| 摘要: | 淨氣式呼吸防護具(Air Purifying Respirator, APR)是一般工業使用比率最高之呼吸防護具，然而有超過半數使用者在配戴時感到不適，且多歸因於生理負荷與流汗的增加。有鑑於此，本研究目的旨在常溫(25℃，50% RH)與濕熱(32.5℃，70% RH)環境下探討配戴APR搭配吸濕襯墊後之生理負荷變化與主觀不適程度。
本研究受測面罩包括三種形式之APR，一個為市售3M-6800系列之原裝APR (APR-N)、另一為同款面罩搭配不織布與棉狀紙漿縫製而成之吸濕襯墊(APR-L1)，最後為同款面罩搭配100%純棉之吸濕襯墊(APR-L2)等三種。常溫實驗計有18位平均年齡為22歲的大專男生參與，並從中選取9位進一步參與濕熱實驗。在兩實驗中受試者皆在固定45W的輕度工作負荷下進行生理指標的量測，包括心跳、吸吐氣壓力、口罩內溫度、分通氣量、耗氧量等，也同時量測面罩的保護係數，並於實驗結束後填寫Borg主觀不適問卷。
研究結果顯示，以APR-N為比較基準，在常溫環境下使用APR-L1與APR-L2，皆可以減少受試者之吸吐氣壓力、分通氣量與耗氧量，但無法顯著改善其主觀不適程度；反觀，在濕熱環境下使用APR-L1與APR-L2並無任何改善。儘管如此，在常溫與濕熱環境下，三種受測面罩之保護係數皆能維持在500以上。綜合以上，本實驗所使用之兩種吸濕襯墊可適用於常溫之工作環境下，但是在濕熱環境下則因為受試者所呼出之濕氣與顏面的汗水多於吸濕襯墊所能吸收的量，而無法展現其效果。
Air-purifying respirator (APR) is the most commonly used respirator in the industry; however, more than half of the users rated it as uncomfortable due to the increased physiological load and sweat. With that in mind, the objective of this study was to assess the effects of APR retrofitted with absorbent liners on the physiological load and subjective discomfort under normal (25 °C, 50% RH) and thermal (32.5 °C, 70% RH) environments.
The respirators under study were three 3M-600 series APR: one as-is (without absorbent liner)(APR-N), the second one retrofitted with absorbent liner made of non-woven fabric and pulp (APR-L1), and the third one retrofitted with absorbent liner made of 100% cotton (APR-L2). There were 18 healthy, 22 year-old, male college students participated in the normal-environment experiments; among them, nine further participated in the thermal-environment experiments. In both experiments, all the participants were asked to workout on an ergometer set at 45W workload, while their hear rate, inspiratory/expiratory pressure, temperature, minute ventilation, oxygen consumption and protection factor were monitored and recorded simultaneously. At the end of each experiment, the participants were asked to fill out a Borg Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE) Scale questionnaire.
The results show that, in comparison to APR-N, the use of APR-L1 and APR-L2 under normal environment could reduce the participants’ expiratory pressure, minute ventilation and oxygen consumption; however, there were no significant changes in the RPE. On the other hand, the use of APR-L1 and APR-L2 under thermal environment did not result in any significant improvements over physiological load and RPE. Nevertheless, all the APRs were able to maintain its protection factor above 500 under both the normal and thermal environments. Overall, our results suggest that absorbent liners under study are applicable to normal environments but not to thermal environments. |
