Talk:Respirator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Regarding proposed merge of respirator with gas mask article

This might be feasible but respirator is more general, including both particulate and gas filtration functions whereas a gas mask is specialized for gases. Other stuff is also already out there that could also be merged--a brief look around spotted filter mask and SCBA. The closely-related SCUBA article, though the hardware is specialized for underwater use, is also quite developed in its own right. Should everything be brought under one article? If not, how about some adequately well-rounded treatment of general gas filtration personal protection technologies under respirator with a "main article" reference to gas mask instead? -Onceler 20:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

(I've reconsidered my previous comments as I had misunderstood the merge template, having overlooked "talk" comments--I had read it already but recalled only the part about ventilators. I misunderstood that the intention was for the respirator article to be subsumed into gas mask. -Onceler 23:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC))

I think we're on the same page, and I want to be sure:

• Bring the content of gas mask into this article and redirect 'gas mask' here.
• Keep articles like filter mask and SCBA as 'main articles' to which we'll link in their appropriate sections in this respirator article.
• Briefly discuss filtration technologies used in PPE, such as HEPA and absorption, linking to the appropriate entries as we go, using the original articles as 'main entries' if necessary.
• I'm not sure what to do about SCUBA – I hadn't thought about it, but I will. My first reaction is to leave it as is and just mention it in the SCBA section as an offshoot of that technology, but I'll think on it some more.

If that sounds good, I'll proceed, and I'm grateful for the help! I've been doing some offline research, and I'm also working with the content of the gas mask article. I should be ready to put it up in the next few days or so. I'm done with vacation for a while also, so I'll be here at least every other day for the next few weeks. Hopefully we'll get this knocked out pretty quickly now. - ddlamb 03:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, boys and girls, we're making progress. However, after finally getting my industrial hygiene books out and seeing how they treat classification, I've changed the 'modern respiratory technology' section to a slightly different classification system. I've also changed the introduction to reflect two, not three, types of respirators. I wrote that on the fly and for some odd reason my brain put SCBA as a third type, and of course it isn't. Respirators either purify the air or they give you a supply of fresh air. Don't you just love research? And eating your words? :) - ddlamb 07:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Your new categorization system is much clearer. Generally I agree with the 4 bullets above but would add some comments about the gas mask article that might make life easier later on and be better for the Wikipedia consumer.

Regarding what should stay in gas mask: There is a lot of what I could only describe as non-technical/cultural content in that article that is probably best left where it is and which is also part of a category related to headgear such as hats and turbans. It is referred to in the article protective clothing. I didn't see respirator on there the last time I looked.

Regarding what should move over to respirator: Looking a little closer at that article, lots of the technical content is not really specific to the filtering of gases as much as things which include gases, but more crucially, that are gas-borne. I am also not sure if some of the technical stuff is a little misleading so some copy edit of it within the more general context of the respirator article is probably a good idea. Otherwise, I think it has good technical content which does really belong in this article.

How about a revised/shorter gas mask article with a see-also or wiki-link reference in respirator (for the odd person who might conceivably be looking for a costume ball get-up)? -Onceler 22:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oil resistance

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Proposal to merge Filter mask

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)

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)

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)

Just a side note what was called a "respirator" is simply a filter. The term respirator has been widely misused. Respiration means exchange of gases which in our time do not have the technology to produce artificial respiration. So wearing a "respirator" is implying that the device exchanges gas and in fact it doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.222.27 (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

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)