Peter, you are correct regarding Medical Evaluation for Elastomeric Facepiece Respirators.
On Jan 14, 2021, at 12:41 PM, Wagoner, Jo <jwagoner**At_Symbol_Here**BUTLER.EDU> wrote:
--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchasHere is an enforcement memo concerning healthcare respiratory protection rules: https://www.osha..gov/memos/2020-03-14/temporary-enforcement-guidance-healthcare-respiratory-protection-annual-fit-Jo Wagoner, Butler UniversityAs I recall, OSHA requires a medical certification for the voluntary use of elastomeric respirators? - Pete Reinhardt, Yale EHSHooray for Rob. And as for the risks, remember that OSHA allows voluntary use of respirators without medical certification and fit testing. The only requirement is to give the worker a copy for 1910.134 Appendix D which talks about the risks. So there is precedent for giving N95s to people who are not certified. That's what we should be doing along with some additional training.Monona-----Original Message-----
From: ILPI Support <info**At_Symbol_Here**ILPI.COM>
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2021 11:40 am
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] 3' Social Distancing "Rule"Doesn't matter how many ply you have or whether they kill or trap the virus if the sides are open because it's an ear loop mask. It's like putting deadbolts on the front door but leaving the windows open.As to Monona's inquiry about state of N95. I assume most folks know by now my company has been selling those since this all started. In the past few months, we've been contacted by three different US manufacturers about selling their startup N95 products, two of which have NIOSH approval already and one of which is pending. Production of those are ramping nicely although they are all priced rather high as the manufacturers are trying to pay off startup costs and, of course, the cost of US labor.Many hospitals, at least on the East Coast and in states that have their acts in gear, appear to be pretty well supplied with medical-grade (FDA-approved; liquid resistant) N95's. For example, I know of a regional hospital here that has 225+ days of PPE on hand and ongoing supply agreements moving forward. And most hospitals out here are owned by large networks so their peers are well set, too. Independent and rural hospitals elsewhere in the US, well, that's another matter, I assume.That said, we've been seeing fierce downward pressure on N95's and especially non-medical earl loop masks, which is to be expected with supply orders that were placed six months ago in addition to domestic ramp up (and 3M's gargantuan efforts, of course). We'll be selling NIOSH N95's for under $1 each by the end of February although the US ones will remain $3-4, I expect. Some sellers of N95's and ear loop masks are now faced with inventory concerns - too much, not too little. Those who have not successfully penetrated the market are looking to unload supplies they paid dearly for before they are left holding the bag.On that basis, our health officials should be now be encouraging high risk populations (e.g half the general public) to wear (non-medical!) NIOSH N95's. But they presumably don't want to cause confusion or diversion of the medical grade ones, I suppose.Rob TorekiPS: I get so frustrated by sites like BGR and Buzzfeed etc. that have lists of "the best masks" that refer people to KN95 garbage and cloth masks for sale on Amazon when we are selling genuine protection for less. Those "recommendations" are based on kickbacks for purchase referrals. I=E2=80™ve emailed a few of them and said hey - we don't have the margin to give you a reward for spreading the word, but you should list our stuff because it's better and cheaper. Crickets in response. I understand they have to make money somehow, but for something as literally life and death as this, well, it tells me a lot about their character, sadly.======================================================Safety Emporium - Lab & Safety Supplies featuring brand namesyou know and trust. Visit us at https://www.SafetyEmporium.comesales**At_Symbol_Here**safetyemporium.com or toll-free: (866) 326-5412Fax: (856) 553-6154, PO Box 1003, Blackwood, NJ 08012On Jan 14, 2021, at 10:54 AM, McLaren III, Jim A. <james.mclaren**At_Symbol_Here**TRINCOLL.EDU> wrote:I love you Monona.They also state the idea that 13 ply cotton is as good as the N-95's------------------where in the market are there 13 ply masks? I see three plys at best.Jim McLarenJim McLarenLab Technician/Chemical Hygeine Officer/Nuclear Safety Officer300 Summit Street, Trinity College Chemistry Department,Hartford, CT 06106-3100Telephone: 860-297-2512Here's the first paragraph of the Discussion:Discussion The findings of this systematic review of 172 studies (44 comparative studies; n=25697 patients) on COVID-19, SARS, and MERS provide the best available evidence that current policies of at least 1 m physical distancing are associated with a large reduction in infection, and distances of 2 m might be more effective. These data also suggest that wearing face masks protects people (both health-care workers and the general public) against infection by these coronaviruses, and that eye protection could confer additional benefit. However, none of these interventions afforded complete protection from infection, and their optimum role might need risk assessment and several contextual considerations. No randomised trials were identified for these interventions in COVID-19, SARS, or MERSFrom my perspective, and having read a great number of those 176 studies, it seems like a lot of trouble to conclude what we have known for many months. I suppose it might be helpful for those last holdouts who are still against wearing masks and distancing, but they should all drop dead by Thursday anyway.And the major flaw in the studies is there rarely is any measurement of the ventilation parameters or directional air flow that would transport the aerosol. So it's pretty much a math exercise in my view. Then there is the following in the conclusions:Our findings accord with those of a cluster randomised trial showing a potential benefit of continuous N95 respirator use over medical masks against seasonal viral infections.79 Further high-quality research, including randomised trials of the optimum physical distance and the effectiveness of different types of masks in the general population and for health-care workers' protection, is urgently neededI'm really annoyed by all of the efforts to figure out how to make better cloth masks when we well-know how to manufacture N95s. The damn things are a polyfiber fabric and a couple of straps. How hard is that to manufacture? By now, we should be knee-deep in N95s and we'd have been busy training lay people to use them safely. I can only conclude that the leaders of this country truly don't gave a damn.There's a reason from my low pH attitude that I'll discuss later.MononaGood Morning Ladies and Gentlemen,As you may know, just as ACS/DCHAS operate this important dialogue on various topics of timely interest, so does the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) operate "catalyst/AIHA" as open discussion for its community.For those of you who are not members of the AIHA, Jeremy DeWitt, CIH (DuPont Protection Technologies, Midlothian, VA) just posted the following question with an attached reference."I am wanting the objective feedback from the (AIHA) community about the Harvard study citing that 3ft is adequate space for social distance in school."He states, "This study (see attached below) is currently being used as justification for returning children to school in the central Virginia region"And further states, "The effectiveness seems to be contingent upon effective mask usage. This does not seem to be a realistic layer of protection when dealing with elementary age children."Any comments you have would be welcome here for DCHAS members to review.Those of you who are AIHA members might want to comment on "catalyst/AIHA" as well. David M. Lipton, CIH from the NC Division of Public Health (Raleigh, NC) just posted the first reply 30 minutes ago.Also, in keeping with our current dialogue on "Eyewear," do scroll down to the section of the study which discusses use of protective eyewear to help reduce exposure which is based upon mostly SARs and MERs data. Will non-vented/gas-tight Z877.1+ D3/D4/D5 be the best solution for not only frontline heathcare workers but also the general public?Be Safe and Stay Well!All My Best,John B. Callen, Ph.D3M Personal Safety Division - RetiredACS/DCHAS Founding Member(312) 632-0195--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post