Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene最新文献

{"title":"Special issue on firefighter safety and health.","authors":"Robert Agnew, Aurora Le","doi":"10.1080/15459624.2026.2712891","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2026.2712891","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16599,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene","volume":"23 7","pages":"D21-D22"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148706928","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Fit testing of N95 respirators: A pilot study on respirator design and demographic factors.","authors":"Xinyi Niu, Michael Yermakov, Sergey Grinshpun, Jun Wang","doi":"10.1080/15459624.2026.2650644","DOIUrl":"10.1080/15459624.2026.2650644","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health are widely used by healthcare workers to prevent the inhalation of hazardous airborne contaminants. Various nose-clip shapes and respirator styles in N95 FFRs are designed to eliminate gaps between the respirator and the wearer's facial skin, ensuring adequate protection for the wearer. However, variations in facial dimensions across sexes and races may affect the fit and, consequently, the performance of these respirators. The primary objective of this study was to assess the effect of N95 FFR design, specifically the nose-clip shape and respirator style, on the fit factor (FF). The second aim was to assess how subject characteristics, specifically sex and race, affect the respirator fit. Additionally, the efficacy of N95 FFRs may degrade over prolonged use. The authors recently developed a portable device called the Exposure Protection Integrated Communicator (EPIC) that uses dual optical sensors to measure particle concentrations inside and outside the workplace and provide real-time monitoring of the workplace protection factor for FFRs. The EPIC's performance was evaluated by comparing its results with the reference PortaCount fit tester. Two cup-shaped FFRs with different noseclip shapes and six N95 FFRs with various styles were tested. Twenty human subjects were recruited to perform the Occupational Safety and Health Administration approved quantitative fit test (QNFT) protocol by running both PortaCount and EPIC devices in triplicate with each respirator. Results indicated that respirator FF was significantly affected by respirator design and subject facial characteristics. Caucasian males generally achieved the best fit, while Hispanic or Latino females had the poorest fit, highlighting the need for design improvements that account for differences in sex and race. Additionally, the comparison between EPIC and PortaCount demonstrated a strong proportional bias, with EPIC tending to report higher fit factor values, particularly under conditions where the respirator achieved higher fit factors. These findings underscore the need for cautious interpretation and potential calibration before EPIC can be reliably used in occupational settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":16599,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene","volume":" ","pages":"425-437"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147930458","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Developing PPE management tools for use in a pandemic.","authors":"Melissa Edmondson, Gurumurthy Ramachandran","doi":"10.1080/15459624.2026.2639995","DOIUrl":"10.1080/15459624.2026.2639995","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In early 2020, facilities across the United States and the world struggled to secure personal protective equipment (PPE) to protect their staff from COVID-19 during an international shortage. A sharp increase in PPE demand, coupled with dwindling supply, resulted in a need for strategies and tools to assist workplaces in calculating PPE burn rate and predicting future PPE needs. This study describes the development and potential use of a model-based approach for forecasting PPE demand for future pandemics or other disasters that require PPE. This simple-to-use modeling tool was developed to assist facilities that lack adequate PPE management systems, allowing users to track what PPE items they have on hand and how quickly their PPE supply is depleting. The modeling tool builds on previous efforts to understand PPE consumption, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Excel-based PPE Burn Rate Calculator and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's (NIOSH) PPE Tracker Mobile Application. These tools were modifiable enough to use in a variety of settings, including healthcare, public safety, and correctional facilities, and were widely used for PPE management during the COVID-19 pandemic. The modeling approach described here can incorporate scenario-specific information into future PPE planning, rather than relying solely on historical consumption patterns. Hypothetical scenarios are presented to demonstrate the use of the tools. Results of this study indicate that PPE needs can be heavily influenced by local conditions. Predictive models for PPE needs may allow for increased efficiency, reduced waste, and improved worker protection.</p>","PeriodicalId":16599,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene","volume":" ","pages":"395-405"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147623282","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Addressing the public health gap in respiratory protective devices in the United States.","authors":"Howard Cohen, Simon Smith, Dan Shipp, Joann Kline","doi":"10.1080/15459624.2026.2659860","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2026.2659860","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Public health crises like the COVID-19 pandemic and major wildfires have exposed significant confusion about how members of the public can effectively protect themselves from inhaling harmful airborne particles. Unlike many other nations, no single federal agency oversees respiratory protective devices (RPDs) designed for public use against inhaled contaminants. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) currently holds the authority for establishing standards and approving respirators used in workplaces; however, for public sector use, there is a lack of standards for their design and construction, conformity assessment to ensure conformance, risk assessment in selecting devices, and guidance for proper use and maintenance. Without RPDs specifically designed for public use, individuals are left to purchase industrial products intended for workplaces, which do not generally suit the needs of the public, or to rely on domestic and foreign products that have uncertain quality and effectiveness. The development of specific standards for public-use devices, robust conformity assessment practices, and clear guidance on their selection, use, and care is needed. A risk assessment framework for selecting devices for common hazards like wildfire smoke, general air pollution (including pollens and allergens), and infectious particles is presented. Respiratory protection for the public must consider those with physical and mental disabilities and is discussed. Given that nearly all governmental expertise in RPD testing, efficacy determination, and systems oversight resides within NIOSH, its authority could be expanded to assist in developing public-specific standards and conformity assessments. This expansion would enable the public to have confidence that the RPDs they purchase are effective for the protections manufacturers claim.</p>","PeriodicalId":16599,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148277708","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The basis for recommending the selection of samplers in determining occupational exposures to aerosols.","authors":"Martin Harper, Pieter Bertier, Marcus Cattani, Karen Galea, Darrah Sleeth, Steven Verpaele","doi":"10.1080/15459624.2026.2651428","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2026.2651428","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Measurements are considered to be the basis of exposure assessments used to determine risks to workers. Inhalation exposure poses the greatest risk for most airborne chemicals, and measurements are based on collecting (sampling) and analyzing air samples. Samplers have been developed for more than 120 years. Each new design has been intended to address flaws perceived in earlier designs. Users are faced with a varied array of samplers from which to choose. Comparisons are difficult to make because tests of sampler performance were not standardized until recently and have not been applied consistently. The existing large body of work does allow some conclusions to be drawn regarding performance. Many samplers have been shown to work effectively with test aerosols under controlled conditions in the laboratory. Further testing in the field has shown that not all samplers perform equally well in every situation; for example, under different wind speeds and directions or with aerosols that maintain unusual physical characteristics. There is not one aerosol sampler that can be used for all situations. Further, the design of a sampler and how the sampler needs to be handled can have an enormous influence on the result. Quality of manufacture, material of construction, cost, reusability, ease of use, setting of flow rates, transportation issues, and wearer acceptability all have an impact on selecting from among different samplers with similar performance. The range of available samplers constitutes a toolkit from which the most appropriate sampler could be selected for a given specific situation. Common inhalable and respirable aerosol samplers are considered in respect of their history of design and manufacture, validated performance studies, environmental factors, and practical use. However, the impact of these considerations on sampler selection is minimized through generalized industry-specific or task-specific recommendations. An online web-based Sampler Selection Tool is under development. It will use the information presented in this Commentary to provide a ranked list of appropriate samplers to be used in specific situations.</p>","PeriodicalId":16599,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene","volume":" ","pages":"1-53"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2026-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148211647","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Occupational exposure to chlorine gas and ultrafine particles during surface disinfection: A comparative study of wiping versus spraying methods.","authors":"Luca Fontana, Luigi Fappiano, Claire Dorion, Diego Celio, Armand Sprecher, Antoine Chaillon, Giorgio Buonanno","doi":"10.1080/15459624.2026.2668644","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2026.2668644","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Environmental surface disinfection is a fundamental component of infection prevention and control (IPC) in healthcare settings. Sodium hypochlorite remains widely used owing to its broad-spectrum efficacy, availability, and low cost. Concerns regarding occupational health risks associated with chlorine spraying have led public health authorities to revise existing guidance. The World Health Organization currently recommends wiping as the preferred chlorine-based surface disinfection method. This policy revision was based on very low certainty evidence, and quantitative data directly comparing exposure risks between methods remain limited. This study quantified and compared occupational exposure to chlorine gas (Cl₂) and ultrafine particles (UFPs) generated during surface disinfection with sodium hypochlorite applied by spraying versus wiping and assessed the influence of task duration and environmental conditions on cumulative exposure. Under controlled conditions, UFP and Cl₂ emission factors (EFs) were measured, and a randomized crossover simulation was conducted to determine disinfection duration per method in a mock clinical room. A well-mixed room model estimated airborne concentrations and inhaled doses across 0.1 to 12 air changes per hour (ACH), including under high temperature, with organic load and soap-with-ammonia interaction. Mean UFP EFs were comparable between methods (spraying 3.1 × 10⁸ and wiping 1.95 × 10⁸ particles·min^-1·m^-2), while Cl₂ concentrations remained below detection limits. Spraying was significantly faster (9.4 ± 3.0 <i>vs.</i> 25.0 ± 7.1 min; <i>p</i> < 0.001) and consistently resulted in lower cumulative exposure: at 0.2 ACH, wiping produced a 4.3-fold higher inhaled UFP dose. Across the 0.1 to 12 ACH range, spraying reduced the inhaled dose by 50 to 75% (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Although environmental factors exerted a stronger influence on absolute exposures, spraying consistently yielded lower Cl₂ and UFP concentrations and inhaled doses. These findings indicate that cumulative inhalation exposure is driven primarily by environmental conditions, task duration, and ventilation, rather than the application method's intrinsic emission rate. Spraying shortened procedures consistently and reduced inhaled doses relative to wiping, supporting reconsideration of current IPC recommendations to incorporate duration-sensitive exposure-based assessments when selecting disinfection methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":16599,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2026-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148150188","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Real-time evaluation of workplace protection factors from powered air-purifying respirators.","authors":"Xinyi Niu, Michael Yermakov, Matthew Horvatin, Ziqing Zhuang, Weihua Yang, Sergey Grinshpun, Jun Wang","doi":"10.1080/15459624.2026.2659848","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2026.2659848","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) are widely used by healthcare workers to protect against inhalation hazards, as they require no fit testing. However, incorrect use can compromise their efficacy, which may progressively deteriorate over time. Therefore, there is a critical need for real-time monitoring of PAPR performance during occupational activities. In this study, a portable device called the Exposure Protection Integrated Communicator (EPIC) was developed, which uses optical particle sensors to evaluate the workplace protection provided by PAPRs. EPIC monitors concentrations inside and outside a respirator using two sensors to quantitatively calculate the protection factor (PF), defined as the ratio of particle concentrations outside to inside the respirator. The system applied algorithms to correct sensor readings and alert wearers if respirator protection was compromised. The prototype EPIC was evaluated using a manikin headform connected to a breathing recording and simulation system (BRSS) to simulate a sinusoidal breathing pattern. A PortaCount fit tester based on a single-condensation-nuclei-counter principle served as the reference measurement device during parallel tests. The results were expressed as PFs for comparison between the EPIC system and the reference method. The prototype EPIC demonstrated to be an effective tool for quantifying the real-time performance of PAPRs, particularly in environments with particle concentrations of 40,000 to 70,000 particles/L. Data collected from both the EPIC and PortaCount were compared, revealing that the EPIC could measure PFs ranging from 10 to 10,000. The EPIC showed a strong correlation with the reference PortaCount (R² = 0.84), despite the two systems using different measurement principles and detection limits. The study results confirmed the effectiveness of EPIC in quantitatively assessing respirator particle ingress.</p>","PeriodicalId":16599,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene","volume":" ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148143589","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Correction.","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/15459624.2026.2687361","DOIUrl":"10.1080/15459624.2026.2687361","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16599,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene","volume":" ","pages":"392-393"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148226111","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Special issue on firefighter safety and health.","authors":"Robert Agnew, Aurora Le","doi":"10.1080/15459624.2026.2694948","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2026.2694948","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16599,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene","volume":"23 6","pages":"D17-D18"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148361077","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Development of an animatronic headform test method for determining the efficacy of medical masks and barrier face coverings-part 2: validation study.","authors":"Melissa Armistead, Didem Kiryaman, Anuja Dandekar, Mark Gaskill, Marc Mathews, Arjunsing Girase, R Bryan Ormond","doi":"10.1080/15459624.2026.2612983","DOIUrl":"10.1080/15459624.2026.2612983","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is a need for a realistic method to evaluate the performance of barrier face coverings and medical masks in the wake of growing respiratory concerns among the general public. In this study, the previous animatronic headform test method was optimized to evaluate the total filtration efficacy and breathing resistance of 12 products during a 10-minute simulated fit test. These products included three respiratory devices, three medical masks, and six barrier face covering styles. The revised method was able to differentiate between products with total filtration efficacies ranging from 14% to 93%, down to a difference in means of 2% at 0.3 μm optical diameter. The impact of fit was illustrated by the increase in total filtration efficacy and breathing resistance across all three medical masks when the ear loops were tightened. The coefficient of variation for each product fell below 20% at 0.3 μm optical diameter, indicating good measurement stability. A second operator conducted an intra-lab validation to determine the method's reliability. This analysis confirmed the improved repeatability and reproducibility of the headform test method, which was shown to effectively evaluate the total filtration efficacy of respiratory products as a system in a controlled laboratory setting. However, more research is needed to improve the sensitivity of the breathing resistance measurements. Comparison to the ASTM F3502-21 Standard Specification for Barrier Face Coverings highlighted the differences between evaluating these products as a sealed system or as they are intended to be worn, with an overall decrease in total filtration efficiency and breathing resistance due to leakage when evaluated on the headform.</p>","PeriodicalId":16599,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene","volume":" ","pages":"378-391"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146180700","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}