The reason goes beyond just lung health. When someone vapes or smokes shortly before a fit test, it can interfere with both major fit testing methods. For the CNC (condensation nuclei counter) method, vaping introduces extra particles into the lungs. These particles can be exhaled during the test and picked up by the machine, which can’t tell whether they’re from inside the body or from a leak in the respirator seal. This can lead to falsely low fit factors or failed tests.

 

For the qualitative (taste) method, vaping can affect the person’s ability to detect the test agent (like bitter or sweet solution), making the test unreliable. That’s why AS/NZS ISO 16975.3 recommends avoiding smoking, vaping, eating, or drinking (except water) before a fit test. It helps ensure the results are accurate and that the respirator is truly providing the expected level of protection.

For most users, no major changes are expected. In Australia, many fit testers use the CNC (condensation nuclei counter) method following the modified OSHA protocol. This specific method isn’t currently included in the ISO fit testing standard, but it's widely used in practice. The standards committee is aware of this and will review it as part of future discussions. When the next version of ISO 16975.3 is considered for adoption, a local modification may be explored to reflect current practices in Australia.

The new AS/NZS ISO 16975.3:2023 recommends that fit testing be done at least once every 12 months. While it’s not an absolute “must,” annual testing is considered best practice. If a business decides on a different frequency—whether shorter or longer—it should be based on a workplace-specific risk assessment.

 

Factors like the industry, work environment, and how often respirators are used all play a part. For example, what’s appropriate in healthcare may differ from mining or construction. Beyond just passing the test, fit testing also reinforces proper use and helps workers understand how to achieve a good seal every time they wear a respirator.

Under AS/NZS 1715 and the relevant ISO standards, powered air purifying respirators (PAPRs) with a loose-fitting headtop can generally be worn with facial hair, as long as the hair doesn’t interfere with the seal around the face or neck. However, users with long beards or thick facial hair that affects sealing surfaces may not achieve a secure fit.

 

Currently, ISO standards don’t go into detail on how to test different facial hair styles for compliance. For PAPRs with tight-fitting masks, a fit test using a negative pressure setup can still be done to assess suitability on a case-by-case basis.

Under the new ISO standards, there’s a much broader range of gas and vapour classifications, along with varying protection levels based on work rate. Keeping the old colour-coding system would be difficult and could lead to even more confusion, especially for multi-gas cartridges that would otherwise require many colours.

A safety data sheet (SDS) will tell you which hazardous substances are involved, but that’s just the starting point. To determine the right protection level, you’ll also need to assess how the product is being used in your workplace. Key questions to consider include: - How often is the task done, and for how long each time? - What other controls are in place, and how effective are they? - What’s the physical intensity or work rate of the task? - What filter and product combinations are available and appropriate? Because not every respirator is available in every possible configuration, it’s important to match real-world needs to what's actually offered by manufacturers.

 

If you need help assessing exposure levels or choosing appropriate controls, we recommend reaching out to a certified occupational hygienist. The Australian Institute of Occupational Hygienists (AIOH) offers a “Find a Consultant” tool to connect with qualified professionals.

The new standards do not exclude any specific type of respirator, including carbon dioxide self-rescuers. The ISO standards take a performance-based approach, meaning they don’t prescribe how a respirator must function — only that it meets the required performance criteria. If a product can meet those criteria, it can be used under the new standards.

Moving to a single colour for gas and vapour filters will be an adjustment, especially in complex work environments with multiple hazards.

 

Under the new ISO standards, there’s a much broader range of gas and vapour classifications, along with varying protection levels based on work rate. Keeping the old colour-coding system would be difficult and could lead to even more confusion, especially for multi-gas cartridges that would otherwise require many colours. That’s why proper training is now even more important. Users will need to understand which filter models or brands are suitable for each task or hazard. While colour won’t tell the whole story anymore, clear labelling, instructions, and training will help reduce the risk of error.

The Respiratory interface (RI) classes is broad to be able to capture the variey of respiratory products based on their sealing location and seal type e.g. tight or loose fitting. This a particular area where the age of AS/NZS 1715 is evident where the protection factors uses descriptions of products that were common 30+ years ago, but many of them are not common now. We now see new innovative products that just dont neatly fall into these older descriptions, which often then comes down to personal interpretation. These RI class framework should also capture other new innovative products we will see in the future.

 

SA/SNZ ISO 16975.1:2023 Annex A (Informative) covers the types and components of respiratory protective devices (RPD). It also provides examples of different RIs. Section A.2.2.5 provides examples of eL and eT as shown. (Insert excerpt from the standard) IMAGE

We recommend sourcing respirators from trusted distributors and recognised manufacturers, ones that provide reliable testing, certification, and quality assurance. Just because a product has a standards mark doesn’t always mean it’s genuinely certified or suitable for use. If the quality or authenticity of the respirator is in doubt, it’s safest not to use it. Look for proper documentation from reputable suppliers to confirm the product meets the required standards.

A Respiratory Protection Program (RPP) can vary depending on the size and complexity of your workplace. In a small workplace with only a few users, a limited number of respirators, and low-level respiratory hazards, the program might be quite simple. But in a larger or higher-risk environment, the program will likely need to be more detailed to manage different hazards, respirator types, and user needs. SA/SNZ ISO 16975.1:2023 (Section 6.2) outlines the core elements of an RPP, including roles and responsibilities, respirator selection, training, fit testing, maintenance, and program evaluation.

The goal is to make sure that whenever a respirator is used, it’s effective, appropriate, and part of a well-managed system.

At this stage, Australia and New Zealand are the only countries to set a clear timeline for transitioning to the ISO standards, largely due to the age of the current AS/NZS 1715 and 1716 standards and our long-standing plan to align with international best practice.

While other countries haven’t formally announced timelines yet, we hope this transition encourages broader global adoption. Moving toward consistent international standards helps support product consistency, supply chain efficiency, and improved protection across borders.

Not always. The marking requirements vary depending on the type of respirator and whether it has removable or replaceable parts. Standards AS/NZS ISO 17420.2:2021 and AS/NZS ISO 17420.4:2022 (Section 8 in both) outline what markings are needed and where they must appear.

In some cases, especially for very small or single-use facepieces, some information may appear on the packaging instead of the product itself—provided it still meets the standard’s requirements. For full details, it’s best to refer directly to the marking sections of those standards.

The Singh Thattha technique and similar beard wrap methods are not currently recognised in the standards. This is because there isn’t yet sufficient independent, scientifically validated research proving that these methods consistently work across different industries, environments, and risk levels. Some local healthcare departments in Australia have trialled these techniques in controlled settings with small groups, and in some cases achieved a fit. However, these trials did not demonstrate ongoing protection or effectiveness in real-world workplace conditions.

The ISO committee responsible for respiratory standards requires any fit test method or adaptation to be proven effective across a wide range of environments, including high-risk settings like oxygen-deficient or IDLH atmospheres. Until that level of research is available, these techniques won’t be included in the standards. For workers with beards, such as those who wear them for religious reasons, PAPR systems with loose-fitting headtops may offer a practical alternative, as they do not rely on a face seal.

Limited access to accredited testing is a known challenge, and it’s something the standards committee has discussed at length. Wider uptake of the new standards often depends on adoption at a national level. Until that happens, it’s not always commercially viable for more labs to pursue accreditation. That said, there are already some accredited options available.

Two labs currently accredited to test against parts of the ISO standards are: - Viclabs - BSI Group BSI has also published a whitepaper (https://page.bsigroup.com/pperespiratory-whitepaper) on the ISO 17420 standards, which may be useful if you’re looking for more background or planning ahead.

The same respiratory protection principles apply across all industries, including healthcare. A particulate filter that captures hazards like dust, welding fumes or paint spray will also filter out airborne bioaerosols such as viruses and bacteria. What matters most is ensuring the respirator fits correctly and is worn properly so the air is filtered before it’s breathed in.

One key difference is that industrial hazards often have defined exposure standards, which help determine the level of protection needed. In healthcare, biological hazards don’t have the same clear-cut limits, so the risk assessment process is more specialised. Right now, the ISO respiratory standards do not include healthcare-specific requirements like fluid resistance or sterilisation guidance. This gap has been raised by the Chair of the respiratory committee, Mark Reggers, who is also working with the HE-013 Surgical Apparel Committee.

There’s recognition that further work is needed to better reflect healthcare needs, and this is expected to progress over time.

No, the ISO standards in this suite focus specifically on respiratory protection and do not cover fully encapsulated suits used in BSL-4 environments. However, if a suit includes a respiratory component—such as a powered air purifying respirator (PAPR)—that component may be assessed against the respiratory protection standards, provided it meets the necessary requirements. Some PAPR headtops on the market, for example, are certified not only to respiratory standards but also to standards for head, face, eye and hearing protection. This makes them suitable for multi-hazard environments, including those with complex biological risks, depending on the application.

Even with the shift to ISO standards, it will still be up to the workplace or PCBU to determine the level of protection required for their specific application. If certain performance levels in the ISO standards are considered insufficient, organisations can choose to specify only higher-rated products or special application classes that meet their operational needs. Industry groups like AFAC may also provide guidance or recommendations on appropriate protection levels and known safety concerns, which can support consistent decision-making across the sector. Workplaces may also choose to specify particular brands or models that have proven performance in the required areas.

Standards Australia’s SF-010 committee is working closely with SF-049, which oversees firefighter PPE standards, to align the timing and local adoption of the ISO 11999 series with the needs of Australian fire services.

Products tested to the ISO standards are assessed against a broader and more detailed set of performance criteria compared to the current AS/NZS 1716. In many cases, the physical products may be the same, but the ISO classification means they’ve been tested more extensively, giving users greater confidence when selecting and using respiratory protection.

The five-year transition period (to 2030) has been set to give regulators, industries and suppliers time to become familiar with the new standards and begin incorporating them into legislation, codes of practice and guidance materials. So while moving to ISO-compliant products early isn’t legally required yet, it shows a proactive approach and may support your organisation’s position if respiratory protection requirements are challenged or reviewed.

There is some variability in how work rate is assessed, so selecting the right class can depend on the task, the individual, and the work environment. Because of this, the safest approach is to select the highest applicable work rate class for the activity, as recommended in SA/SNZ ISO 16975.1:2023.

Before using respiratory protection, workers should also undergo a medical evaluation. Health conditions such as asthma, recent illness, or a history of smoking can all impact a person’s breathing and may affect how well they tolerate a respirator.

While direct measurement of metabolic rate in the workplace is difficult, the standard AS/NZS ISO 16967.1:2024 offers a guide for classifying work based on estimated effort levels. And recent research has shown that combining breathing rate, heart rate and perceived breathlessness can help better estimate work rate during real tasks. Read the study here. 

The work rate levels used in the respiratory protection standards don’t directly match exercise categories like “light” or “vigorous,” but they are based on similar physiological measurements. Work rate classes (W1–W4) are drawn from metabolic rate categories in ISO 8996, which use energy output (in watts per square metre) as a basis. These are then linked to estimated values for oxygen consumption (VO₂), minute ventilation (VE), and breathing effort. In AS/NZS ISO 16976.1:2024, Tables 3 to 5 provide guidance on these values, and the physiologically acceptable workload ranges are outlined in ISO 16976.4:2024. The simplified W1 to W4 classification in SA/SNZ TS ISO 16975.1:2023 makes it easier to apply this information in real workplaces, without requiring advanced calculations or lab testing.

No, a formal qualification like a master’s degree isn’t required to assess work rates or select appropriate respiratory protection. However, whoever is making those decisions must be properly trained and competent in doing so. Understanding work rate, hazard type, and appropriate filter selection requires knowledge of both the task and the risks involved.

In more complex or high-risk environments, it may be helpful to consult an occupational hygienist, especially if exposure levels are unclear or difficult to assess. But for many workplaces, trained health and safety professionals or competent persons with the right guidance can carry out these assessments effectively.

Yes, personal health plays an important role in determining whether someone is medically fit to wear a respirator, and this can affect how work rate is assessed. The standard SA/SNZ TS ISO 16975.1:2023 (Section 7.3.3.2) outlines the need to assess a worker’s health and medical limitations before assigning respiratory protection. Annex D.2.1 also covers medical evaluations and suitability checks before use.

While spirometry or lung function tests can help establish a baseline, what’s most important is that the person’s overall fitness to wear a respirator is reviewed. Some countries, like the USA, use a formal medical questionnaire as part of this process (e.g. OSHA’s Respirator Medical Evaluation Questionnaire), and this approach may be useful in some Australian workplaces too. If there’s any uncertainty, consulting a medical professional or occupational health specialist is recommended before assigning a respirator.