Respir Care, 1980 Nov;25(11):1127-35
Autores:

Dryden, G.E.; Dryden, S.R.; Brown, D.G.; Schatzle, K.C.; Godzeski, C.

Abstract:

Several kinds and brands of bacteria filters are commercially available for use in anesthesia and respiratory therapy applications. Clinical experience of high airflow resistance, ruptured media, failure to retain visible dust particles, and lack of consistent performance statements or warranties by manufacturers about their bacteria filters prompted a study of the performance of 13 different filters. The filters were challenged by mineral oil droplets, Serratia marcescens and Excherichia coli bacteriophages T4 and T7, tobacco smoke, nebulized india ink, dioctylphthalate smoke (DOP), and water. Results showed that viable bacterial passed through some filters, many filters were unable to retain visible ink or tobacco smoke particles, and resistance to airflow was increased two-fold or more in many filters when the filters were laden with 10 ml of water. Conflicting data resulted from two different types of DOP testing machines. There was a wide variation in performance among the different brands of filters; variable results also were seen within a given brand. Five brands of filters met the federal DOP standards for HEPA filters, but the wide variation in DOP testing results with two different kinds of DOP machines indicates a need for better standards. The DOP 0.3-micron bubble test is the most readily available nontoxic test to rate filtration efficiency; however, the DOP efficiency rating cannot be used to equate equivalent performance against infectious organisms.
Dryden, G.E. ... [et al.]