A question here. How can a tight fitting respirator based on PAPR become a negative pressure respirator and have an adequate face seal for a person with a beard? — KeithH
A PAPR has air provided to the wearer via a mechanically filtered pump or an external air supply, so how when these items are switched off, can the wearer inhale air either when fit-testing or when ensuring an airtight face seal. — KeithH
I think the key detail that is getting confused here is that the CleanSpace RPE "resembles" a close/tight fitting negative pressure RPE.We have recently come across Clean space masks which are powered masks that resemble the fittings on the close fitting powered respirators. — Stuart Keer-Keer
A question here. How can a tight fitting respirator based on PAPR become a negative pressure respirator and have an adequate face seal for a person with a beard? — KeithH
I think it was a bit of a trick question - the actual answer is a PAPR can never become a negative pressure respirator, as it was not designed as a negative pressure respirator. So not matter how much a PAPR kind of looks like a negative pressure respirator, it should never be considered a negative pressure respirator and if it has stopped operating as a PAPR it should be removed from use and repaired/discarded.It will not have an adequate seal.. Tight fitting respirators require a seal to work. So no beards. Refer to the CDC document below, that stipulates tight fitting PAPR respirators require fit testing. If you have a beard on a tight fitting powered air purifying respirator. (PAPR) you are not expected to pass a fit test. — Stuart Keer-Keer
Most (if not all) PAPR supply air via a fan and not a positive displacement pump. When the fan is not operating air can easily bypass it and still be drawn through the filters and into the mask.A PAPR has air provided to the wearer via a mechanically filtered pump or an external air supply, so how when these items are switched off, can the wearer inhale air either when fit-testing or when ensuring an airtight face seal. — KeithH
CleanSpace state that their masks are not designed as tight-fitting / close-fitting RPE as they do not rely on a tight seal between the mask and the users face.Cleanspace is certified as a tight fitting facepiece under AS/NZS1716. — RPE Fit tester
The CleanSpace would be considered a loose-fitting facepiece under the OSHA regulations, with an assigned protection factor of 25. This is compared with an APF of 10 for a negative pressure tight-fitting half-mask respirator, or 50 for a PAPR tight-fitting half-mask respirator. Given most will be moving from the typical negative-pressure half-mask respirators this is still a significant increase in the APF, with CleanSpaces studies showing that the actual realworld workplace protection factor will likely be even greater (at least 100 if not in the thousands).CleanSpace PAPR protection performance is not reliant on achieving a good mask seal. Annual fit testing and being clean shaven will improve a wearer’s mask fit. However, these are not required to ensure a high level of wearer respiratory protection. — Use of CleanSpace PAPRs by workers with Facial Hair - Manufacture's Statement
https://cleanspacetechnology.com/documents/product-resources/STATEMENT-MANUF-MAY082023REV2.pdfEdit: Supporting info relevant to the CleanSpace respirators: — MattD2
https://cleanspacetechnology.com/documents/product-resources/Respiratory-Protection-for-Workers.pdfRespiratory Protection for Workers with Facial Hair - Australia — MattD2
Do you have a source for that claim on WorkSafe's requirements specific to CleanSpace respirators?Thanks for the reply MattD2,
You may want to check with WorkSafe about their position on this as I understand they require Cleanspace to be fit tested in negative mode for it to be a valid fit test. — RPE Fit tester
AS/NZS 1716 doesn't use the term "tight fitting", hence they also do not use the term loose fitting. The AS/NZS standard defines the terms "half facepiece" and "full facepiece" as "a close fitting device to cover the nose, mouth and chin / eyes, nose and mouth [respectively] and be secured in position by suitable means." Close fitting would be considered as resting against the face, but the standard does not specify these have to be "tight fitting" and rely on a seal between the mask and skin to function correctly. Section 3.2.1 specifies that "the assembled respirator shall provide adequate protection either by means of a facial seal or by the provision of positive pressure in the space enclosed by the respirator, or by both, to minimize the entry of ambient atmosphere."Also AS/NZS1716 does not have a provision for the certification of half face loose fitting PAPR only tight fitting half face. Loose fitting under this standard requires a complete hood or helmet. — RPE Fit tester
I would consider the manufacture's statements to be a more authoritative source than a single question/answer on their FAQ page:From Cleanspace's website: https://cleanspacetechnology.com/faqs/
How do I know if the mask is fitted correctly?
Cleanspace is a tight fitting respirator and should be fitted so that the mask fits to the face. — RPE Fit tester
There always has to be someone that is first to market with an innovative product. I would expect that most of the other RPE manufactures have been caught resting on their laurels regarding R&D of truly innovative RPE. CleanSpace's "story" webpage calls this out.I can see why you want to take this path, it would be awesome to have a tight fitting half face PAPR that you can wear with facial hair. it would be a great marketing point of difference. Strange that no other major RPE manufacturer make the same claim especially any that have a product with certification under EN12942 as a TM. — RPE Fit tester
And that is your opinion, but can you point to anywhere in the AS/NZS Standards or WorkSafe guidance that specifically states that a PAPR that uses a close fitting face-piece must designed and tested with the assumption that the respirator is a negative-pressure type respirator and must rely on the facial seal to prevent inward leakage. Clause 6.4.3 in AS/NZS 1715 (1994 version is all i have on hand) does include that:Personally I would only fit test tight fitting face pieces when the wearer is clean shaven and if it is a PAPR or supplied air that it is under negative conditions. — RPE Fit tester
But also goes on to say in the same clause:Respirators incorporating close fitting facepieces rely on facial fit to prevent inward leakage of contaminants. Such respirators employing a full facepiece or half facepiece must not be used by males who are not clean shaven about the cheeks, neck and jaw. Half facepiece respirators of this type must not be used by those with moustaches where there is any chance of hair coming between the facepiece and the skin.
Given "facepiece" is only used in reference to close fitting half or full face masks (hood or head covering do not get referred to as "facepieces") The second part of the clause would somewhat clarify that the first part is referring to negative-pressure type half/full masks.Respirators which maintain a positive pressure in the facepiece at all times provide a higher degree of protection than can be achieved with negative pressure types. Positive pressure respirators may diminish the effect of poor facial fit but will not obviate the effect of leakage caused by facial hair (see Clause 7.5). Where conservation of the air supply is important, e.g. self-contained breathing apparatus, it should be recognized that any leakage, e.g. from the facial seal, increases air consumption and decreases service time.
If you are interested in workplace health & safety in New Zealand, then this is the discussion forum for you.