Disclaimer: I am NO LONGER a fan of Powered-Air Purifying Respirators (PAPRs). It is not the PAPR’s fault; it is the science behind the increased desire to use PAPRs for all the wrong reasons and how this could be bad news for the users.
PAPRs have become increasingly popular over the past decade or so (at least in the facilities I visit and work with). I would love to see sales data to validate my observations. And the #1 reason I hear for using PAPRs? Facial Hair! Yep, management has decided it’s not worth the battle, and male workers are choosing not to work in a job where they have to shave their facial hair. Yes, some employers were losing workers over facial hair. They are also sold a bill of goods by salespeople on how PAPRs are significantly better and how they can save money by not having to conduct annual fit tests; another battle many safety professionals face every year.
But are PAPRs really “safer”? According to OSHA/NIOSH Assigned Protection Factors (APF), the answer is NO; with a massive footnote many fail to read and understand. I have addressed this safety-critical issue before:
As I stated in my previous posts, OSHA/NIOSH define a Simulated Workplace Protection Factor (SWPF) study as:
(emphasis by me)
a study, conducted in a controlled laboratory setting and in which Co and Ci sampling is performed while the respirator user performs a series of set exercises. The laboratory setting is used to control many of the variables found in workplace studies, while the exercises simulate the work activities of respirator users. This type of study is designed to determine the optimum performance of respirators by reducing the impact of sources of variability through maintenance of tightly controlled study conditions.
Now, how does the manufacturer know the “work activities” of my workers, such that they can claim their PAPR provides an APF of 1,000 vs 25? And how do I know what exercises were done to VALIDATE my workers are using the PAPR within those positions/exercises such that they are fully protected?
These APFs are a fundamental limitation of using any style of Respirator. Assuming the higher APF, rather than assuming the lower APF and requiring the manufacturer to prove their APR can provide the APF of 1,000 is putting the user at risk.