Talk:Respirator

message: It's very easy to confuse a respirator and a ventilator, and a Wikipedia editor has, in fact, done this very thing.
* A respirator is a device that protects the wearer from harmful gases, fumes, or particulates in the atmosphere.
* A ventilator is a mechanical breathing device used in health care to provide respiratory support, or to breath for someone.
Please do not confuse the two meanings. Ariel Sharon is on a ventilator, not a respirator. 
I'm in the process of removing links to this page that should have gone to ventilator. After that, I'll redirect gas mask here because gas masks are called respirators by everyone who actually wears one in the course of their employment. Then I'll improve this article to include full face, half face, SCBA, and the like. ddlamb 08:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is "respirator" really used instead of "gas mask" by soldiers, haz-mat workers, and miners too?  I am not sure about this myself and think it worth confirming.  What other occupations are you considering?  If it is indeed the case then perhaps practicality justifies completely subsuming gas mask into respirator and not the other respirator types as referred to below. -Onceler 23:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they are really called respirators, at least by chemical industry employees and hazmat workers. The face mask is only one part of the respirator – in fact, Scott's facepieces are designed to be used with both cartridges and with SCBA, saving money and time. OSHA also refers to the device as a 'respirator' – I can't think of an instance in my career – and I've fit more than 1,000 chemical workers, hazmat technicians, and firefighters with respirators – where one of them used the term 'gas mask,' but I could be wrong. I'm not experienced with military terminology, except to say that the Navy and Army webpages I'm using for research use 'respirator' also. - ddlamb 03:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusion respirator vs ventilator 

message: The table on different respirator ratings is very useful, but I don't understand what the importance of oil resistance is.  The word "oil" isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article.  Could someone explain this?  --LostLeviathan 22:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, it relates to the integrity and effectiveness of the filter with regard to oily particulate matter in the air stream. This has application in environments where oily substances are aerosolized--paint sprays, exhausts, etc.  I didn't see any  mention of oil in the particulate article either for that matter.  As to how the oil affects the filter, I have not been able to find specific details.  My guess is that certain filter structures such as fine meshes can deteriorate if exposed to oil somehow in ways that they don't for other things. Here is a link with some general discussion of this: http://ehso.com/RespProtectionSCAir.htm. -Onceler 08:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Just wanted to add that, in the case of paint sprays, the P-grade filter alone only suffices if the particulates don't also emit vapors, which is often the case.  Accordingly, one commonly augments the mechanical filter with a vapor filter/cartridge of some kind. -Onceler 08:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is anybody still discussing this? In my job, I have had to use respirators in the weirdest of environments over the years (you wouldnt beleive... OSHA doesn't have any of them categorized), but I come from a science background and have a different perspective anyways (not better, just different). In any case, the term "oil" is misleading but in use for all airborne organic contaminants in the industry. Solvent vapors are not oil (oil = hydrocarbon mixture). There are two main adsorbents used for actual oil: activated charcoal, and aluminium beads, often in series (the latter has a high capacity, the former takes out the rest) - sometimes also just mechanical filters (coarse mesh, the oil aerosol impacts on the strands) such as also used in oil traps for generators. -Carboxen 12:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could the use of the term "oil" be because this is a worst case or practical test substance for these products?  If so, all target pollutants might just get associated with the term "oil" in the often informal circles of industry, regardless of whether they are used for oil or not.  After all, oil would provide among the densest fluid  particles without the benefit of evaporation, such that any filter could really get gunked up with them.  I suspect that if one can qualify the worst culprit for an application, the messy job of categorization, could be just neatly waived.  I always associated the carbon filter with volatile filtrants, which would be another neat way to address "the rest".  Thanks for your perspective on this.  I have not been able to find much specific regulation information either myself. -Onceler 00:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Modern particle filters are widely used electrostatic charging of the fibers for efficient capture of fine dust, it is most dangerous. The fibers are charged at manufacturing and can hold a charge for years. But when you capture some aerosols (e.g. oil) charge is neutralized, and the degree of air purification from fine particles can be reduced - many times. Therefore, in the presence of airborne dust and oil mist (for example, it may be produced when cutting metal when using cooling lubricants) must be properly chosen filters. AlexChirkin (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oil resistance 

message: I can see that this has been proposed in the past, but I can't see any decent deliniation between this article and Filter mask.  I also see that Dust mask has since been redirected to Filter mask.  I don't believe there is much information in the filter mask article that is not already contained here.  Unless someone can firmly define and separate these two terms (without finding some sources, if I were to try, it'd just be speculation on my part), Filter mask may as well just be a redirect -Verdatum 16:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree: It looks to me like gas mask (gas filtration) and filter mask (particulate filtration) are practically the 2 specialized or emphasized forms of respirator.  The only reason I can think of to merge filter mask but not gas mask is the first of these has significantly less content.  I am willing to bet that more could be added from the side of medical concerns though.  That said, I would support a merge.  There aren't many links to redirect (less than 50), but I think there are already a good number of double redirects there--that's what it means when "what links here" lists sub-bulleted items, right? -Onceler 00:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, the fact that Gas mask actually appears to have some real content is why I didn't bother proposing (or rather reproposing) merging it in.  It makes a clear diliniation that gas mask is concerning the military applications, and personally, for the time being, I'm just fine with that.  With Filter mask however, I can't figure out at all what the difference is. -Verdatum 06:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That's true if all words retain the meaning associated with the word from which they are derived.  But a name, like "respirator," is merely a designation pointing to a specific, agreed-up refferent.  In this case, one correct and widely used meaning is the device that filters breathing air or provides clean air from another location.  The fact that "respiration" includes a connotation of gas exchange really has no bearing on what a respirator is. The term "gas mask" was applied first because of its use against poison gas in WWI, but the term "respirator" has become the more general and technical term during the last 30-40 years, at least in the US.  By the way, a respirator need not have any filtration capability at all.  Respirators include the air-supply type such as air-line respirator and SCBA.  Neither type filters; both types provide clean are permitting continued respiration in an otherwise contaminated environment.  Pzavon (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Alright, .  I used a selective merge process as much of the content in filter mask was redundant (and usually inferior) to this article.  Like the picture though :) -Verdatum (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge [[Filter mask]] 

message: On this page, it traces the history back to a 16th century Da Vinci invention.  
On the gas mask page, it takes the gas mask back to sponges used by Greeks & also mentions a 9th century invention for working in wells.    
On the Plague doctor costume page, it calls the 14th century invention an early respirator.  
Are these things not important to the history of the respirator as well?
Skullsplitterjulian (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepency in the history of the respirator 

message: what the hell is with this section? whoever wrote it went comma happy on the first sentence; it just reads bad. And furthermore, should this really even be in a wiki article? Some of them are already in the references section for god's sake  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.75.244 (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Educational textbook" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Respirator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130502145330/http://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/gasmask/page.html to http://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/gasmask/page.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: With the COVID-19 crisis, how many of these masks are necessary for the medical staff treating patients versus the public doing their shopping in a supermarket? "Many disposable respirators have anti-microbial surfaces, but over time they can start to be a home to germs. Change them out after 8-10 hours even if they're not dirty."  https://pksafety.com/blog/how-often-should-you-replace-your-dust-maskSvenAERTS (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request collaboration on a paragraph on "Time factor - when to change a mask" Suggestion 

message: — Assignment last updated by UCIHGrad18 (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Industrial Hygiene and Ergonomics- Graduate Student Projects

message: One of the more valid criticisms of respirators, IMO, is that badly designed respirators can have very high pressure drop, (breathing resistance), and can leak very easily at the slightest face seal intrusion. I'm skeptical that CO2 build up is significant, even though some sources I've read do suggest NIOSH has looked into the issue. With that being said, some of the excess number of sources here do fail verification: one is Sinkule-2003, which only talks about the workings of a breathing simulator, and doesn't seem to make any conclusions on Pressure Drop vs CO2.
I'll go ahead and verify the other sources, and redo this section over time.⸺RandomStaplers 21:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ref Gunner: I would not recommend using a source I have to go to ILL for, unless sources are hard to come by. And from the looks of the title, it looks this source only talks about the method of measuring dead space, not making any conclusions on CO2. So unless anyone objects and wants to compel me to go to the library, I'm just going to remove the source. I'm sure there are plenty of more accessible ones out there.⸺RandomStaplers 21:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifying Sources in 'Disadvantages' Section