For protection from gases and vapours, ensure the filter will absorb the type of gas or vapour you need protection against and has the capacity to absorb the level of contamination in the air. The capacity to absorb is indicated by the Class of the filter. Filters for gases and vapours are identified with letters and colours to indicate the type of chemical it will protect against.
For example a respirator that will protect against ammonia is marked with K. There is no one type of filter that provides protection from all contaminants. However, some filters may give combined protection against a number of contaminants such as particles and gases.
These tables are based upon the content of tables 4. Refer to this standard for further information on the selection of suitable RPE based on the required minimum protection factor. A safety equipment supplier, occupational hygienist or occupational health and safety professional may be able to help select the most suitable respirator for your workplace. Some RPE manufacturers or suppliers have selection charts that can help in selecting the correct type of respirator and filter.
A hood or head top type, full face or half face powered air purifying respirator PAPR with at least a P2 filter must be worn as a minimum by workers carrying out:.
PAPR respirators are required because of the high silica content of engineered stone and certain natural stones and the significant health risk from exposure when undertaking these tasks. PAPRs work by using a fan to draw or push air in through the filter compared to negative pressure respirators which require the user to draw air through the filter which can be taxing on the user and lead to fatigue. A minimum of a P2 filter combined with PAPR can provide protection up to 50 times the current exposure standard, a level considered necessary when working with engineered stone.
The risks to health from exposure to respirable crystalline silica should also be assessed for any persons working adjacent to or visiting the workshop, e. Processes should be in place to ensure incidental access by other staff or visitors is minimised or scheduled for periods when fabrication, processing, cleaning or maintenance is not occurring. Short term exposure limit STEL is the time-weighted average maximum airborne concentration of a substance when calculated over a 15 minute period.
This example is for illustrative purposes only. Other control measures such as local extraction ventilation, isolation and substitution must be implemented before RPE where reasonably practicable. The effectiveness of a tight-fitting respirator facepiece, such as a half-face or full-face respirator that uses straps, relies on getting a good seal with the wearer's face. If a respirator does not fit properly, the wearer will not get the expected level of protection.
Facial hair, including beards, moustaches, sideburns and stubble, between the sealing surface of a tight-facing facepiece and the face will stop the respirator from sealing properly. Workers should be clean shaven where the respirator facepiece comes in contact with the skin before wearing their respirator.
People's faces vary significantly in size and shape so it is important that a tight-fitting respirator is a suitable fit for each worker. Fit testing detects if air leaks into the respirator through gaps in the seal between the respirator facepiece and face. There are two methods of fit testing:. Fit-testing can be carried out in-house by a competent person, manufacturer, supplier or service provider. A fit-check is a quick check to ensure the respirator, which has been fit-tested, has been properly positioned on the face and there is a good seal between the respirator and face.
Read about how to put on and take off a respirator. Disposable respirators are for single use and should be disposed after use. Ongoing maintenance is not required. Replace a particulate filter when it becomes difficult to breathe through, or the filter is visibly dirty or damaged. Gas and vapour filters have a certain capacity for removing gases or vapours from the air.
Once this capacity is reached, gas or vapour will pass straight through and provide no protection to the wearer. Establish a filter replacement schedule and keep a record of the date a filter is changed and when the next change is due. Many respirator filter manufacturers produce guidance information and on-line tools for calculating expected filter life. Store gas and vapour filters in airtight bags or containers between uses as they continue to absorb airborne contaminants even when not being worn.
Air compressors can be used to supply clean breathing air to RPE used in a range of industrial and manufacturing processes such as abrasive blasting and spray painting. This standard defines acceptable levels of oxygen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, oil, moisture and pressure for supplied-air respirators. General purpose air compressors designed to supply industrial air to equipment should not be used to supply breathing air, as the air can become contaminated with harmful gases and substances including carbon monoxide.
Read more about risks of carbon monoxide in breathing air for industrial and manufacturing work and in diving work. Skip to content. Respiratory protective equipment RPE is a type of personal protective equipment PPE designed to protect the wearer: from airborne contaminants: fumes for example welding fumes asbestos hazardous chemicals and dusts infectious substances.
Types of respirators. In the two cases where the RPE was not appropriate, recommendations were made to assess the tasks and circumstances in question and to use this information for the selection of more appropriate RPE. In the other surveys, at least one of the hazardous materials being monitored exceeded the relevant exposure limit. Across the 31 companies, of the 43 different types of respirators provided which relied on an effective face seal, employees reported having been face-fit tested for 14 of these.
The data from the quarrying and stonemasonry companies in the sample suggested a more favourable picture than that recently reported by Easterbrook who indicated that a considerable majority of employers surveyed in the stonemasonry and quarrying sectors did not have FFT in place. Of these, 17 took the form of toolbox talks and three involved sessions delivered by the company health and safety advisor. In addition to the monitoring carried out during the surveys, observations were made as to work methods and, in particular, the use of control measures, including RPE.
Only eight of the companies provided any storage facilities for employee's RPE; five had a system in place for cleaning respirators and five had established maintenance procedures. Those companies that had no storage facilities in place allowed disposable masks to be temporarily stored in the open, where they were at risk from contamination prior to use. Among the 32 reports examined, detail about record keeping for RPE was limited. It appears that 13 of the companies kept no records regarding RPE while a further 12 companies had no information regarding record keeping.
Those companies that had no information available on record keeping were all part of larger groups and, as such, had no direct control regarding the issue and selection of RPE. On a positive note, it appears that most employers had made an appropriate selection of RPE in respect of the risks involved, although the basis of that selection is not known.
There are, however, clear indications that, in many instances, significant management input stopped there and that many elements of a good RPE management programme were not in place in the majority of companies. These results must be considered in the context that the companies in question had, for whatever reason, sought professional occupational hygiene advice. Two interpretations can be placed on this. The first is that they had issues which were bad enough to warrant seeking such advice.
The second is that they were arguably more enlightened than many. This contextual information might impact on the extent to which the findings from this limited survey reflect the broader national picture. On balance, however, it would seem likely that, if anything, this sample underestimates any shortcomings among employers in general, suggesting considerable scope for improvement. In addition to the examination of written reports, summarized above, interviews were carried out with a number of IOM employees who worked with RPE in some context.
These included PPE testing-laboratory staff, occupational hygiene specialists, and those involved in asbestos working, who observe the implementation of RPE requirements, mainly in industrial environments, on a regular basis.
As with the occupational hygiene reports, the fact that the employers in question have seen fit to utilize this service indicates a certain mindset which might well not be representative of the broader pool of employers.
It was apparent that some of those attending for FFT had received little or no training or information before attending. For example, it was not unusual for employees to attend without any experience of fitting their RPE or for any effort to have been made by their employer to ensure that reasonably correctly fitting RPE had been provided. In a number of instances, it was apparent that the mask was not being worn in the manner it would be in the workplace. For example, some men indicated that they had shaved their beard off for the testing and would regrow it immediately afterwards.
Clearly, such comments create reservations about the quality of any training received, the perception of the risk involved, and the level of supervision and reinforcement that might be anticipated in the workplace. Despite some reservations, the test laboratory staff indicated that they were aware of a general improvement in recent years in attitudes towards wearing RPE, especially but not exclusively among younger employees.
Although the risks from asbestos exposure are well established, many of the comments from staff involved in providing asbestos-related services to clients reflected poor attitudes to RPE use among asbestos workers they came into contact with, with RPE not being worn correctly or being temporarily removed within enclosures.
In many instances, this was seen to reflect general attitudes and a relative absence of management influence. Well-managed sites were described as those where management staff would visit and reinforce the need to wear RPE.
However, many sites function without such managerial influence, with more reliance on the members of the work team. There was an impression that, while hazard awareness might have been reasonable, personal risk perception was often deficient. In particular, an age-related differentiation was suggested, with a proportion of older, more experienced workers not considering the risks from asbestos to be sufficiently serious. The absence of obvious immediate acute effects of exposure, the long latency of any response, and the fact that some employees, who anecdotally have been exposed to relatively high levels, do not go on to develop asbestosis suggesting an apparent immunity were all factors which contributed to this.
While peer support or pressure can, in some circumstances, be of positive effect, the impression was that, in general, peer influences were negative.
Older workers were seen as dismissing the training and information received by usually younger workers entering the industry, thus undermining the messages received.
As a further overlay, the issue of attitudinal influences was also seen to make a significant contribution. While the asbestos industry can perhaps be regarded as somewhat extreme, it is likely that such perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs prevail to some extent elsewhere and should be accounted for in any strategy. It emphasizes a need for strong policies and procedures and reinforcement of those by supervisors and other managers. There can be a tendency, in this and other industries, for management to feel that they have discharged their duties by the act of telling employees to wear RPE and that any subsequent failure to do so is solely the responsibility of the individuals concerned.
Occupational hygiene staff endorsed much of the information presented previously, which will not therefore be repeated here. However, a potentially important additional factor was that any programme for RPE should be presented in the context of any other measures, which have been introduced or at least considered. Clearly, in any risk management programme for an airborne hazard, RPE would be seen as the last resort or possibly a temporary expedient while longer term measures are devised and introduced.
However, there is an impression that, in some workplaces, the thinking behind this is not communicated to the workforce, which only sees the final solution.
This can be seen as a specific example of the benefits of an inclusive organizational culture where employees are more actively involved in the risk reduction process and are therefore more likely to sign up to the eventual solution. As a further practical issue, the relative pros and cons of the use of prescriptive zones for compliance within a workplace were discussed.
While such zones have the merit of being easier to manage and can avoid any ambiguity as to where and when RPE is required , they can have the disadvantage of requiring RPE to be worn where it might well be apparent to all that it is not necessary possibly in more peripheral parts of the zone.
There is historical evidence from IOM studies e. Edlin et al. As planned, a workshop was held to discuss the findings of the reviews and to:.
To avoid unnecessary duplication, the views expressed during the workshop and more detail surrounding this outcome have been incorporated into the following more general discussion and conclusions. However, the general consensus which emerged during the workshop was that promoting the right attitude among managerial and supervising staff including senior peers was essential.
Unless management and supervisory support, reinforcement and enforcement were in place, there was little or no real value in addressing issues such as wearability. The various overviews and explorations carried out as part of this project have identified a clear pattern in the factors influencing RPE usage, albeit one modified by the circumstances surrounding a particular industry or workplace.
There would appear to be broad consensus, using information from a variety of sources, of what the issues are regarding effective RPE protection and programmes. These issues have been encapsulated in the recommendations given below. To a certain extent, this is self-evident in that, unless the need for RPE has been recognized and accepted, then there is no value in addressing individual factors such as attitudes to the RPE or the wearability of any RPE provided.
This is perhaps most problematic where a respirable hazard is newly recognized, where this was not previously the case, or where the risks associated with that hazard are not apparent at least in the short term. There are many older workers, for example, who can recall using substances such as mercury or benzene with a relatively relaxed regime in force and who perhaps find the comparatively recently identified hazards associated with these substances difficult to appreciate.
There has been a long tradition of seeking to protect those in any workforce who are potentially most susceptible. By not accepting cookies some elements of the site, such as video, will not work. Please visit our Cookie Policy page for more information on how we use cookies.
Respiratory Protective Equipment RPE is a particular type of Personal Protective Equipment PPE , used to protect the individual wearer against the inhalation of hazardous substances in the workplace air. RPE should only be used where adequate control of exposure cannot be achieved by other means, in other words, as a last resort within the hierarchy of control measures: Elimination, Substitution, Engineering Controls, Administrative Controls, PPE.
Employers are required to firstly attempt to eliminate the hazard at source. RPE should only be used after all other reasonably practicable control measures have been taken. PPE is considered a last resort because it only protects individual workers, is prone to failure or misuse, such as wearing the wrong RPE for the job, and employees wearing RPE may get a false sense of security when using RPE. This website uses Google Analytics to collect anonymous information such as the number of visitors to the site, and the most popular pages.
RPE Stand. Add to my saved searches. Did you find this article helpful? Please rate this article 0 votes, average: 0. Related tags Innovations November innovation. Leave a comment Cancel reply You must be logged in to post a comment. Report an error or omission The Scheme does not promote or endorse any products, goods or services.
Sorry, you need to be registered and logged in to use this reporting facility. Log in Register for an instant account here. Why is this important? Workers and visitors should all be made aware of any current hazards on site.
0コメント