7

3m 7500 respirator manual

LINK 1 ENTER SITE >>> Download PDF
LINK 2 ENTER SITE >>> Download PDF

File Name:3m 7500 respirator manual.pdf
Size: 2868 KB
Type: PDF, ePub, eBook

Category: Book
Uploaded: 26 May 2019, 15:20 PM
Rating: 4.6/5 from 819 votes.

Status: AVAILABLE

Last checked: 10 Minutes ago!

In order to read or download 3m 7500 respirator manual ebook, you need to create a FREE account.

Download Now!

eBook includes PDF, ePub and Kindle version

✔ Register a free 1 month Trial Account.

✔ Download as many books as you like (Personal use)

✔ Cancel the membership at any time if not satisfied.

✔ Join Over 80000 Happy Readers

3m 7500 respirator manualDue to the unprecedented high demand caused by the recent Coronavirus outbreak, however, this item has the potential to be backordered. If that is the case, once the item is back in stock, orders will be fulfilled in the order they are received.Due to the unprecedented high demand caused by the recent Coronavirus outbreak, however, this item has the potential to be backordered. If that is the case, once the item is back in stock, orders will be fulfilled in the order they are received.This shipping policy only applies to orders shipped within the Contiguous U.S. In addition to our everyday competitive shipping rates, the Free Shipping Program is another way Jon-Don tries to save you money! Do not use in atmospheres containing less than 19.5 oxygen. And by having access to our ebooks online or by storing it on your computer, you have convenient answers with 3m User Manual. To get started finding 3m User Manual, you are right to find our website which has a comprehensive collection of manuals listed. Our library is the biggest of these that have literally hundreds of thousands of different products represented. I get my most wanted eBook Many thanks If there is a survey it only takes 5 minutes, try any survey which works for you. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 Oct 18. Abstract Background: Health care facilities are considering the use of reusable respiratory protective devices (RPDs) to mitigate a potential N95 filtering facepiece respirator shortage caused by an influenza pandemic. US regulators are also considering stockpiling reusable RPDs for pandemic preparedness, but limited data exist on the effectiveness of cleaning and disinfection of these devices. This study defines reprocessing protocols and evaluates their effectiveness against a pandemic influenza strain in a laboratory setting.http://www.pentas.eu/userfiles/3m-manuals.xml

Tags:
• 3m 7500 respirator manual, 3m 7500 respirator manual, 3m 7500 respirator manual, 3m 7500 respirator manual pdf, 3m 7500 respirator manual download, 3m 7500 respirator manual instructions, 3m 7500 respirator manual diagram, 3m 7500 respirator manual, 3m 7500 series respirator manual, 3m 7500 half face respirator manual.

Methods: Five half-mask elastomeric respirator models and 3 powered air-purifying respirator models were contaminated with influenza virus and artificial skin oil on multiple surfaces. RPDs were then manually treated with 1 of 2 methods: cleaned or cleaned and disinfected. Presence of viable influenza was determined via swab sampling and a median tissue culture infectious dose assay. Conclusions: The methods defined as part of this study are effective for eliminating viable influenza in the presence of artificial skin oil on most of the RPD surfaces tested. Material type and RPD design should be considered when implementing RPD reprocessing protocols. The requirement to clean and disinfect respirators necessitates the establishment of reprocessing protocols for HCWs to follow. According to CDC guidance, cleaning refers to the removal of visible soil from objects and surfaces and normally is accomplished manually or mechanically using water with detergents or enzymatic products. Disinfection is defined as a process that eliminates many or all pathogenic microorganisms, except bacterial spores, on inanimate objects usually through the use of liquid chemicals or wet pasteurization. 14 OSHA requires reprocessing procedures to be included in an employer’s respiratory protection program for all worksites where respirator use is required. 13 According to OSHA, an employer must use either the cleaning and disinfecting procedures recommended by OSHA or the procedures recommended by the respirator manufacturer, as long as the procedures are equivalent in effectiveness to the OSHA method. 13 Other disinfection or sterilization methods, such as ethylene oxide exposure or steam autoclaving, are generally not compatible with HMERs or PAPRs. 15 Ultimately, clear and specific instructions should be provided to HCWs in such a way that they can easily understand and follow to reprocess reusable RPDs in a safe and effective manner.http://www.eldorado777.ro/upload/editor/3m-mp160-manual.xml Yet, depending on the source, guidance for cleaning and disinfecting respirators does not always provide the same type of information necessary to perform these procedures. For disinfection, OSHA defines 2 disinfecting agents and provides appropriate concentrations and contact times. 13 A 2015 study performed by Bessesen et al 21 evaluated reprocessing procedures provided by HMER manufacturers. As part of this study, 6 subjects tested manufacturers’ instructions for use (IFUs) for cleaning and disinfecting an HMER; all participants made multiple errors during the HMER reprocessing. Out of 66 attempts, 31 errors were made using the manufacturers’ IFUs. Semicritical devices contact intact mucous membranes or nonintact skin and must be cleaned and either sterilized or treated with a highlevel disinfection process. Noncritical devices contact intact skin only (without penetration) and must be cleaned and treated with either an intermediate- or low-level disinfection process depending on the level of contamination. Currently, reusable RPDs are not cleared by the FDA for use in hospitals, yet there are health care institutions using the devices as part of their respiratory protection program. 21, 26 The Veterans Health Administration has stockpiled 3 models of reusable HMERs as a means to meet demand for respiratory protection during an influenza or other large-scale aerosol transmissible outbreak. 21 FDA clearance would likely require data supporting the effectiveness of reprocessing protocols, but few studies assessing the effectiveness of cleaning and disinfection protocols for HMERs and PAPRs have been published. In 2014, Subhash et al 27 performed a study evaluating the effectiveness of common health care disinfectant wipes against H1N1 influenza on HMERs.http://www.drupalitalia.org/node/66899 Other limitations of this study were the inoculum titer used in the study is unknown and the highest viable recovery was only 73 plaque-forming units, capping the maximum demonstrable effectiveness at 14 The objectives of this study were to define detailed, comprehensive methods for cleaning and disinfecting HMERs and PAPRs when challenged with influenza virus in the presence of soiling agents, and subsequently assess their effectiveness. These methods are largely based on existing practices recommended by OSHA and RPD manufacturers, while addressing guidance gaps to ensure these procedures are being performed in a safe and effective manner. Five HMER models and 3 PAPR models were contaminated with H1N1 influenza and artificial skin oil, then were either cleaned only or cleaned and disinfected using the methods defined as part of this study. Madin-Darby canine kidney cells (ATCC CCL-34) were passaged and maintained using WHO-approved cell culture techniques. Test respirators Five commercially available HMER models and 3 commercially available PAPR models were tested for this study ( Table 1 ). RPD models were selected based on a combination of a National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health survey, Veterans Health Administration use of HMERs, and HMERs used by Ciconte and Danyluk. 10 Each model has a unique design with different surface types that could influence cleaning efficiency. To account for this, multiple surface types were inoculated for each respirator model. Additionally, the same PAPR hood model was used for both 3M PAPR systems tested as part of this study. It should be noted the 3M Air-Mate PAPR model was discontinued by the manufacturer as of June 30, 2017, but replacement parts will be available until June 30, 2019 (personal communication). HMERs were inoculated on 4 surfaces: the exterior of the facemask nose and mouth, head strap, and adjustment strap.DIATECGROUP.COM/images/3m-7800-respirator-manual.pdf HMER models were also inoculated on the filter cartridge cover, except the North 7700 model, which did not have protective filter covers. Inoculated surfaces were allowed to dry at room temperature for approximately 20 minutes. The sebum overlay was prepared by pipetting 2.5 mL liquefied sebum into a 100-mm Petri dish that was rotated to spread the synthetic skin oil evenly. A triangle-shaped spreader was used to collect the sebum from the Petri dish. Procedures for HMER cleaning and disinfecting were based on procedures recommended by OSHA. 13 Reprocessors donned a disposable lab coat, eye protection, and used a double-glove technique, changing the outer gloves when potentially contaminated. After inoculating the HMERs with both influenza and sebum, HMERs were aseptically transported to a class I biological safety cabinet where cartridges, if present, were removed from the mask and placed in an empty reservoir. The external face of the mask was wiped first, and then the sponge was folded over each strap for wiping; the inside of the mask was wiped last. The external face of the mask and the straps were rinsed first and then the inside of the mask was rinsed. For cartridges, the front side of each cartridge was wiped with a sponge soaked in 0.5 Neutrawash solution and then wiped with a sponge soaked in water only to remove any detergent. For HMER disinfection, HMERs and cartridge covers were transferred to a separate 5 L Nalgene pan containing 3 L 0.1 household bleach solution (Clorox Bleach, The Clorox Co, Oakland, CA). Each side of the HMERs and cartridge covers were immersed in the bleach solution for 2 minutes. For cartridge disinfection, a Super SaniCloth (PDI, Orangeburg, NY) with an alcohol quaternary antimicrobial was used to wipe the exterior surfaces and allowed to dry at room temperature for approximately 2 minutes. Cleaning and disinfection steps required 21 minutes per batch (3 respirators per batch) and the drying period was approximately 20 minutes for the HMER body, but more than 6 hours for the HMER straps. It is important to note that these time estimates do not include the time required to sterilize potentially contaminated materials used during reprocessing (ie, cleaning pan and sponges). After the incubation period, each well was observed under the microscope for cytopathic effects, generally demonstrated by a disruption of the cell monolayer. Plates were subsequently stained with crystal violetglutaraldehyde to confirm the presence of cytopathic effects. Due to the different system designs, the inoculation locations varied between PAPR models. The 3M Air-Mate model was inoculated on the motor blower unit, belt, belt clip, and breathing tube. The 3M Breathe Easy model was inoculated on the motor blower unit, filter cartridge, belt, belt clip, battery, and breathing tube. The same PAPR hood (3M BE-10) was used for both 3M PAPR models and was inoculated on the visor, Tychem (DuPont, Wilmington, DE), and breathing tube connection. The Syntech MAXAIR model was inoculated on the helmet, visor, and battery pack. Procedures for PAPR cleaning and disinfecting were based on a combination of procedures recommended by OSHA and Oregon Health and Science University. 13, 30 PPE used for PAPR reprocessing was the same as PPE used for HMER reprocessing described above. Three inoculated PAPR replicates were used for each test: 1 was left untreated and served as a control mask, 1 was cleaned only, and 1 was cleaned and disinfected. PAPRs to be disinfected were then wiped with a Super SaniCloth and allowed to dry for 2 minutes. The 3M Breathe Easy PAPR motor was wiped around the cartridges, on the sides and back of the motor, on the external surfaces of the battery avoiding the switch, and on the belt clip. For the 3M Air-Mate, the front of the blower unit was wiped first, followed by the back and the sides, and then the belt and belt clip were wiped. The 3M hoods were first wiped on the crown of the hood, then the clear visor and breathing tube insert were wiped. Long wipes were made down the hood while rotating the hood, making sure all areas were wiped. The external surfaces of the breathing tubes were wiped using the same methods as the PAPR blower motors and hoods. The 3M Breathe Easy breathing tube was stretched and held in place by clamps attached to a ring stand for cleaning, disinfecting, and sampling. The Syntech Maxair was first wiped first across the top of the helmet and then across the clear visor. The battery was wiped last, taking care to avoid the plug for the battery cable. Similar virus sampling and quantification methods used in the HMER reprocessing studies were also used for PAPRs. The time required to clean and disinfect an entire single unit was approximately 15 minutes, not including drying time. Additionally, preparation and cleanup steps combined required approximately 20 minutes to complete. These time estimates do not include the time required to sterilize potentially contaminated materials used during reprocessing (ie, cleaning pan and sponges). Data analysis To determine the level of viable virus recovered from each sampled location, the Spearman-Karber formula was used to interpret the TCID 50 assay data. 31 To perform statistical analyses, Environmental Protection Agency guidance using half the detection limit (0.20 log 10 TCID 50 ) for below detection limit values was followed. 32 A 1-way analysis of variance with a Dunnett’s posttest was used to determine statistical significance when comparing differences between control and treated respirators for each RPD model. If needed, a 2-tailed unpaired t test was used to determine the P value for significant differences identified by the analysis of variance. For cleaned and disinfected surfaces, no detectable viable virus was recovered. DISCUSSION This study demonstrates the decontamination effectiveness of the RPD reprocessing protocols defined as part of this study against H1N1 influenza in the presence of a heavy soiling agent. Twentyfour different HMER surfaces and 17 different PAPR surfaces were evaluated to account for differences in material properties and surface types. Of the 41 unique surfaces tested, viable virus ranging from 0.971.73 log 10 TCID 50 was recovered from only 3 surfaces: Scott fabric strap, Sperian fabric strap, and 3M Breathe Easy breathing tube, after being inoculated with a significant challenge of 10 7 log 10 TCID 50 influenza virus covered in artificial skin oil. Both the Scott and Sperian fabric straps are hydrophilic porous surfaces, which may have influenced their ability to be disinfected. Across the board, significantly lower levels of virus were extracted from porous surfaces compared with nonporous surfaces( P 10 TCID 50 ) compared with other surfaces tested ( P Cleaning alone was demonstrated to be similarly effective as cleaning and disinfection for most surfaces. Both reprocessing approaches produced a mean 4.5-log reduction for RPD surfaces tested. Only 2 cleaned and disinfected surfaces, the Sperian fabric strap and 3M Breathe Easy breathing tube, demonstrated lower virus recoveries compared with the respective cleaned-only surfaces. Considerations of the material type and design must be made before implementing a similar approach for reprocessing RPDs. Adoption of such an approach may be necessary if disinfectant (eg, bleach) is not available due to potential supply shortages during a pandemic. The disinfection requirements for medical devices vary based on their classification as either critical, semicritical, or noncritical. RPDs are not currently identified in terms of the Spaulding classification and thus their disinfection requirements have not been defined. The reprocessing methods used in this study solely focus on their effectiveness against pandemic influenza, indicated by the log reduction in viable virus. The log reduction achieved by both treatment types used in this study is likely limited by a number of factors. The inoculum size sets the upper boundary for the log reduction achievable. The resulting inoculum size (10 7 log 10 TCID 50 ) limits the log reduction achievable to a maximum of 7-log reduction. There are no published data on influenza contamination levels of FFRs in hospitals. However, Fisher et al 33 validated a predictive model for estimating the level of influenza contamination on FFRs and surgical masks resulting from aerosols in health care settings. The estimated contamination level for the entire external surface of an FFR ranged from 10 1 -10 5 viruses depending on different scenarios using airborne influenza concentrations published in the literature. These data provide an indication that the challenge concentration used in this study represents a worst-case scenario. Additionally, the log reduction achievable is decreased when the sampling efficiency is accounted for, which as the data indicates, can vary considerably based on surface type. Additionally, the detection limit of the TCID 50 assay sets the lower boundary of the log reduction achievable. This is a log-based assay with a detection limit of approximately 0.4 log 10 TCID 50 for the testing performed for this study. Another factor potentially limiting the log reduction is the level of sebum used. Pochi and Strauss 35 measured casual sebum levels of 51 male subjects with and without acne to determine a cause-and-effect relationship. Compared with the sebum level of subjects with acne, the sebum challenge used in this study is approximately a 14-fold increase. Despite undefined disinfection requirements for reusable RPDs, the data from this study demonstrated a mean 4.5-log reduction in viable influenza under rather extreme challenge conditions compared with the contamination events that would likely occur in the real world, indicating these reprocessing methods would be effective for RPD reprocessing during an influenza pandemic. Although the reprocessing protocols used in this study demonstrated effectiveness against viable influenza contamination, implementation of these processes into a hospital presents some logistic challenges. Based on the protocols used in this study, the time required to perform HMER or PAPR reprocessing could be substantial in a health care facility. Ciconte and Danyluk 10 also determined that manual reprocessing of HMERs was more time consuming than originally believed, in large part due to the HMERs floating in the soaking solutions, prompting a separate soak period for each side of the respirator. Another consideration is the reprocessor will require great attention to detail, ensuring all surfaces are properly scrubbed and cleaned. This procedure would also need to take place within a containment device to prevent potential contamination or infection of the reprocessor via aerosolized droplets or potentially contaminated washwater produced as a result of the cleaning process. To address these issues, a follow-up study is being performed evaluating the effectiveness and compatibility of automated methods for emergency reprocessing of influenzacontaminated reusable RPDs. Additionally, influenza contamination of HMERs and PAPRs through the aerosol route has the potential to reach surfaces not easily accessible by a sponge or brush. Guidance provided to HCWs for reprocessing reusable RPDs needs to be clear and provide adequate definition for the task to be performed safely and effectively. The guidance provided by OSHA or RPD manufacturers for the models tested in this study did not specify the appropriate PPE to wear or containment considerations, as confirmed by Bessesen et al. 21 The OSHA guidance is also not compatible with all RPD components. Often, reprocessing instructions provided by the HMER manufacturers did not define all of the key components of the process, instead omitting key information entirely or providing ambiguous generalizations (eg, wash with a cleaner-sanitizer solution). For PAPRs, the reprocessing guidance provided by manufacturers can be more complicated and even less defined than for HMERs. Each main component of the PAPR system (hood, motor blower unit, and battery) can have separate IFUs according to the manufacturer, but vary in the level of detail provided. Overall, better guidance is needed for HCWs to perform HMER and PAPR reprocessing, especially if these devices are used during a pandemic event. This study helps fill that gap by providing detailed cleaning and disinfection methods for both HMERs and PAPRs and then demonstrating their effectiveness, prompting their potential adoption as standard reprocessing guidance for the industry. CONCLUSIONS The effectiveness demonstrated by the reprocessing protocols evaluated as part of this study indicates that HMERs and PAPRs can be effectively disinfected when challenged with a pandemic influenza strain in the presence of soiling agents. Of 41 surfaces tested, only 1 demonstrated recoverable viable virus after being both cleaned and disinfected, indicating that the likelihood of these devices acting as fomites after proper use of the reprocessing protocols evaluated here is low. The data from this study also demonstrate similar efficacies between an approach that uses just cleaning methods (eg, neutral detergent) and an approach that uses both cleaning and disinfection methods (eg, neutral detergent and hypochlorite) for most surfaces. However, material characteristics and designs may decrease cleaning efficiency, an important consideration because supplies other than RPDs may experience a shortage during an influenza pandemic (eg, bleach). In general, guidance provided by HMER and PAPR manufacturers needs more clarity and definition for HCWs to effectively reprocess these devices, especially during a pandemic event. In the interim, the method used in this research could be considered by regulators or standards development organizations in their efforts to develop guidance or criteria. Acknowledgments Supported by the US Food and Drug Administration Medical Countermeasures Initiative Regulatory Science Extramural Research Program (contract No. HHSF223201400158C). Footnotes The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health or the Food and Drug Administration. Conflicts of interest: None to report. References 1. Talbot TR, Babcock H, Caplan AL, Cotton D, Maragakis LL, Poland GA, et al.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol B95: a new respirator for health care personnel. Am J Infect Control Clin Infect Dis Available from:. Accessed August 24, 2016. 7. Murray M, Grant J, Bryce E, Chilton P, Forrester L. Facial protective equipment, personnel, and pandemics: impact of the pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus on personnel and use of facial protective equipment. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. Am J Infect Control. Clin Infect Dis. Ciconte R, Danyluk Q. Assessment and Determination of Practical Considerations for Wide-Scale Utilization of Elastomeric Half-facepiece Respirators during a Pandemic or Outbreak Situation. WorkSafe BC. MayEmerg Infect Dis. Heimbuch BK, Wallace WH, Balzli CL, Laning ML, Harnish DA, Wander JD. Bioaerosol exposure to personnel in a clinical environment absent patients. J Occup Environ Hyg. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Respiratory Protection. OSHA Technical Manual Section VIII: Chapter 2. Available from: Accessed August 26, 2016. 14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities. Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. 2008. Am J Infect Control. Available from:. Accessed January 26, 2017. 23. Assembly User Instructions. Reprocessing Medical Devices in Health Care Settings: Validation Methods and Labeling. Available from:. Accessed January 26, 2017. 26. Wizner K, Stradtman L, Novak D, Shaffer R. Prevalence of respiratory protection devices in U.S. health care facilities: implications for emergency preparedness. Workplace Health Saf. Subhash SS, Cavaiuolo M, Radonovich LJ, Eagan A, Lee ML, Campbell S, et al.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. World Health Organization. WHO Manual on Animal Influenza Diagnosis and Surveillance. PublishedComparison of surface sampling methods for virus recovery from fomites. Appl Environ Microbiol. Singh A, Nocerino J. Robust estimation of mean and variance using environmental data sets with below detection limit observations. Chemometr Intell Lab Syst. Fisher EM, Noti JD, Lindsley WG, Blachere FM, Shaffer RE. Validation and application of models to predict facemask influenza contamination in healthcare settings. Risk Anal. Lindsley WG, Blachere FM, Thewlis RE, Vishnu A, Davis KA, Cao G, et al.Pochi PE, Strauss JS. Sebum production, casual sebum levels, titratable acidity of sebum, and urinary fractional 17-ketosteroid excretion in males with acne. J Invest Dermatol. When properly fitted, they are ideal for a variety of applications including welding, brazing, torch cutting, metal pouring, soldering, and exposure to lead, asbestos, cadmium, arsenic, and MDA for concentrations up to 10 times the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL). 3M 7500 vs 3M 6000 Respirators — SafetyNW What is the difference between 3M 7500 vs 3M 6000? 3M 7500 vs 3M 6000 Differences 3M 6000 Respirator 3M 6000 Respirator is made from a thermoplastic elstomer material. (For those who are allergic to silicone). 3M 6000 Respirator uses regular exhalation valve.. 3M 6300 Large Half Mask Respirator on sale from Safety NW 3M 6300 Half Mask. Technical Datasheet 6000 Series gas and vapour filters should not be used to protect the wearer against a gas or vapour that has poor warning properties (smell or taste). New Listing 3M 6200 Half. View and Download 3M 6000 Series user instructions online. Half Facepiece Respirator 6000 Series. 6000 Series Respiratory Product pdf manual download. Also for: 6100, 7024, 6200, 7025, 6300, 7026. Choosing the Right Size 3M Respirator Mask The 3M 6800 Medium respirator fits 80 of the population, and I would argue that most individuals that fit the large respirator, can also fit this respirator. Free shipping for many products! 3M 6000 Series Half Mask Medium Without Filter Order online at Screwfix. Lightweight, reusable half mask designed for simplicity. Unique 3M bayonet filter fixing system. Accepts 3M 2000, 5000 and 6000 series filters. With comfortable cradle head harness and easy-fasten neck strap. The respirator comes with a P100 filter, which is replaceable. Like the other 3M filter masks we sell, it requires no extra parts to attach the filters or cartridges directly to the facepiece. Brand: 3M 3M 6000 Series Half Mask Respirator — Gempler's Description. 3M 6000 Series Half-Mask Respirator features the same low-maintenance and combination cartridges as the full-face model. This 3M 6000 Series Half-Mask Respirator is a less expensive alternative to the 3M 7500 because of reduced maintenance costs. 3M 7500 Half-Mask Respirators - Jamestown Distributors 3M 7500 Replacement Facepiece; if you have had the same facepiece for as long as most people, it's probably time to replace it. This is a great improvement in terms of comfort and wearability over the 6200 series mask (which we also sell). This small half facepiece was designed with the wearer in mind.Other 3M filters will also connect to this mask. The size for this product is Medium. As part of MSC Industrial Supply's Safety offering, this item can be found using MSC part number 00324418. 3M 6000 USER MANUAL Pdf Download. The 6000 Series is NIOSH approved for negative-pressure air purifying and positive-pressure dual airline applications. This half facepiece respirator may be used with 3M Cartridge 6000 Series, 3M Filters 2000, 2200, 7000 or 5000 Series. Order by 6 pm for same day shipping. Choose from half-mask and full-face styles. Both have a soft, lightweight facepiece and easy-to-adjust head strap for a comfortable fit. The tables are not updated as frequently as the certified equipment list, which is the official NIOSH certification record. 3M 6000 Series Half Mask Respirator - Washable The 3M 6000 Series Half Mask Respirator is great for maintaining safety and health in environments where harmful organic vapors, gases, particles, vapors, and particulates may exist. The 3M 6000 Series is one of the lightest reusable half face piece respirators available. The 3M 6000 Series reusable respirator offers users comfort and convenience - coupled with cost savings. Each face piece is remarkably comfortable, soft, lightweight and easy to adjust. NIOSH approved for negative pressure air purifying and positive pressure dual airline applications. North 550030M Medium 5500 Series North Half Mask. The Medium North 550030M Half Mask respirator uses North N Series and 7000 Series Respirator Cartridges. North 550030M is Latex free. Perfect for limited use. Soft, pliable thermoplastic respirator can be worn multiple times, then thrown away when the cartridges are expended. Cradle suspension allows superior fit with minimal pressure. Low-profile design produces a wider field of vision. It provides lightweight protection and is an easy-to-use and economical option. Which Is The Best 3M 6000 Series Mask - The Best Choice Nowadays, there are so many products of 3m 6000 series mask in the market and you are wondering to choose a best one.