Filtering Facepiece Respirator or a Dust Mask or N95 Respirator versus a Surgical Mask

Back in 2011 we posted this video from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Respirator Safety Video discussing the difference between respirators and surgical masks is a very good video to better understand the difference between these two pieces of equipment that can protect you from particular hazards.

There is a lot of confusion currently (during the coronavirus pandemic) about the difference between these two items.  The video above gives you a basic understanding.  To expand on that information realize the surgical mask does not protect the user from what's in the air its not designed to be a filter.  It's designed to protect the public from what the individual wearing it has.  Hence its popularity in Asian countries where it is considered a courtesy to wear it when you're sick.  See the chart below for more differences.

The filtering facepiece respirator was designed for the purpose of being lightweight, easy to use, and protect workers from particulates in the air but they are single-use (they should not be used for more than 8 hours and you throw them away).  If you're interested in learning about this mask's history read this article written in Fast Company "The untold origin story of the N95 mask".  Unfortunately, like most respirators, these need to be fit tested to ensure they fit correctly and also need to be fit checked to ensure it is placed on the face correctly.  An interesting point is that air will take the path of least resistance, and that is why respirators need to be fit tested to make sure all the air goes through the filter(s).  It is also why workers with facial hair cannot wear tight-fitting respirators.  The facial hair creates a path of least resistance into the respirator.  Digg posted an interesting video that shows a person coughing and the difference between a surgical mask (designed to protect the public) and an N95 respirator (designed to protect the user).  Properly putting on and taking off the N95 respirator is also important to make sure all the air goes through the filter.  See the video below to ensure you are doing this correctly.  Remember you should follow the manufacturer's procedures when putting on or taking off the respirator.

One more point, don't touch the filter it could be contaminated.  If you do immediately wash your hands or if unavailable use alcohol-based hand sanitizer.  If you're sick you wear the surgical mask and keep your distance (3 feet or arms-length or the preferrable 6 feet) or better yet stay home!  If you are trying not to get sick you wear the N95 respirator.  However, if you have not been fit tested with the respirator, have not performed the fit check, have facial hair, or not wearing it properly then the respirator would be better off in a Doctor, Nurse, or Emergency Responders hands to help them with the shortages they are experiencing.  Just keep your distance or better yet stay at home!!! 

Related articles

• Importance of Respiratory Protection at Demolition or Disaster Sites (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• Importance of Personal Protective Equipment (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• Reportlinker Adds Global Personal Protective Equipment Industry (prnewswire.com)
• N95 Respirators and Surgical Masks (cdc.gov)
• September 5 is N95 Day - Whaaaaaat?? (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• Filtering Facepiece Respirator or Dust Mask.  Which is it? (futureenv.blogspot.com)

September 5 is N95 Day - Whaaaaaat??

According to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) today September 5 is N95 Day.  NIOSH says, "N95 Day is a time to recognize the importance of respiratory protection in the workplace and familiarize yourself with the resources available to help you make educated decisions when selecting and wearing a respirator."  To celebrate, NIOSH will be providing N95 filtering facepiece respirator information through social media channels such as a Twitter chat, a webinar, and new infographics.  For more information visit there website at:  http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/N95Day.html.

Interesting thing to us is why celebrate the N95 filtering facepiece respirators?  Filtering facepiece respirators have their place in protecting workers from respiratory hazards, however, that place is very limited.  This type of respirator cannot and should not be used for respirable dusts like asbestos or lead.  Nor should it be used for vapors or mists or gases.  As the picture above from Ground Zero - 9/11 World Trade Center rescue, recovery and cleanup shows, knowing which respirator to wear was one of the problems for the workers who worked there.  The picture shows workers wearing filtering facepiece respirators and half mask air purifying respirators.  Considering the contaminants (asbestos, mercury, PCBs, to name a few) at the site, filtering facepiece respirators should not have been a choice at all.  This is probably the main reason to have an N95 day is to make sure people understand the limitations of this type of respirator.  But why limit it to filtering facepiece respirators, we should be celebrating all respirators!  So for our part we say Happy Respirator Day!

Related articles

• OSHA Releases New Respiratory Protection Directive
• Danger is in the Air: Choosing the Right Respirators
• Filtering Facepiece Respirator or Dust Mask. Which is it?
• N95 Respirators and Surgical Masks
• Voluntary use of dust mask not good enough for Gulf cleanup workers [The Pump Handle]
• Importance of Respiratory Protection at Demolition or Disaster Sites
• Importance of Personal Protective Equipment
• Protecting Yourself During Restoration or Renovation Projects

Protecting Yourself During Restoration or Renovation Projects

Many of you know one of our main issues is protecting yourself and your family from the contaminants that you can be exposed to in construction work (including remodeling, restoration, or renovation work).  In our classes, we discuss the USA Today Special Report in 2000 "Workers unwittingly take home toxins".  This report discusses how workers through the years have been exposed to toxins and brought them home to contaminate their families.  Contaminates included asbestos, lead, mercury, radiation, animal growth hormones, dry cleaning chemicals, explosive toxins and carcinogens.  It has been our opinion for years, that the standard safety equipment for construction workers should also include disposable clothing or uniforms, that are left at the jobsite, and respirators.  This would be in addition to the typical hard hat, reflective vests, and safety shoes.  The new silica standard, if it goes through, will be interesting since it will probably require respirators for workers performing dusty tasks.

We have also discussed, in our classes, the emergency workers who worked at the Ground Zero site and all the different toxins they were exposed to like: asbestos, lead, dioxin, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), mercury, silica, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).  Some of these workers are so sick that we had to provide special medical coverage through the Zadroga Bill, costing the US billions of dollars.

Old House (Photo credit: WaywardShinobi)

To further prove our point, a recent Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) News Synopsis for January 2, 2014 discussed a Histoplasmosis Outbreak Associated with the Renovation of an Old House in Quebec Canada.  Histoplasmosis is a respiratory disease caused by the inhalation of fungus spores excreted by bats and birds, that can persist in the environment for several years.  Outbreaks can occur during demolition/renovation activities that create dust containing bird or bat droppings.  The MMWR outbreak happened during the renovation of an old house, 30 workers and residents were exposed to dust containing bird or bat droppings previously hidden in the brick walls.  14 of the workers/residents developed symptoms of histoplasmosis.  Of the four who were laboratory-confirmed, two were hospitalized.  Unfortunately, stories like this keep happening over and over, again.

Related articles

• Safety tips for doing home renovations
• 5 Best Home Renovations for Under $5,000
• Enhanced regulations for work involving asbestos to be introduced
• New report released on skin exposure hazards to firefighters
• Planning a Renovation? Don't Forget to Get the Lead Out!
• Lung infection outbreak tied to bat droppings stirred up in house renovation

NY Times Article Criticizing OSHA, Doesn't Criticize It Enough!

On March 30, 2013, the New York Times wrote the article "As OSHA Emphasizes Safety, Long Term Health Risks Fester."  You can click on the title of the article to read the article if by chance you have not read it or saw it.  As many of you know I am a sharp critic of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and their inability to protect worker health at Ground Zero, at the BP Oil Spill, Katrina, etc, etc, etc!  Here is another sad case of OSHA failing to do their job and claiming there is nothing they can do!  Are they kidding us!  Lets see the facts in this case:

• The culprit in this chemical exposure story is a chemical known as n-propyl bromide, or nPB.  “Medical researchers, government officials and even chemical companies that once manufactured nPB have warned for over a decade that it causes neurological damage and infertility when inhaled at low levels over long periods…”  So we know that exposure to this chemical is hazardous (fact!).
• 
  



3D diagram of n-propyl bromide molecule. Prepared with Discovery Studio Visualizer 1.7 and GIMP 2.2 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


• Did we have an exposure?  “For about five years, Ms. Sheri Farley, 45, stood alongside about a dozen other workers, spray gun in hand, gluing together foam cushions for chairs and couches sold under brand names like Broyhill, Ralph Lauren, and Thomasville.  Fumes from the glue formed a yellowish fog inside the plant, and Ms. Farley’s doctors say that breathing them in eventually ate away at her nerve endings, resulting in what she and her co-workers call “dead foot”."  That sounds like an exposure to us (fact!).
• What did the employer do to protect the workers?  “Even as worker after worker fell ill, records from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration show that managers at Royale Comfort Seating, where Ms. Farley was employed, repeatedly exposed gluers to nPB levels that exceeded levels federal officials considered safe, failed to provide respirators and turned off fans meant to vent fumes."  So the employer knew the dangers and didn't protect the workers (fact!).
• What's a willfull violation?  According to OSHA, a willfull violation is a violation that the employer intentionally and knowingly commits or a violation that the employer commits with plain indifference to the law.  OSHA may propose penalties of a maximum of $70,000 for each willfull violation (fact!).

So if you buy into this argument that OSHA is powerless to act.  Then why did violations only total, as per the article, "less than $20,000 in OSHA fines related to glue fumes."  That is a travesty!  OSHA needs to wake up and do its job.  

What does the Director of OSHA have to say about this?  “I’m the first to admit this is broken,” said David Michaels, the OSHA director, referring to the agency’s record on dealing with workplace health threats.  “Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people end up on the gurney.”  You're the director and that's your answer.  Get your act together and fix the problem.  You know there's a problem and you're not fixing it.  You should be fired!  You've been the OSHA Director for what four years and we must admit you've done a lot of good.  However, at the same time this issue of protecting worker health has continued to fester and you know its broken and you haven't fixed it.  If you were on Donald Trump's Apprentice program, you would've been fired.


Let's look at the issue that the business claims they can't afford to protect workers.  Based on the article it says Royale "which employs about 100 workers and had around $7.5 million in sales in 2011",  in addition, Royale has also "paid nearly a half-million dollars - in court settlements, required upgrades....".  Where did these business owners get their education on running a business?  Here are some statistics from the article that makes you wonder about business owners and support a need for OSHA to do a better job of protecting worker's health:

• "Chronic ailments caused by toxic workplace air - black lung, stonecutter's disease, asbestosis, grinder's rot, pneumoconiosis, - incapacitate more than 200,000 workers in the United States annually.  More than 40,000 Americans die prematurely each year from exposure to toxic substances at work - 10 times as many as those who die from refinery explosions, mine collapses and other accidents that grab most of the news media attention."
• Occupational illnesses and injuries like Ms. Farley's cost the American economy roughly $250 billion per year because of medical expenses and lost productivity, according to government data analyzed by J. Paul Leigh, an economist at the University of California, Davis, more than the cost of diabetes or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.  Roughly 40 percent of medical expenses from workplace hazards, or about $27 billion a year, is paid by public programs like Medicare and Medicaid."

In our opinion, it would be more effective to have a respiratory protection program using respirators and proper filters.  The probable cost of a respiratory protection program for 100 workers would be around $40,000.  It seems to us it would be cheaper to provide the workers with respirators than to pay for court settlements, worker's compensation insurance costs, disability insurance costs, etc.  It is way past time we started recognizing the need to push respirator use to handle situations that either the political will, financial will, or just plain indifference is not protecting workers.

Related articles

• Robin Wilson: Cheap Furniture Should Not Kill or Maim U.S. Workers
• Filtering Facepiece Respirator or Dust Mask. Which is it?
• OSHA has dismal record preventing long-term workplace hazards
• When nerve-damaging glue is disabling workers, what can OSHA do? [The Pump Handle]
• A Bill Currently In The House Attempts To Give More Power To OSHA For Workplace Safety
• Worker Protection Too Costly!
• OSHA last inspected Texas fertilizer plant in 1985

Filtering Facepiece Respirator or Dust Mask. Which is it?

Well the answer to the question in the title is similar to you saying tomatoe or tomato.  They are two ways of saying the same thing.  According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) a dust mask is a filtering facepiece respirator.  For those involved in the safety and health field that is not news.  However, for everyone else it is.  In fact, we would argue that the average worker doesn't even consider the dust mask a respirator.  We recently ran into this miscommunication between an employer who was providing filtering facepiece respirators on a voluntary basis and assumed when the OSHA compliance safety and health officer was asking about respirators they were talking about the ones used in the paint booth.  Paint booth respirators were required, but the filtering facepiece respirators were not.  You could imagine the conversation.

Muster einer Atemluft-Einwegmaske (Photo credit: Wikipedia)



What is the consequence of such a miscommunication?  Well once you require the wearing of filtering facepiece respirators in the workplace, these respirators must follow all the requirements of 1910.134 the OSHA respiratory protection standard.  Which means the workers must be medically cleared to wear the respirator, fit tested with the respirator to ensure it fits, and trained on the use of the respirator.  However, if the filtering facepiece respirator is being used voluntarily, all you must provide is Appendix D of standard "Information for Employees Wearing Respirators When Not Required Under The Standard."  A big difference in requirements.  So be very careful when answering this question during an OSHA workplace inspection.

Another problem with dust masks is illustrated by the photo above in an article about Suffolk County's plan to spray pesticides.  What is wrong with the picture?  Well if this worker is spraying pesticides he is wearing the wrong respirator.  Filtering facepiece respirators (dust masks) only protect from dust or particulates.  They do not protect against chemicals that are in the form of mists, vapors, or gases (which is the form that the worker in the picture is spraying).  These forms of chemicals would penetrate through the mask or worse will be absorbed into the filter and potentially concentrate the chemical or allow the chewmical to sit on worker's face.

 

The only reason for wearing a filtering facepiece respirator (dust mask) is for nuisance dusts (i.e., wood dust, pollen, grass clippings, etc.).  Though this respirator is very comfortable, and lighweight, in our view, it is very dangerous because it is readily available, many people are using it improperly, and many people believe it can do more than it was designed to do.  Use this resapirator very carefully and again only for nuisance dusts, nothing more.  Be safe out there!

Related articles

• Worker Health Advocates Say 9/11 Mistakes Repeated in Sandy Clean-up (inthesetimes.com)
• City contract workers exposed to asbestos while on the job: "I'm scared" (khou.com)
• Safety is missing from productivity debates (safetyatworkblog.com)

More Dangers Related To Toxic Dusts

In our current newsletter (find it at www.futureenv.com), we discuss the hazards of toxic dust at demolition and disaster sites. Three new studies from California seem to support my points regarding the dangers of the dust. Indoor Environment Connections in the February 2012 issue discusses the findings of these studies linking exposure to fine-particulate matter to heart disease.

These study defined particulate matter as a complex blend of substances ranging from dry solid fragments, solid-core fragments with liquid coatings and small droplets of liquid. These particles vary in shape, size and chemical composition, and can contain metals, soot, nitrates, sulfates, and very fine dust. One source of particulate matter, including PM2.5 or fine-particulate matter is exhaust from vehicles, especially diesel engines (which are used frequently on demolition and disaster sites). PM2.5 is particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter (making this particulate matter a respirable dust or dust that can enter into the deep lungs).
The California Air Resources Board (ARB) released three new studies, that indicate exposure to airborne fine-particulate matter significantly elevates the risk of premature deaths from heart disease among older adults and elevates incidence of strokes among post-menopausal women. The third study examined platelets of mice exposed to PM2.5. This study found that the exposed mice showed platelet activation which could promote clotting and lead to stroke and heart attacks. These studies add to the existing scienctific evidence that respirable airborne particulates pose a threat to public health. If these particles pose a threat to public health, what about the threat to workers who are exposed to PM2.5 at their worksites?
These studies further support my call, for the requirement that workers wear respirators on all demolition and disaster sites.

Related articles

• Toxic Dusts - Demolition Implications (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• Honoring Dr. Alice Hamilton For Women's History Month (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• Particulate Matter in Our Homes Has a Great Negative Impact on The Elderly (socyberty.com)
• Canadian Health Impacts to Long-Term Exposure to Fine Particulate Matter (pollutionfree.wordpress.com)
• Health Impact of Exposure to Particulate Matter in Beijing, China (pollutionfree.wordpress.com)
• Study finds association between air pollution and cognitive decline in women (eurekalert.org)
• Air pollution may increase stroke, heart attack risk (cnn.com)

Rudy Giuliani and Air Quality After 9/11: Part 1 & Part 2

Image via WikipediaAfter listening and reading this newscast I found it interesting how everyone is pointing at the federal government experts (Giuliani, Cohen, etc.), as the reason why the first responders were allowed to expose themselves to the asbestos and other hazardous materials on the site.  A very interesting two part, newscast by WNYC titled Rudy Giuliani and Air Quality After 9/11: Part 1 & Part 2.  The 9/11 cleanup was a huge failure on the part of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).  Especially, OSHA who should've been on the site making sure workers were wearing respirators and wearing them properly.  OSHA crowed about 0 injuries at the site after the cleanups were done.  Where are they now, that we know that some 20,000 workers at the site are ill from their exposure to the contaminants at 9/11?

Related articles

• CMM Realty Alleged to Have Violated OSH Act and Clean Air Act (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• OSHA at 40 (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• OSHA Announces Three-month Enforcement Phase-in for Residential Construction Fall Protection (futureenv.blogspot.com)

OSHA Respirator Safety Video

This Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Respirator Safety Video is a very good introductory video on respirator donning and doffing.  Probably will add this to our training classes since it is a very good entry level and refresher video.  The video is available in spanish, too.

Related articles

• OSHA Log Form 300A Posting Due February 1, 2011. (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• N95 Respirators and Surgical Masks (cdc.gov)
• Importance of Personal Protective Equipment (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• OSHA Construction Safety Video: OSHA Fall Protection Standards (ehssafetynews.wordpress.com)

OSHA Orders John Galt Corp. to Compensate Worker Fired After Raising Health and Safety Issues at the Deutsche Bank Building in NYC

Respirators Should Be Fit Tested Before Use

On Thursday, October 14, 2010, the U.S. Department of Labor obtained a consent judgment ordering The John Galt Corp. and two of its former managers, Mitchel Alvo and Dorota Lebkowska, to compensate a worker who was fired for raising a health and safety issue during an asbestos removal project the defendants oversaw at the former Deutsche Bank Building at 130 Liberty St. in Manhattan, New York.
According to the press release the worker filed a complaint with the department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration in August 2006, alleging that he had been fired after requesting additional respirator filter cartridges for himself and for fellow workers performing asbestos removal at the site.  OSHA's investigation found merit to the complaint.  The department's Regional Office of the Solicitor in New York filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York after the defendants refused to reinstate and compensate the worker.
As a result of that legal action, the defendants have signed a consent judgment that orders them to pay the worker $55,000 in back wages and expunge all references to suspension or dismissal from his personnel file.  The judgment also prohibits the defendants from discriminating against employees who file a complaint with OSHA, participate in an OSHA inspection or otherwise exercise their rights under Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
"Terminating workers who raise legitimate safety and health issues is unacceptable," said Robert Kulick, OSHA's regional administrator in New York.  "Intimidating workers into a dangerous silence can mask hazardous and potentially deadly conditions.  Employers should be aware that we will pursue appropriate legal remedies in such cases."
Section 11(c) of the OSH Act protects employees' rights to file a complaint with OSHA or to bring safety and health issues to the attention of their employers without fear of termination or other reprisal.  OSHA also enforces statutes protecting employees who report violations of various railway, securities, trucking, airline, nuclear power, pipeline, environmental, public transportation and consumer product safety laws.  Detailed information is available online at: http://www.whistleblowers.gov/.
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees.  OSHA's role is to assure these conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance.  For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov/.

Related articles

• OSHA Proposes $51,000 in Fines Against David H. Koch Theater in New York for Asbestos, Fall and Crushing Hazards (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• OSHA Reviews Nevada State Probe of Asbestos Exposure (ehssafetynews.wordpress.com)
• OSHA Cites Illinois Plant After Worker Killed While Operating a Laser Cutting Machine (ehssafetynews.wordpress.com)
• OSHA Quick Takes - December 15, 2010 (ehssafetynews.wordpress.com)