three FFR options: (a) standard FFR; (b) FFR with EV; and (c) FFR with EV+AVS. Male military personnel aged between 18 and 20 years completed a questionnaire at the start of outdoor duty (baseline), after two hours of standardised non-strenuous outdoor duty and after 12 hours of duty divided into two-hour work-rest cycles. Participants rated the degree of discomfort, exertion and symptoms using a five-point Likert scale. The association between outcomes and types of FFR was assessed using a multivariate ordered probit mixed-effects model.
Results: For a majority of the symptoms, study participants gave FFR with EV and FFR EV+AVS significantly better scores than standard FFR. Both FFR with EV and FFR with EV+AVS had significantly less discomfort (FFR with EV+AVS: 91.1%; FFR with EV: 57.6%) and exertion (FFR with EV+AVS: 83.5%; FFR with EV: 34.4%) than standard FFR. FFR with EV+AVS also had significantly better scores for exertion (53.4%) and comfort (39.4%) when compared to FFR with EV.
Conclusion: Usage of FFR with EV+AVS resulted in significantly reduced symptoms, discomfort and exertion when compared to FFR with EV and standard FFR.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6024212 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2017054 | DOI Listing |
Singapore Med J
June 2018
Biodefence Centre, Force Medical Protection Command, Singapore Armed Forces Medical Corps, Singapore.
Introduction: This study aimed to determine if disposable filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) that come with an exhalation valve (EV) and a novel active venting system (AVS) provided greater perceived comfort and exertion when compared to standard N95 FFRs without these features among male military personnel performing prolonged essential outdoor duties.
Methods: We used a randomised open-label controlled crossover study design to compare three FFR options: (a) standard FFR; (b) FFR with EV; and (c) FFR with EV+AVS. Male military personnel aged between 18 and 20 years completed a questionnaire at the start of outdoor duty (baseline), after two hours of standardised non-strenuous outdoor duty and after 12 hours of duty divided into two-hour work-rest cycles.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!