3m breathe easy papr manual
LINK 1 ENTER SITE >>> Download PDF
LINK 2 ENTER SITE >>> Download PDF
File Name:3m breathe easy papr manual.pdf
Size: 4390 KB
Type: PDF, ePub, eBook
Category: Book
Uploaded: 20 May 2019, 17:52 PM
Rating: 4.6/5 from 647 votes.
Status: AVAILABLE
Last checked: 14 Minutes ago!
In order to read or download 3m breathe easy papr manual ebook, you need to create a FREE account.
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 breathe easy papr manualPlease be aware that this information may be stored on a server located in the U.S. If you do not consent to this use of your personal information, please do not use this system. Please try again later. Find your 3M representative in Nationwide Support. This letter is meant to clarify any issues regarding this claim. From consulting with government agencies to providing personal protective products, 3M continues to be a global safety leader during international crises. You may wish to train with the nickel metal The battery will shut down in 15 minutes. When the red Leave the battery on the charger The charger is 'topping off the battery'. You may wish to train with the nickel metal hydride battery and then store the PAPR with the lithium battery so it is ready for use when needed. The BC-210 maintains the battery. Always charge batteries in a cool environment with good air circulation; not in a closed cabinet. For the best experience on our site, be sure to turn on Javascript in your browser.The complete product includes: This rating designates the product as safe (UL tested) in the following Division I locations. It is uniquely designed for first responder, first receiver, and public health professionals. The lightweight, one-size butyl rubber hood provides a wide field of vision, no fit test requirements and ability to use with eyeglasses. The continuously filtered airflow provides maximum comfort to help workers focus on their jobs for longer periods. The 3M duffle bag safely stores the system in one place and allows for quick access in an emergency. Available AsSpecificationsAvailable AsAvailable AsSpecificationsAvailable AsThe filters are for use with the Breathe-Easy PAPR System - CBRN (HM5550L). Available AsThe slim profile is designed for. This Level A PPE suit has either front or rear entry options. Tychem. Available AsSpecificationsThe personal protective equipment is configured all in one. Available AsThe slim profile is designed for.http://enggcharts.org/userfiles/3m-s55-manual.xml
- Tags:
- 3m breathe easy papr manual, 3m breathe easy papr instructions, 3m breathe easy papr user manual, 3m breathe easy papr manual, 3m breathe easy papr manual, 3m breathe easy papr manual pdf, 3m breathe easy papr manual download, 3m breathe easy papr manual instructions, 3m breathe easy papr manual free, 3m breathe easy papr manual.
Your contract pricing may differ. Interested in signing up for a dedicated account number?Air then travels across open space at top of hood, down over wearer's face, and out at the base of cape. All safety products must be used in accordance OSHA regulations and with the user instructions, warnings and limitations accompanying each product. For more information, call 1-800-772-6733. Approximate total ensemble weight: 8 lb. (3.6kg). Optional shower cover protects CBRN-approved models from moisture, but does not eliminate moisture entry completely. Please use the form below to provide feedback related to the content on this product. We will not share your information for any other purposes. All contact information provided shall also be maintained in accordance with ourFisher Scientific is always working to improve our content for you. We appreciate your feedback. Please try again.Please try again.In order to navigate out of this carousel please use your heading shortcut key to navigate to the next or previous heading. Register a free business account Please try your search again later.Learn More This 3M personal protective equipment must be used in compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) standard (29 CFR 1910.132) and all other applicable health and safety standards, as well as all user instructions, warnings and limitations accompanying each product. It is essential that all product user instructions and government regulations on the use of each product be followed in order for the product to help protect the wearer. Misuse of personal protective equipment may result in injury, sickness, or death. For correct product selection and use, individuals should consult their on-site safety professional or industrial hygienist.Amazon calculates a product’s star ratings based on a machine learned model instead of a raw data average.http://dush-kz.ru/uploads/fck/3m-s50-manual.xml The model takes into account factors including the age of a rating, whether the ratings are from verified purchasers, and factors that establish reviewer trustworthiness. 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. 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.http://www.drupalitalia.org/node/67010 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. 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.http://arma-tek.com/images/3m-attest-auto-reader-390-manual.pdf 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. 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. 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. CDC twenty four seven. Saving Lives, Protecting People With new information becoming available daily, please consult the CDC website for the most current update regarding infection control procedures. For further information, and the most current agency recommendations, please consult your local health department or the CDC and WHO websites. The virus was named after the region near the Ebola River where it was first discovered in 1976 in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Guidance on Personal Protective Equipment To Be Used by Healthcare Workers During Management of Patients with Ebola Virus Disease in U.S. Hospitals, Including Procedures for Putting On (Donning) and Removing (Doffing) For your convenience, a hyperlink to the product page is imbedded for each product listed. Decontamination information, specific to brand and model, has been attached in instances where NIOSH has received it from the manufacturer. The decontamination information will be updated as we receive additional procedures from the manufacturers. Their ease-of-use can improve productivity in the workplace. Which Systems? It allows high mobility. It allows limited mobility. Belt-mounted units are ergonomically designed to sit at the base of the user’s back and carry the weight mostly on the user’s hips via the padded comfort belt. The product is ideally designed for abatement and remediation work. M-Series Headtops offer dependable protection and exceptional comfort. It’s designed to help make breathing and working easier. In addition to potentially reducing protection levels, poor maintenance can also reduce the effective lifetime of equipment, resulting in the additional cost of replacement. Make it simpler by using our simple 4 step process and discover the right protection for you and your workers.