動力輔助式呼吸防護具測試方法探討

A Study of Testing Methods for Powered Air-purifying Respirators (PAPR)

10.7005/JOSH.200906.0239

陳春萬(Chun-Wan Chen)；張家豪(Chia-Hao Chang)

呼吸防護具 ； 動力式呼吸防護具 ； 面體內壓力 ； 模擬防護程度 ； Respirator ； Powered air-purifying respirators PAPR ； Internal pressure in facePiece ； Simulated protection level

勞工安全衛生研究季刊

17卷2期（2009 / 06 / 01）

239 - 252

繁體中文

各國對於動力輔助式呼吸防護具(Powered Air-purifying Respirators, PAPR)的測試方法並不相同，在建議制定台灣國家標準時應該進行何種項目測試？研究就是希望透過實際測試數據，提出建議項目。研究整理日本、歐盟、美國、澳洲之PAPR規範，也參考這些規範，測試7款PAPR之流量、呼吸模擬器搭配國人頭型下面體內壓力變化及模擬佩戴效果、真人佩戴PAPR後面體內壓力與密合係數等。 各國PAPR規範，最常見作法為利用呼吸模擬器搭配頭型下測試面體內壓力變化，測試呼吸頻率範圍20-30次，潮氣容積範圍1.5-2公升，而各國對於整體防護效果，測試方法不同，有採用呼吸模擬器搭配頭型，有採用真人測試。實際測試7款PAPP之流量，有一款PAPR無法達到密接面體之每分鐘115公升之流量。而設定呼吸模擬器條件，每分鐘呼吸量依序為40、50、72公升，呼吸量越大壓力變化範圍越大，在三種測試條件下，7款中分別有2款、3款與6款會產生負壓。就模擬佩戴效果，隨著測試條件呼吸量變大，三種測試條件下，分別有1、4、7款PAPR低於日本規範要求之1000。同一款PAPR模擬佩戴效果與面體內壓力呈現一定之關係，但是降低幅度並不相同，但對於各款PAPR間，面體內壓力變化及模擬佩戴效果並無明顯相對關係，原因必須進一步探討。由呼吸模擬器搭配頭型的測試結果來看，可分辨此7款PAPR之性能，特別是條件2狀況下。 真人密合度測試時，在深呼吸、說話、彎腰等3個測試動作時，面體內壓力變化較大，有一款PAPR於說話測試動作時出現負壓狀況，所測試7款PAPR整體密合係數都大於10000，密接面體與寬鬆面體密合係數並無明顯差異，對於密合係數與面體內壓力間，並無明確關係，影響因素必須更進一步探討才能確認。 研究建議要制定台灣PAPR國家標準時，可以採用呼吸模擬器搭配國人頭型來進行測試，呼吸模擬器條件為每分鐘25次，每次呼吸2公升。

The testing methods for powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR) are divergent and have different standards, so the guestion arises of what kinds of testing methods should be chosen for the Taiwan CNS standard. This study compared testing methods according to test data. The study adjusted the of American, CEN (European Committee for Standardization), Australian/New Zealand, and Japanese standards, and set up equipment in the laboratory to measure the flow rate and internal pressure in PAPR face pieces in a simulated breathing machine, and to gauge the simulated protection level or fit factor in Taiwan dummy heads and test subjects. The standards of all the countries required testing of internal pressure in PAPR face piece in simulated breathing machines, at 20-30 cycles/min and 1.5-2 L/stroke, and gauging of the simulated protection level or fit factor in different ways. The flow rate of one of the seven investigated PAPRs failed to reach 115 L/min. The calculated flow rates in three conditions of simulated breathing machines were 40, 50, and 72 L/min. The variation of internal pressure in the facepieces depended on the calculated flow rates. Numbers 2, 3, and 6 of the seven investigated PAPRs failed to keep the flow rate, and PAPRs 1, 4, and 7 didnot exceed 1000. The internal pressure in the facepiece showed a definite correlation with the simulated protection level in the same PAPR but no correlation in different PAPRs. The results of testing of simulated breathing machines can differentiate the performance of different PAPRs, especially under test condition 2. The variation of the internal pressure in facepieces was relatively large during deep breathing, talking, and bend over and touching the toes. One PAPR failed to keep the internal pressure in facepieces all positive in talking exercises. The fit factors of one test subject all exceeded 10000 in all PAPRs and all test exercises. There were no differences between loose and tight-fitting PAPRs; the internal pressure in the facepieces didnot correlate with the fit factor. This study suggests that simulated breathing machines and Taiwan dummy heads be used, with the simulated breathing machine conditions set at 25 cycles/min and 2 L/stroke, in the establishment of PAPR standards for the Taiwan CNS.