Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30205526›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2018

Field Evaluation of N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirators on Construction Jobsites for Protection against Airborne Ultrafine Particles.

Atin Adhikari, Aniruddha Mitra, Abbas Rashidi, Imaobong Ekpo, Jacob Schwartz, Jefferson Doehling

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Variation in the fitted filtration efficiency of disposable face masks by sex.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Atin AdhikariDepartment of Epidemiology & Environmental Health Sciences, Jiann-Ping Hsu College of Public Health, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA 30460, USA. aadhikari@georgiasouthern.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-8835-1654
Aniruddha MitraDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA 30460, USA. mitra@georgiasouthern.edu.
Abbas RashidiDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA. abbas.rashidi@utah.edu.
Imaobong EkpoDepartment of Epidemiology & Environmental Health Sciences, Jiann-Ping Hsu College of Public Health, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA 30460, USA. ie00146@georgiasouthern.edu.
Jacob SchwartzDepartment of Manufacturing Engineering, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA 30460, USA. js17203@georgiasouthern.edu.
Jefferson DoehlingDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA 30460, USA. jd06011@georgiasouthern.edu.
Georgia Southern University · USUniversity of Utah · US

Funding

NATL CTR FOR CONSTRUCTION SAFETY & HEALTH RESEARCHU60OH009762 · OH · CENTER FOR CONSTRUCTION RES AND TRAINING · PI CAIN, CHRISTINA TRAHAN · 2009 to 2023
$84.6M
NIOSH CDC HHS OH009762
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Exposure to high concentrations of airborne ultrafine particles in construction jobsites may play an important role in the adverse health effects among construction workers, therefore adequate respiratory protection is required. The performance of particulate respirators has never been evaluated in field conditions against ultrafine particles on construction jobsites. In this study, respiratory protection levels against ultrafine particles of different size ranges were assessed during three common construction related jobs using a manikin-based set-up at 85 L/min air flow rate. Two NanoScan SMPS nanoparticle counters were utilized for measuring ultrafine particles in two sampling lines of the test filtering facepiece respirator-one from inside the respirator and one from outside the respirator. Particle size distributions were characterized using the NanoScan data collected from outside of the respirator. Two models of N95 respirators were tested-foldable and pleated. Collected data indicate that penetration of all categories of ultrafine particles can exceed 5% and smaller ultrafine particles of <36.5 nm size generally penetrated least. Foldable N95 filtering facepiece respirators were found to be less efficient than pleated N95 respirators in filtering nanoparticles mostly at the soil moving site and the wooden building frameworks construction site. Upon charge neutralization by isopropanol treatment, the ultrafine particles of larger sizes penetrated more compared to particles of smaller sizes. Our findings, therefore, indicate that N95 filtering facepiece respirators may not provide desirable 95% protection for most categories of ultrafine particles and generally, 95% protection is achievable for smaller particles of 11.5 to 20.5 nm sizes. We also conclude that foldable N95 respirators are less efficient than pleated N95 respirators in filtering ultrafine particles, mostly in the soil moving site and the wooden building framework construction site.

Indexed as

AerosolsAir Pollutants, OccupationalConstruction IndustryDustFiltrationHumansManikinsNanoparticlesNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.Occupational ExposureParticle SizeRespiratory Protective DevicesUnited StatesWorkplaceAerosolsAir Pollutants, OccupationalDustaerosolconstruction workersindustrial hygienemasksN95 filtering facepiece respiratorsnanoparticleoccupational safetyultrafine particles

Identifiers

PMID30205526
PMCPMC6164087
OpenAlexW2890337809

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.