ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2026
Facial cooling while using respiratory protective devices in the cold.
Article in Annals of work exposures and health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The use of respiratory protective devices (RPDs) is essential in various work environments, including those with dust generation. When the work environment is cold, the low ambient temperature can accentuate discomfort from cooling and may influence workers' selection of RPDs, potentially affecting protective efficiency. This study aimed to quantify facial cooling while wearing particle-filtering facepiece respirators in cold conditions. Six different RPDs were selected: two filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs), two powered air-purifying respirators with constant airflow (PAPRC) and two breath-responsive air-supplied respirators (PAPRBR). Ten volunteers (six males and four females) participated, using the RPDs during rest and exercise for 40 min at an ambient temperature of -20 °C. Skin temperatures on four areas of the face and the air temperature inside the mask were recorded throughout the test. In addition, accumulated moisture in the facepiece was measured. The mean face skin temperature (MFST) was calculated as the average of the four skin temperatures. The results showed that MFST declined, on average, to 12.9 °C, 17.7 °C and 21.8 °C when PAPRC, PAPRBR and FFR were used, respectively. In conclusion, the use of RPDs in cold conditions presents particular occupational health and safety risks. Moisture retention is high when RPDs are used in cold conditions, and accumulated moisture inside the facepiece may cause discomfort and impair visibility. PAPRC decreases facial skin temperatures to an uncomfortable level, while PAPRBR and FFRs reduce cooling in cold environments. However, the required level of protection should be prioritised, even in cold conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.