Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1093/occmed/kqaa167 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1093/occmed/kqaa167 33150448!7665646!33150448     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Occup+Med+(Lond) 2020 ; 70 (8): 556-563 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=33150448|t=2020. COVID-19: smoke testing of surgical mask and respirators |pdf=|usr=}}{{33150448}} gab.com Text COVID-19: smoke testing of surgical mask and respirators JO: Occup Med (Lond) http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33150448 #FOAvip BACKGROUND: Fluid Resistant Surgical Masks have been implemented in UK personal protective equipment (PPE) guidelines for COVID-19 for all care sites that do not include aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs). FFP3 masks are used in AGP areas. Concerns from the ENT and plastic surgery communities out with intensive care units have questioned this policy. Emerging evidence on cough clouds and health care worker deaths has suggested that a review is required. AIMS: To test the efficacy of Fluid Resistant Surgical Mask with and without adaptions for respiratory protection. To test the efficacy of FFP and FFP3 regarding fit testing and usage. METHODS: A smoke chamber test of 5 min to model an 8-h working shift of exposure while wearing UK guideline PPE using an inspiratory breathing mouthpiece under the mask. Photographic data were used for comparison. RESULTS: The Fluid Resistant Surgical Mask gave no protection to inhaled smoke particles. Modifications with tape and three mask layers gave slight benefit but were not considered practical. FFP3 gave complete protection to inhaled smoke but strap tension needs to be 'just right' to prevent facial trauma. Facial barrier creams are an infection risk. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical masks give no protection to respirable particles. Emerging evidence on cough clouds and health care worker deaths suggests the implementation of a precautionary policy of FFP3 for all locations exposed to symptomatic or diagnosed COVID-19 patients. PPE fit testing and usage policy need to improve to include daily buddy checks for FFP3 users. Twit Text FOAVip COVID-19: smoke testing of surgical mask and respirators ????Occup Med (Lond) http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33150448 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33150448 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|33150448}}</ref> COVID-19: smoke testing of surgical mask and respirators #MMPMID33150448 Douglas JDM; McLean N; Horsley C; Higgins G; Douglas CM; Robertson E Occup Med (Lond) 2020[Dec]; 70 (8): 556-563 PMID33150448show ga BACKGROUND: Fluid Resistant Surgical Masks have been implemented in UK personal protective equipment (PPE) guidelines for COVID-19 for all care sites that do not include aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs). FFP3 masks are used in AGP areas. Concerns from the ENT and plastic surgery communities out with intensive care units have questioned this policy. Emerging evidence on cough clouds and health care worker deaths has suggested that a review is required. AIMS: To test the efficacy of Fluid Resistant Surgical Mask with and without adaptions for respiratory protection. To test the efficacy of FFP and FFP3 regarding fit testing and usage. METHODS: A smoke chamber test of 5 min to model an 8-h working shift of exposure while wearing UK guideline PPE using an inspiratory breathing mouthpiece under the mask. Photographic data were used for comparison. RESULTS: The Fluid Resistant Surgical Mask gave no protection to inhaled smoke particles. Modifications with tape and three mask layers gave slight benefit but were not considered practical. FFP3 gave complete protection to inhaled smoke but strap tension needs to be 'just right' to prevent facial trauma. Facial barrier creams are an infection risk. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical masks give no protection to respirable particles. Emerging evidence on cough clouds and health care worker deaths suggests the implementation of a precautionary policy of FFP3 for all locations exposed to symptomatic or diagnosed COVID-19 patients. PPE fit testing and usage policy need to improve to include daily buddy checks for FFP3 users. |Aerosols[MESH] |COVID-19/prevention & control/transmission[MESH] |Equipment Design[MESH] |Equipment Safety[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control[MESH] |Inhalation Exposure/*prevention & control[MESH] |Masks/*standards[MESH] |Occupational Exposure/*prevention & control[MESH] |Respiratory Protective Devices/*standards[MESH] |SARS-CoV-2[MESH] |Smoke Inhalation Injury/prevention & control[MESH] |Smoke/*analysis[MESH]COVID-19: smoke testing of surgical mask and respirators (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing