Image Credit: OHD.

Sponsored by OHD. The opinions, claims, conclusions, and positions expressed in this post are those of the author or person quoted and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors, AIHA, The Synergist, or SynergistNOW.

While OSHA’s Respiratory Protection Standard (29 CFR 1910.134) spells out fit-test procedures in detail, it does not address who is qualified to perform them. Appendix A specifies which steps to perform, how long each should last, and what constitutes a pass or fail. But the standard is largely silent on the person behind the instrument. There is no required training, no certification, and no formal competency standard for the individual administering the test. If the protocol is followed and results are documented, the employer is compliant.

That gap has real consequences. Consider quantitative fit testing: condensation nuclei counting (CNC) instruments can produce what are known as suspiciously high fit factors, a result that looks like an excellent seal but may actually indicate an oversaturated ambient environment or a machine issue. Controlled negative pressure (CNP) instruments can display unusual graph behavior during a test that signals a problem the machine alone won’t flag. An experienced operator recognizes these signs. Someone handed the instrument that morning does not.

Qualitative testing is even more vulnerable. The procedures depend entirely on the operator: the sensitivity screening, the application of the challenge agent, the timing and number of squeezes. Get any of those wrong and the test becomes unreliable. An early-career industrial hygienist may learn the qualitative method from whoever held the job before them, never realizing they are applying the sensitivity test and challenge agent incorrectly and passing respirators that should have failed. That kind of inherited error is not unusual when there is no formal competency check in the process.

Other Countries Are Building Accreditation Schemes

Several countries have taken a different approach, building formal accreditation schemes for fit testers alongside the testing mandates themselves.  

Fit2Fit (United Kingdom)

Fit2Fit launched in 2009, developed by the British Safety Industry Federation (BSIF) and endorsed by the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Candidates must pass a written exam with an 80 percent threshold and complete a practical assessment. UK regulations require that fit testing be performed by a “competent person,” and Fit2Fit has become the recognized way to demonstrate that competency. The scheme is expanding into other parts of Europe.

RESP-FIT (Australia)

RESP-FIT was developed by the Australian Institute of Occupational Hygienists (AIOH) in collaboration with industry stakeholders. It operates on a three-year accreditation cycle with reassessment. Candidates must take the course and pass a separate accreditation assessment, including a video-recorded demonstration of the fit-test process.  

Commit2Fit (New Zealand)

Commit2Fit, run by the New Zealand Occupational Hygiene Society in collaboration with WorkSafe NZ, follows a similar competency-based model. The scheme is voluntary, but completing it is recognized as evidence of good practice. Commit2Fit currently only offers qualitative and CNC.

What About the United States?

Decades ago, the U.S. was ahead of most of the world in regulating respirator fit testing. That is no longer the case given its approach to fit-testing qualifications. Other countries are building structured programs from the ground up. The question is whether the U.S. will follow.

Organizations including AIHA, ACGIH, and the International Safety Equipment Association (ISEA) have all explored the idea of a U.S.-based fit-tester qualification scheme, consulting with the International Society for Respiratory Protection (ISRP) for guidance, but so far, no organization has committed to building one, and there is no timeline.

What would a U.S. scheme even look like? And does every person performing a fit test really need the same level of training? Those questions are harder than they sound.

Read the full article on OHD’s website for a closer look at the theory-vs.-practical debate, what it means for your respiratory protection program, and what you can do now.