Inter-panel variability has never been investigated. The objective of this study was to determine the variability between different anthropometric panels used to determine the inward leakage (IL) of N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) and elastomeric half-mask respirators (EHRs). A total of 144 subjects, who were both experienced and non-experienced N95 FFR users, were recruited. Five N95 FFRs and five N95 EHRs were randomly selected from among those models tested previously in our laboratory. The PortaCount(→) Pro+ (without N95-Companion) was used to measure IL of the ambient particles with a detectable size range of 0.02 to 1 µm. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard fit test exercises were used for this study. IL test were performed for each subject using each of the 10 respirators. Each respirator/subject combination was tested in duplicate, resulting in a total 20 IL tests for each subject. Three 35-member panels were randomly selected without replacement from the 144 study subjects stratified by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) bivariate panel cell for conducting statistical analyses. The geometric mean (GM) IL values for all 10 studied respirators were not significantly different among the three randomly selected 35-member panels. Passing rate was not significantly different among the three panels for all respirators combined or by each model. This was true for all IL pass/fail levels of 1%, 2% and 5%. Using 26 or more subjects to pass the IL test, all three panels had consistent passing/failing results for pass/fail levels of 1% and 5%. Some disagreement was observed for the 2% pass/fail level. Inter-panel variability exists, but it is small relative to the other sources of variation in fit testing data. The concern about inter-panel variability and other types of variability can be alleviated by properly selecting: pass/fail level (IL 1% to 5%); panel size (e.g., 25 or 35); and minimum number of subjects required to pass (e.g., 26 of 35 or 23 of 35).
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 April 2017.
All research outputs
#8,055,353
of 24,208,207 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
#417
of 970 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,547
of 283,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
#7
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,208,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 970 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.4. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 283,310 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
