AAAR 36th Annual Conference October 16 - October 20, 2017 Raleigh Convention Center Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
Abstract View
Study on a Commercial Nasal Filter Against Environmental Tobacco Smoke Particulates
JINTUO ZHU, Xinjian He, Steve Guffey, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV
Abstract Number: 585 Working Group: Health Related Aerosols
Abstract Introduction: Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) is associated with various respiratory diseases. People who live with smokers or work in restaurants, bars, casinos are long-term exposed to ETS. Wearing filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) may be not feasible for cosmetic and comfortable reasons. Commercially available nasal filters may be a practical alternative for daily use as people breath 90% of air through the nose. However, there is limited research available on the filtration efficiency of nasal filters against ETS smoke particulates.
Methods: A nasal filter testing system was designed. Mainstream smoke (smoke filtered by the cigarette filter) and sidestream smoke (spontaneous combustion smoke) were generated and measured by a TSI NanoScan SMPS (10-420nm, 13 channels) and a CPC (10-1000nm), respectively. Three constant flows (15, 30, and 50 L/min) and three cyclic breathing flows (mean inspiratory flow, MIF = 15, 30, and 50 L/min) were tested. The concentrations of downstream (Cdown) and upstream of the tested nasal filter (Cup) were measured; particle penetration (P) was determined as Cdown/Cup. The total number of runs is 96 (2 smoke aerosols×2 measurement devices×2 flow types×3 flow rates×4 replicates).
Results: The results reported by SMPS and CPC agreed with each other. It was found that the tested nasal filter had limited effectiveness against ETS with almost all penetration values > 50%. The SMPS results showed that as the particle size increased, the penetration decreased. Duncan’s grouping showed that the penetration of sidestream smoke was significantly higher than mainstream smoke, while the penetration under cyclic flow was significantly higher than constant flow. Surprisingly, regardless of the smoke pattern and flow type, as the flow rate increased, the penetration value decreased.