By inference, these data are equally at odds with the protection factors established by OSHA for various types of respirator, which were based on QNFT data obtained by the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the 1970s. Until recently, the SWPFs gathered during QNFT were more or less assumed to translate directly into the protection afforded by a particular respirator, or class of respirators, while worn in the workplace.
Apparently this is now a questionable assumption which has thrown the entire concept of fit testing into doubt.[1]
Earlier, in a 1982 evaluation of qualitative fit tests (QLFTs), NIOSH had statistically analyzed numerous data sets that had been submitted to OSHA in support of the Du Pont isoamyl acetate, irritant smoke, and 3M Company saccharin tests.[2] The 1982 NIOSH conclusions regarding the efficacy of these QLFTs included the following statements:
A substantial number of the studies submitted to Docket H-049A we believe were inappropriately conducted, analyzed, or reported. As a result many of the data sets are unreli- able indicators of how the proposed qualitative screening tests will perform in respirator pro- grams that can be reasonably expected in the lead industries. ... The use of the Du Pont isoamyl, 3M saccharin, or irritant smoke protocols could substantially increase the likelihood of assigning inadequate respirators to workers, when compared to the very low risk of the presently required quantitative method.... The Du Pont isoamyl acetate, 3M saccharin, and stringent irritant smoke protocols cannot assure that respirator wearers with fit factors less than 100 (required for halfmask testing] will be effi ciently rejected by any of the three screening tests. 79 In 1989, a noted respirator expert stated the following with regard to the efficacy of both qualitative and quantitative fit tests: . . I believe it is more instructive to examine the role and function of respirator fit testing, and face some realities. First of all, it is unfortunate that fit testing results apparently cannot be used as a reliable indication of respirator performance in the workplace. Life would be simpler if the converse were to continue to be true. But looking at fit testing logically, both in the semi-laboratory and in the workplace, it's unrealistic to make any claims other than that these are the results which were obtained on this person, wearing this respirator, on this data, using this standardized protocol. Any claims be- yond this, in my mind, are neither technically nor professionally defensible.... In my opinion
7Tbid., pp. 7-8.
- ↑ Pritchard, J. A.: Open Forum: Respirator Testing-Old Values, Ind. Safety and Hyg. News (May 1989).
- ↑ National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: Supplemental Report to OSHA for Docket H-049A: Evaluation of Quantitative and Proposed Qualitative Screening Tests for Inadequate Fit Factors of Respirator Users, (October 1982).
