We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Comfort and exertion while using filtering facepiece respirators with exhalation valve and an active venting system among male military personnel.
Singapore Medical Journal 2018 June
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to determine if disposable filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) that come with an exhalation valve (EV) and a novel active venting system (AVS) provided greater perceived comfort and exertion when compared to standard N95 FFRs without these features among male military personnel performing prolonged essential outdoor duties.
METHODS: We used a randomised open-label controlled crossover study design to compare three FFR options: (a) standard FFR; (b) FFR with EV; and (c) FFR with EV+AVS. Male military personnel aged between 18 and 20 years completed a questionnaire at the start of outdoor duty (baseline), after two hours of standardised non-strenuous outdoor duty and after 12 hours of duty divided into two-hour work-rest cycles. Participants rated the degree of discomfort, exertion and symptoms using a five-point Likert scale. The association between outcomes and types of FFR was assessed using a multivariate ordered probit mixed-effects model.
RESULTS: For a majority of the symptoms, study participants gave FFR with EV and FFR EV+AVS significantly better scores than standard FFR. Both FFR with EV and FFR with EV+AVS had significantly less discomfort (FFR with EV+AVS: 91.1%; FFR with EV: 57.6%) and exertion (FFR with EV+AVS: 83.5%; FFR with EV: 34.4%) than standard FFR. FFR with EV+AVS also had significantly better scores for exertion (53.4%) and comfort (39.4%) when compared to FFR with EV.
CONCLUSION: Usage of FFR with EV+AVS resulted in significantly reduced symptoms, discomfort and exertion when compared to FFR with EV and standard FFR.
METHODS: We used a randomised open-label controlled crossover study design to compare three FFR options: (a) standard FFR; (b) FFR with EV; and (c) FFR with EV+AVS. Male military personnel aged between 18 and 20 years completed a questionnaire at the start of outdoor duty (baseline), after two hours of standardised non-strenuous outdoor duty and after 12 hours of duty divided into two-hour work-rest cycles. Participants rated the degree of discomfort, exertion and symptoms using a five-point Likert scale. The association between outcomes and types of FFR was assessed using a multivariate ordered probit mixed-effects model.
RESULTS: For a majority of the symptoms, study participants gave FFR with EV and FFR EV+AVS significantly better scores than standard FFR. Both FFR with EV and FFR with EV+AVS had significantly less discomfort (FFR with EV+AVS: 91.1%; FFR with EV: 57.6%) and exertion (FFR with EV+AVS: 83.5%; FFR with EV: 34.4%) than standard FFR. FFR with EV+AVS also had significantly better scores for exertion (53.4%) and comfort (39.4%) when compared to FFR with EV.
CONCLUSION: Usage of FFR with EV+AVS resulted in significantly reduced symptoms, discomfort and exertion when compared to FFR with EV and standard FFR.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app