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.

suck abstract from ncbi


10.13075/ijomeh.1896.01666

http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.13075/ijomeh.1896.01666
suck pdf from google scholar
33231204!ä!33231204

suck abstract from ncbi


Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
pmid33231204      Int+J+Occup+Med+Environ+Health 2021 ; 34 (2): 307-318
Nephropedia Template TP

gab.com Text

Twit Text FOAVip

Twit Text #

English Wikipedia


  • COVID-19 and respiratory protection for healthcare providers #MMPMID33231204
  • Sozkes S; Sozkes S
  • Int J Occup Med Environ Health 2021[May]; 34 (2): 307-318 PMID33231204show ga
  • This article has investigated the considerations of healthcare facilities to utilize reusable respirators as an alternative to disposable respirators during the COVID-19 pandemic. The decision to choose specific equipment should be based on the protection factors and also on the overall analysis of given conditions. International scientific databases, such as Web of Science, PubMed and MedLine, were searched on May 5, 2020, with the following key words: COVID-19, respiratory protection, surgical masks, filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) and disposable respirators. The differences between various respiratory protective equipment, i.e., surgical masks, respirators such as FFRs, elastomeric half-facepiece respirators, elastomeric full-facepiece respirators and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs), were compared. Reusable elastomeric respirators (RERs) may provide a better adaptation to the face and may be more stable when used by healthcare providers (HCPs). Protection factors were found to be higher in FFRs compared to surgical masks. While FFRs provide a one-tenth decrease in the inhaled aerosol concentration, PAPRs diminish the inhaled aerosol up to one-twenty-fifth. Even with some full-face PAPRs and helmets, the protection factor assigned by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration can reach a value up to 1000. For HCPs, the evidence shown in this article provides an additional support for the utilization of RERs. Such equipment might be less prone to leakages, can provide a better fit, and indicates a better stability compared to disposable FFRs (N95 and similar). By providing higher protection factors, reusable elastomeric respirators are recommended to be used by HCPs under controlled cleaning and disinfection protocols. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2021;34(2):307-18.
  • |*Health Personnel[MESH]
  • |*Pandemics[MESH]
  • |*Respiratory Protective Devices[MESH]
  • |Aerosols/adverse effects[MESH]
  • |COVID-19/*epidemiology/transmission[MESH]
  • |Disease Transmission, Infectious/*prevention & control[MESH]
  • |Humans[MESH]
  • |Occupational Exposure/*prevention & control[MESH]


  • DeepDyve
  • Pubget Overpricing
  • suck abstract from ncbi

    Linkout box