Jump to content

Talk:Respirator/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

confusion respirator vs ventilator

It's very easy to confuse a respirator and a ventilator, and a Wikipedia editor has, in fact, done this very thing.

  • A respirator is a device that protects the wearer from harmful gases, fumes, or particulates in the atmosphere.
  • A ventilator is a mechanical breathing device used in health care to provide respiratory support, or to breath for someone.

Please do not confuse the two meanings. Ariel Sharon is on a ventilator, not a respirator.

I'm in the process of removing links to this page that should have gone to ventilator. After that, I'll redirect gas mask here because gas masks are called respirators by everyone who actually wears one in the course of their employment. Then I'll improve this article to include full face, half face, SCBA, and the like. ddlamb 08:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Is "respirator" really used instead of "gas mask" by soldiers, haz-mat workers, and miners too? I am not sure about this myself and think it worth confirming. What other occupations are you considering? If it is indeed the case then perhaps practicality justifies completely subsuming gas mask into respirator and not the other respirator types as referred to below. -Onceler 23:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they are really called respirators, at least by chemical industry employees and hazmat workers. The face mask is only one part of the respirator – in fact, Scott's facepieces are designed to be used with both cartridges and with SCBA, saving money and time. OSHA also refers to the device as a 'respirator' – I can't think of an instance in my career – and I've fit more than 1,000 chemical workers, hazmat technicians, and firefighters with respirators – where one of them used the term 'gas mask,' but I could be wrong. I'm not experienced with military terminology, except to say that the Navy and Army webpages I'm using for research use 'respirator' also. - ddlamb 03:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding proposed merge of respirator with gas mask article

This might be feasible but respirator is more general, including both particulate and gas filtration functions whereas a gas mask is specialized for gases. Other stuff is also already out there that could also be merged--a brief look around spotted filter mask and SCBA. The closely-related SCUBA article, though the hardware is specialized for underwater use, is also quite developed in its own right. Should everything be brought under one article? If not, how about some adequately well-rounded treatment of general gas filtration personal protection technologies under respirator with a "main article" reference to gas mask instead? -Onceler 20:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

(I've reconsidered my previous comments as I had misunderstood the merge template, having overlooked "talk" comments--I had read it already but recalled only the part about ventilators. I misunderstood that the intention was for the respirator article to be subsumed into gas mask. -Onceler 23:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC))

I think we're on the same page, and I want to be sure:
  • Bring the content of gas mask into this article and redirect 'gas mask' here.
  • Keep articles like filter mask and SCBA as 'main articles' to which we'll link in their appropriate sections in this respirator article.
  • Briefly discuss filtration technologies used in PPE, such as HEPA and absorption, linking to the appropriate entries as we go, using the original articles as 'main entries' if necessary.
  • I'm not sure what to do about SCUBA – I hadn't thought about it, but I will. My first reaction is to leave it as is and just mention it in the SCBA section as an offshoot of that technology, but I'll think on it some more.
If that sounds good, I'll proceed, and I'm grateful for the help! I've been doing some offline research, and I'm also working with the content of the gas mask article. I should be ready to put it up in the next few days or so. I'm done with vacation for a while also, so I'll be here at least every other day for the next few weeks. Hopefully we'll get this knocked out pretty quickly now. - ddlamb 03:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, boys and girls, we're making progress. However, after finally getting my industrial hygiene books out and seeing how they treat classification, I've changed the 'modern respiratory technology' section to a slightly different classification system. I've also changed the introduction to reflect two, not three, types of respirators. I wrote that on the fly and for some odd reason my brain put SCBA as a third type, and of course it isn't. Respirators either purify the air or they give you a supply of fresh air. Don't you just love research? And eating your words? :) - ddlamb 07:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Your new categorization system is much clearer. Generally I agree with the 4 bullets above but would add some comments about the gas mask article that might make life easier later on and be better for the Wikipedia consumer.

Regarding what should stay in gas mask: There is a lot of what I could only describe as non-technical/cultural content in that article that is probably best left where it is and which is also part of a category related to headgear such as hats and turbans. It is referred to in the article protective clothing. I didn't see respirator on there the last time I looked.

Regarding what should move over to respirator: Looking a little closer at that article, lots of the technical content is not really specific to the filtering of gases as much as things which include gases, but more crucially, that are gas-borne. I am also not sure if some of the technical stuff is a little misleading so some copy edit of it within the more general context of the respirator article is probably a good idea. Otherwise, I think it has good technical content which does really belong in this article.

How about a revised/shorter gas mask article with a see-also or wiki-link reference in respirator (for the odd person who might conceivably be looking for a costume ball get-up)? -Onceler 22:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Oil resistance

The table on different respirator ratings is very useful, but I don't understand what the importance of oil resistance is. The word "oil" isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. Could someone explain this? --LostLeviathan 22:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, it relates to the integrity and effectiveness of the filter with regard to oily particulate matter in the air stream. This has application in environments where oily substances are aerosolized--paint sprays, exhausts, etc. I didn't see any mention of oil in the particulate article either for that matter. As to how the oil affects the filter, I have not been able to find specific details. My guess is that certain filter structures such as fine meshes can deteriorate if exposed to oil somehow in ways that they don't for other things. Here is a link with some general discussion of this: http://ehso.com/RespProtectionSCAir.htm. -Onceler 08:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to add that, in the case of paint sprays, the P-grade filter alone only suffices if the particulates don't also emit vapors, which is often the case. Accordingly, one commonly augments the mechanical filter with a vapor filter/cartridge of some kind. -Onceler 08:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Is anybody still discussing this? In my job, I have had to use respirators in the weirdest of environments over the years (you wouldnt beleive... OSHA doesn't have any of them categorized), but I come from a science background and have a different perspective anyways (not better, just different). In any case, the term "oil" is misleading but in use for all airborne organic contaminants in the industry. Solvent vapors are not oil (oil = hydrocarbon mixture). There are two main adsorbents used for actual oil: activated charcoal, and aluminium beads, often in series (the latter has a high capacity, the former takes out the rest) - sometimes also just mechanical filters (coarse mesh, the oil aerosol impacts on the strands) such as also used in oil traps for generators. -Carboxen 12:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Could the use of the term "oil" be because this is a worst case or practical test substance for these products? If so, all target pollutants might just get associated with the term "oil" in the often informal circles of industry, regardless of whether they are used for oil or not. After all, oil would provide among the densest fluid particles without the benefit of evaporation, such that any filter could really get gunked up with them. I suspect that if one can qualify the worst culprit for an application, the messy job of categorization, could be just neatly waived. I always associated the carbon filter with volatile filtrants, which would be another neat way to address "the rest". Thanks for your perspective on this. I have not been able to find much specific regulation information either myself. -Onceler 00:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Modern particle filters are widely used electrostatic charging of the fibers for efficient capture of fine dust, it is most dangerous. The fibers are charged at manufacturing and can hold a charge for years. But when you capture some aerosols (e.g. oil) charge is neutralized, and the degree of air purification from fine particles can be reduced - many times. Therefore, in the presence of airborne dust and oil mist (for example, it may be produced when cutting metal when using cooling lubricants) must be properly chosen filters. AlexChirkin (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Filter mask

I can see that this has been proposed in the past, but I can't see any decent deliniation between this article and Filter mask. I also see that Dust mask has since been redirected to Filter mask. I don't believe there is much information in the filter mask article that is not already contained here. Unless someone can firmly define and separate these two terms (without finding some sources, if I were to try, it'd just be speculation on my part), Filter mask may as well just be a redirect -Verdatum 16:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree: It looks to me like gas mask (gas filtration) and filter mask (particulate filtration) are practically the 2 specialized or emphasized forms of respirator. The only reason I can think of to merge filter mask but not gas mask is the first of these has significantly less content. I am willing to bet that more could be added from the side of medical concerns though. That said, I would support a merge. There aren't many links to redirect (less than 50), but I think there are already a good number of double redirects there--that's what it means when "what links here" lists sub-bulleted items, right? -Onceler 00:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Right, the fact that Gas mask actually appears to have some real content is why I didn't bother proposing (or rather reproposing) merging it in. It makes a clear diliniation that gas mask is concerning the military applications, and personally, for the time being, I'm just fine with that. With Filter mask however, I can't figure out at all what the difference is. -Verdatum 06:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a side note what was called a "respirator" is simply a filter. The term respirator has been widely misused. Respiration means exchange of gases which in our time do not have the technology to produce artificial respiration. So wearing a "respirator" is implying that the device exchanges gas and in fact it doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.222.27 (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's true if all words retain the meaning associated with the word from which they are derived. But a name, like "respirator," is merely a designation pointing to a specific, agreed-up refferent. In this case, one correct and widely used meaning is the device that filters breathing air or provides clean air from another location. The fact that "respiration" includes a connotation of gas exchange really has no bearing on what a respirator is. The term "gas mask" was applied first because of its use against poison gas in WWI, but the term "respirator" has become the more general and technical term during the last 30-40 years, at least in the US. By the way, a respirator need not have any filtration capability at all. Respirators include the air-supply type such as air-line respirator and SCBA. Neither type filters; both types provide clean are permitting continued respiration in an otherwise contaminated environment. Pzavon (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Filter masks are a type of respirators. Ginbot86 (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright,  Done. I used a selective merge process as much of the content in filter mask was redundant (and usually inferior) to this article. Like the picture though :) -Verdatum (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Stenhouse

Can someone find a more academically sound source for this person. All I have found is an empty wiki article and articles that reference this one for his invention. The only link (www33.brinkster.com) has already been determined to not be an acceptable source.

"I've looked at some of the Brinkster stuff and the Brinkster links don't look suitable for Wikipedia under WP:RS and WP:EL, Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources and external links. To the extent that US patents are appropriate for the articles, they can be linked directly from the patent office or using the Template:US-patent template. The Brinkster links should be removed and I'd like to ask the folks reinserting them to please cool it; see the RS and EL guideline pages linked above for advice about when and what to link. 75.62.6.237 01:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)"

BFritzen (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid your comment is a bit out of context. What is the claim you want to make, what is the exact source that has been argued as unreliable, what/where is that 2007 quote from? Who/what is stenhouse? If it is a person, what is the full name? Looking at your edits, the issues of linking to a wikipedia article may be in reference to a claim about Nikolay Zelinsky. If so, I've found a source for that on Google Books [1].
Also, there is nothing explicitly wrong with using sources that fail WP:RS. It should be avoided, but if it is the best that can be found, and it is not dubious, it can remain until something better is uncovered.
Concerning WP:EL, that guideline has nothing to do with using links within references, only for using external links in the body of the project (which generally should only occur in the "External links" section). -Verdatum (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Discrepency in the history of the respirator

On this page, it traces the history back to a 16th century Da Vinci invention.

On the gas mask page, it takes the gas mask back to sponges used by Greeks & also mentions a 9th century invention for working in wells.

On the Plague doctor costume page, it calls the 14th century invention an early respirator.

Are these things not important to the history of the respirator as well?

Skullsplitterjulian (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"Educational textbook"

what the hell is with this section? whoever wrote it went comma happy on the first sentence; it just reads bad. And furthermore, should this really even be in a wiki article? Some of them are already in the references section for god's sake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.75.244 (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Respirator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Particles breathed in from filters: the elephant in the room question

I can't see any info in the article about the "elephant in the room" question for ordinary commuter/cyclist anti-pollution masks - what's the point of blocking out 2.5-micron particles from the ambient air if you breathe in possibly carcinogenic fibreglass particles from the mask itself? How is it possible not to breathe in fibreglass threads/particles from a fibreglass mask if it's directly in front of your nose and mouth?

Can it really be possible that there's no research on the permissible exposure limits (or European equivalent) of fibreglass particles that are typically breathed in from HEPA masks? Any relevant info would be good to add to this Wikipedia article... Boud (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Boud, Do you have any reliable references indicating that fibreglass particles are in fact typically inhaled from these masks? Before we discuss the elephant, we need evidence that there is an elephant to discuss.
The HEPA filters use glass fibres, from what little I know about the filters they are continuous spun random fibres forming a mat. Not small particulates. There is no obvious reason why they should break up into inhalable particles in normal service, and it is not apparent that there is no barrier layer between the fibreglass filter mat and the wearer, so relatively large pieces of fibre are likely to be trapped by the inner barrier if this exists. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Peter - Both my questions in my first paragraph have if in them, and the third question is meant in the sense of research concerning the typical number, whether that number is close to zero or high enough to be measurable or to be a health concern. In my mind, the "elephant" clearly is there as a reasonable question to ask. Whether the elephant exists or not is what I (we) lack reliable sources for.
Since plastics, including plastic water bottles, that are not created as particulates can and do degrade to a small degree into microplastics, I don't see why glass fibres should not to some degree degrade into micron scale particles. Are silicon chains really more robust than carbon chains? Water tends to help almost any material in ordinary Earth surface temperature/pressure/density conditions degrade, and these filters almost constantly will be exposed to the user's breath. It sounds to me like an empirical question, not something easy to calculate from first principles. Set up a fan blowing water vapour through a wearable HEPA filter with the speed/pressure/temperature expected from a human wearer for 100 hours or so and set up ... another filter to collect any broken off particles. Also add some greases typical of the human skin to the filter to simulate how this could affect degradation.
As for a barrier, in the model mask that I have (from a producer that looks professional, claims testing according to European standards, sets prices at the higher end of the range, has an intelligent-looking well-organised website), the filter appears to be homogeneous - with no barrier between itself and the wearer.
I appreciate your assertion that the fibres should not break in normal service :) - but some empirical research results are what would be needed for this article. Plastic water bottles in normal usage should not contain microplastics either... Boud (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
If you find any published empirical research results, let me know, I am interested.
In my somewhat limited experience, glass fibres are remarkably stable, but my experience is more with glass as a reinforcing material in a structural matrix than as a filter element. Neverthelwss I would be somewhat hesitant to wear glass fibres directly against my skin, as abrasion might break off the exposed fibres and end up with the ends irritating the skin. This can be severely itchy. Spun polymer mat is visually almost identical to spun glass mat. A sandwich of glass between polymer layers might not be obvious, but without data I would not stick my neck out.
Silica is one of the most common materials on Earth, (and one of the most stable in water and UV). Maybe the filters produce an average particulate level of silica that is less than normal ambient air, by taking out more than they add in. It would be interesting to know.
Have you tried requesting information from the manufacturer? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. It's true that rocks are typically rather hard - erosion time scales are, I guess, typically Myr, not yr - and glass is ubiquitous in chemistry labs as a usually unreactive (but brittle) substance. :) I contacted the distributor (not the manufacturer directly) - I asked about references to research info, not any legal guarantee, to reduce the chance that the distributor is worried about health liability claims. We'll see... Boud (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I received a reply: the filters "are not made from fibreglass" and any information beyond that is "commercially sensitive". So it's up to consumers' associations and government health agencies to do proper scientific testing. (And/or lawyers/politicians to plug legal gaps that apparently allow producers to not publish product composition for health related gear. Or to start legal cases based on existing law.) The first of these options would be the most constructive. Nothing usable in the email reply for this Wikipedia article, in any case. Boud (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
My guess would be that the filters are made from spun polyester fibres or similar, which do not last as long as glass, but also do not typically break up under bending loads. It is quite probable that there is testing data available for the masks from a licenced third party laboratory as well as the manufacturer's QA laboratories if you wanted to query it. If the masks are sold as tested to a specified standard it is generally the case that they really are tested to that standard. Anyway, looks like no elephant here folks. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Could you give me a link to the specific filters you are concerned about? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

In case anyone is still concerned, in the US the respirators are typically tested using equipment that would detect any particles- not just the salt test challenge, but also any fiberglass or plastic particles. https://www.tsi.com/getmedia/55d5d5f8-df43-4513-8ea8-33ccf61e956d/8127-8130_1931214_USA_web?ext=.pdf Drottach (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Propose new section re problems with demand due to the COVID-19 crisis in 2019-2020

I would like to add a section to this article to document the current increased demand for face masks, due to the current outbreak of Covid 19. this is an notable subject, as per WP:GNG, with plenty of Reliable sources. I am providing a set of links below to notable news coverage of this topic. I will also provide some draft text below. but this is simply a nutshell, capsule version of what would go in the article itself. once this is added to the article, I would seek to provide more detail within the actual entry.

Here is possible draft text. Open to any feed back on this. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm joining in. I've already signalled it to increase the level of importance of related articles, thx SvenAERTS (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft Text

As a result of the coronavirus outbreak of 2019-2020 demand rose dramatically in early 2020 for face masks. the public began to seek to purchase face masks for protection against the virus which was widely reported as being highly contagious. Numerous sellers, both online sellers and retail sellers, reported dramatic shortages of this product. the FDA and CDC sought to discourage widespread purchases of these products by the general public, citing the need for these items to be kept on hand for use by healthcare professionals, whose vital work brought them into much higher risk of catching any such virus. However, regardless of any official warnings, the public exhibited great consumer demand for these products. experts warned that demand for these products might actually exceed the industrial capacity to produce these. businesses looked at various options, such as placing an upper limit on the amount of items to be sold to ordinary individuals seeking to purchase these. there was also concern about meeting demand from local governments, various official agencies, and various healthcare organizations, as it proved to be difficult to logistically ensure that a full supply would be available.

Self made masks

The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital released a youtube video on how to make masks and an eye shield.

Sources

section 1

Basic info:

Govt health agencies:


Concerns over shortages at healthcare and other organizations

Section 2

concerns with general shortages:

Concerns about demand and production:


Business outlook

Concerns about price gouging:

Excerpts

QUOTE, Washington Post article, Washington state asked the U.S. stockpile for coronavirus masks. The response raises concerns.:

As coronavirus cases in Washington state mounted and the country’s first death was announced Saturday, health authorities scrambled to get more specialized masks for front-line clinicians who need to protect themselves from the highly contagious disease.

Washington state authorities sent an urgent request for 233,000 respirators and 200,000 surgical masks to be released from the federal government’s Strategic National Stockpile. The stockpile is a repository of drugs and supplies for deployment in major public health emergencies, such as an infectious disease outbreak.

Within 24 hours, Washington state’s liaison to the federal government, Casey Katims, was told his state would get assistance. But it would be less than half the amount they requested — 93,600 N95 respirators and 100,200 surgical masks.

“They did not tell us the reason for why they were fulfilling half the request,” Katims told The Washington Post.

Gov. Jay Inslee (D) has declared a state of emergency. By Thursday, the case count rose to 70, up from 39 on Wednesday, with a another fatal case in King County, in the greater Seattle area, bringing the death toll in Washington state to 11.

Comments Section

Feel free to express any comments below.

Request collaboration on a paragraph on "Time factor - when to change a mask" Suggestion

With the COVID-19 crisis, how many of these masks are necessary for the medical staff treating patients versus the public doing their shopping in a supermarket? "Many disposable respirators have anti-microbial surfaces, but over time they can start to be a home to germs. Change them out after 8-10 hours even if they're not dirty." [1]SvenAERTS (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://pksafety.com/blog/how-often-should-you-replace-your-dust-mask

Wiki Education assignment: Industrial Hygiene and Ergonomics- Graduate Student Projects

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 10 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Falharb3, Yalharbi33 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by UCIHGrad18 (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Verifying Sources in 'Disadvantages' Section

One of the more valid criticisms of respirators, IMO, is that badly designed respirators can have very high pressure drop, (breathing resistance), and can leak very easily at the slightest face seal intrusion. I'm skeptical that CO2 build up is significant, even though some sources I've read do suggest NIOSH has looked into the issue. With that being said, some of the excess number of sources here do fail verification: one is Sinkule-2003, which only talks about the workings of a breathing simulator, and doesn't seem to make any conclusions on Pressure Drop vs CO2.

I'll go ahead and verify the other sources, and redo this section over time.⸺RandomStaplers 21:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Ref Gunner: I would not recommend using a source I have to go to ILL for, unless sources are hard to come by. And from the looks of the title, it looks this source only talks about the method of measuring dead space, not making any conclusions on CO2. So unless anyone objects and wants to compel me to go to the library, I'm just going to remove the source. I'm sure there are plenty of more accessible ones out there.⸺RandomStaplers 21:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The 'History' section

What a mess. Certain citations are missing, and sources that one would normally expect to be reliable are wrong in certain details. For example, sources 'supporting' Peter Tsai inventing the material for the N95 respirator is still something that spreads across social media.

I'm going to place this template in the meantime, and it will stay that way unless someone is willing to do an overhaul of this section.⸺RandomStaplers 01:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

What is a respirator?

Here we go again. First, some talk page context: [2].

This revision [3], IMO, has multiple problems. For one, we're just linking to a paper. No real context to establish why this paper is important. And for another, this article is operating on a definition context that a respirator is PPE. And that's why that revision was reverted. If there's significant coverage for why the other definition of respirator should be preferred, a new article should probably be created.

TL;DR, adding that info in this article will just cause confusion, because everything else in the article assumes a PPE definition.⸺RandomStaplers 22:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, the verification failed: [4] literally says 'ventilator.'⸺RandomStaplers 22:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Verification failed, they didn't say respirator... [5]⸺RandomStaplers 22:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Respirator/Archive_1&oldid=1237930675"