Source avec lien : International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 248. 10.1016/j.ijheh.2022.114103
L’évaluation de la performance des APR associée à la prévention des infections dans le cadre de tests de certification standardisés présente des inconvénients, tels que la représentativité des aérosols de test utilisés, la protection des tiers pendant l’expiration ou l’effet des fuites faciales. Pour remédier à ces inconvénients, nous avons conçu un nouveau banc d’essai pour mesurer les performances de l’APR, à savoir l’efficacité totale basée sur le nombre, l’efficacité de filtration fractionnée par taille et la perte de pression nette, pour 11 types de masques chirurgicaux et de pièces faciales filtrantes certifiés en fonction du mode de respiration et de l’ajustement facial.
During the COVID 19 pandemic, wearing certified Respiratory Protective Devices (RPDs) provided important means of protection against direct and indirect infections caused by virus-laden aerosols. Assessing the RPD performance associated with infection prevention in standardised certification tests, however, faces drawbacks, such as the representativeness of the test aerosols used, the protection of third parties during exhalation or the effect of facial leaks. To address these drawbacks, we designed a novel test bench to measure RPD performance, namely the number based total efficiency, size-segregated fractional filtration efficiency and net pressure loss, for 11 types of certified surgical masks and Filtering Face Pieces dependent on breathing mode and facial fit. To be representative for the context of potentially infectious particles, we use a test aerosol based on artificial saliva that is in its size distribution similar to exhaled aerosols. In inhalation mode excluding facial leaks, all investigated samples deposit by count more than 85% of artificial saliva particles, which suggests a high efficiency of certified RPD filter media related to these particles. In exhalation mode most RPDs tend to have similar efficiencies but lower pressure losses. This deviation tends to be significant primarily for the RPDs with thin filter layers like surgical masks or Filtering Face Pieces containing nanofibers and may depend on the RPDs shape. Both the filtration efficiency and pressure loss are strongly inter-dependent and significantly lower when RPDs are naturally fitted including facial leaks, leading to a wide efficiency range of approximately 30–85%. The results indicate a much greater influence of the facial fit than the filter material itself. Furthermore, RPDs tend be more effective in self-protection than in third-party protection, which is inversely correlated to pressure loss. Comparing different types of RPDs, the pressure loss partially differs at similar filtration efficiencies, which points out the influence of the material and the filter area on pressure loss.