Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Blue  
#1 Posted : 29 June 2012 08:57:53(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Blue

We like many others use compressed air blow guns on site. I always advocate they should be the low pressure, high volume type (expensive). I've been asked to show why they can't use full pressure (cheap) but can't find anything to back up my stance. Could someone please point me towards the correct document to back me up.

Graham Bullough  
#2 Posted : 29 June 2012 10:15:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Graham Bullough

Blue

Ordinary blow guns which emit jets of high pressure compressed air have long been notorious in manufacturing and safety circles for their capacity to cause death or serious injury either through misuse by so-called “practical jokers” or mischance, e.g. the air jet entering someone’s skin as it passes over a small cut or graze. Also, if such a gun is operated close to skin I understand that the jet has sufficient energy/force to penetrate intact skin. Irrespective of how it enters someone's body, high pressure air can cause horrific and excruciating injuries which are difficult to treat. People who survive such injuries can be left with serious permanent damage. Therefore, HSE inspectors who see ordinary blow guns during their visits should give strongly advice that they be replaced by safety-type blow guns which, as you say, emit high volumes of air at low pressure. It was certainly standard advice during my time with HSE. Please can any forum users confirm if this remains so nowadays or has even been stepped up with enforcement action?

See the information on the following websites fleetingly picked from the internet even though they might not comprise the sort of documents you had in mind:

http://www.usmra.com/rep...?category=compressed+air

http://www.dailymail.co....erous-foolish-prank.html
Blue  
#3 Posted : 29 June 2012 11:12:01(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Blue

Thanks Graham

It really is a bit of minefield, an area where problems obviously exist but where manufacturers still sell equipment to unsuspecting, unaware end users. Also a little concerning that manufacturers of the 'safe' products think their USP is reduced noise levels.

Thank you for the links.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.