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
HR  
#1 Posted : 08 June 2013 14:01:10(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
HR

Hi All, I just visited a company which has put up signage near all Co2 extinguishers saying that you have to use the mask (hanged on the extinguisher) when using it. I have never heard of this before and I don't think the masks they put there are of any use. I was told that it is to prevent users from inhaling Co2. Have you guys experienced anything like this? What are your views and how do you think I should handle it? cheers..
Kate  
#2 Posted : 08 June 2013 14:18:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

Do they have to have a fit test before donning the mask ... ?
HR  
#3 Posted : 08 June 2013 15:27:22(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
HR

Kate, no they don't. I don't understand the rationale behind this requirement. I don't think these masks would absorb co2 and also masks are not supposed to be used in environments where there is lack of O2, I remember.
HeO2  
#4 Posted : 08 June 2013 19:21:03(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
HeO2

Unless the mask is attached to a source of breathing quality air, or a scrubber to reduce CO2, then they are completely useless. Use of a standard CO2 extinguisher in anything but a very small completely sealed room will cause the CO2 emitted to become an asphyxiant ( the main hazard ). So IMHO they have been implemented by someone who has no knowledge of basic respiratory physics. Phil
HeO2  
#5 Posted : 08 June 2013 19:22:20(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
HeO2

Oh for an edit button! Will NOT cause it to become an asphyxiant Phil
Jane Blunt  
#6 Posted : 08 June 2013 19:28:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Jane Blunt

Don't forget that carbon dioxide is toxic, and reaches a toxic concentration before it reaches the level where it displaces enough oxygen to be an asphyxiant. I can see no logic behind providing masks. I would challenge it. What is of more concern is what else has been subject to this kind of misunderstanding in this workplace?
firestar967  
#7 Posted : 08 June 2013 19:40:30(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
firestar967

I'm surprised they didn't include gloves as well as an earth lead! Got to protect against the cold burns and the static charge that builds up discharging the gas under pressure. Still if you didn't use it what is the fire going to do? Simple solution is training by both understanding the limits of the protective equipment and their limitations and being aware of the hazards involved when dealing with an emergency situation.
Betta Spenden  
#8 Posted : 09 June 2013 11:35:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Betta Spenden

Jane Blunt wrote:
carbon dioxide is toxic, and reaches a toxic concentration before it reaches the level where it displaces enough oxygen to be an asphyxiant.
That is an interesting statement, one which I would like further information on. Do you have a reference that I can access as I was under the impression that: In accordance with Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals standards. CO2 is an asphyxiate gas and not classified as toxic nor harmful. My reference being the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, using the OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. Perhaps you are maybe getting slightly confused with the phenomena known as the Bohr Effect, Dyspnea or even CO (not CO2).
HR  
#9 Posted : 09 June 2013 19:59:32(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
HR

Yes I agree with you guys. I will see where it all started.
Azza  
#10 Posted : 10 June 2013 11:37:35(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Azza

Dont forget the wet floor signs when you use a water extinguisher
peter gotch  
#11 Posted : 10 June 2013 13:35:32(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Betta Exposure to CO2 at lower levels causes increased respiration and headaches, such that it has been assigned workplace exposure limits by HSE - 5000 ppm (i.e. 0.5%), 8 hour TWA and 15000 ppm, 15 minute excursion.
Jane Blunt  
#12 Posted : 10 June 2013 14:01:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Jane Blunt

Betta Spenden wrote:
Jane Blunt wrote:
carbon dioxide is toxic, and reaches a toxic concentration before it reaches the level where it displaces enough oxygen to be an asphyxiant.
That is an interesting statement, one which I would like further information on. Do you have a reference that I can access as I was under the impression that: In accordance with Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals standards. CO2 is an asphyxiate gas and not classified as toxic nor harmful. My reference being the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, using the OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. Perhaps you are maybe getting slightly confused with the phenomena known as the Bohr Effect, Dyspnea or even CO (not CO2).
Betta, it may help to know that I am a graduate Chemist, so not likely to confuse CO with CO2. I note that the labelling of CO2 is confusing. It seems to be classificed as non toxic, and I think this is on the basis of the quantity that is needed to cause death. The idlh figure for this gas (immediately dangerous to life and health - just google idlh) is 40 000 ppm which is 4%. 10% is almost guaranteed fatal. I don't know why the gas is usually classified as an asphyxiant, as adding 10% of a gas that does not support life to the air in a room will not bring down the oxygen level to something that is an immediate threat to life. See also here http://www.uigi.com/MSDS_gaseous_CO2.html In the context of a fire extinguisher, unless you discharge it into a truly minute space there will be no problem. However, I am still concerned that, if this workplace has a 'safety measure' that is as far from sanity as this, what else is lurking there? I would be in there asking an awful lot of questions.
A Kurdziel  
#13 Posted : 10 June 2013 14:02:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Like several forum users I was confused by this but then I noticed that you are based in the Middle East so... is the ‘mask’ not a mask but some sort of breathing apparatus ie it has it’s own air supply? And is the site some of sort of installation where there are limited air changes ie a confined space.. them perhaps the notice might make sort of sense except that in the UK I think it is unlikely that we would ever put anyone in situation where they would be require to use breathing apparatus to put out a fire unless they were trained fire fighters (perhaps in-house).
haulfryn  
#14 Posted : 10 June 2013 15:40:15(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
haulfryn

Is this thread a wind up??????????
Betta Spenden  
#15 Posted : 10 June 2013 18:53:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Betta Spenden

I am a graduate Chemist [/quote wrote:
Not bad. My chemistry is limited to iron fillings and acid. Thanks for the repy. I still dont think that Toxic is the right word. Is what you describe not more related to Dyspnea? And that is not sarcasm, its a genuine question. To the original poster. Sorry for hi-jacking your thread. The mask is useless. It wont work unless it has an oxygen/air supply. Good for doing Darth Vader voices though.
Jane Blunt  
#16 Posted : 10 June 2013 22:48:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Jane Blunt

Betta Spenden wrote:
Thanks for the repy. I still dont think that Toxic is the right word. Is what you describe not more related to Dyspnea? And that is not sarcasm, its a genuine question.
I have no idea. It is potentially fatal, and it is not because there is too little oxygen, it is because there is too much CO2. The GHS definition of toxic etc is within LC50 ranges,and it apears that the fatal dose of CO2 is above these ranges. Nevertheless it kills. I don't see a definition of asphyxiant. I think we need to bear in mind that classification is subject to anomalies. We should stop hijacking this topic and start a new one if you wish to continue debating the anomaliesand weaknesses in substance classification.
malcarleton  
#17 Posted : 11 June 2013 04:22:52(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
malcarleton

"I suspect this probably came from the same source that claimed back in April that CO2 portable fire extinguishers were banned in the United Arab Emirates because of their potential to be used as weapons in the perfect murder." The rest of my post is deemed unsuitable by the Mods, Fair enough..
MEden380  
#18 Posted : 11 June 2013 13:27:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
MEden380

Hypercapnia is the condition caused by CO2 poisoning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnia goes into detail of the condition
descarte8  
#19 Posted : 11 June 2013 15:03:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
descarte8

Just throwing my two pence in: a 1kg fire extinguisher releases 540 litres of CO2 or 0.54m³ in a 2x2x2 small cleaning cupboard there is 8000 litres of air. Assuming the extinguisher displaces only the air, the concentration of CO2 in the space would then be 67,500ppm The CO2 will not just displace the O2 but all the air, reducing the O2 concentration to 19.575% As above the issue in a confined space is not of O2 displacement but of CO2 concentration. BS 5306-8 Fire extinguishing installations and equipment on premises Part 8: Selection and positioning of portable fire extinguishers – Code of practice states "WARNING. All three groups, and possibly decomposition products, are likely to be hazardous to persons in enclosed spaces with restricted ventilation." "Extinguishers using these media should not be installed in enclosed spaces with restricted ventilation, but cause little health risk when used in the open air, large rooms and other well-ventilated places inside buildings." The second point here is if there WAS a fire in a confined space the production of CO, CO2 AND other toxic gases would be likely more hazardous than the CO2 extinguisher sufficient enough to require SCBA. If you take the above scenario up to more reasonable sized 3x3x3 room the CO2 conc reduces to 20,000ppm and O2 only reduced to 20.57% To answer the original OP question, unless it is a very confined space there is no reason to wear a "mask" when using a CO2 fire extinguisher, in any evert as above the mask (unless airline fed) wouldnt even protect you against any gases from extinguisher, combustion or otherwise. Des
Steve e ashton  
#20 Posted : 11 June 2013 16:19:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Steve e ashton

The OP did NOT mention portable extinguisher - why are you all assuming it this is what the question is about???? HR: If the "extinguisher" is a fixed bank of cylinders which is installed to totally flood a space with CO2 as might be the case for example in some plant or engine rooms or flammable process or storage areas - and the flood system is operated by a 'pull handle' device inside the space (always used to be a big triangular handle like an old loo flush but bigger...) - then at one time it would have been normal practice to provide a breathing mask with an absorbent cartridge to enable the person operating the system to leave the area safely... I don't now remember what was in the cartridge but I suspect it was similar to the old oxygen regenerator sets and would have limited shelf life. It may be that you have found a system such as this in whatever place you have visited. In this country, most flood systems are now automatic, and occupants are instructed to leave the space before the system activates. Self contained escape breathing apparatus may still be provided where the escape route is liable to take longer than about twenty seconds (the time to put on an escape set...). Better still, there are fire fighting gases that can kill fires at concentrations which do not kill the space occupants - although it's marginal, and any combustion products may just tip the balance - and they are significantly more expensive than CO2 systems. Hope this helps... Steve
HR  
#21 Posted : 11 June 2013 17:02:36(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
HR

No I am from East Asia and this is a garment factory. The masks were just particulate and not of any standard. It was not any scba.
Kate  
#22 Posted : 11 June 2013 17:14:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

They're dust masks! Whoever allowed this decision misunderstood so much ... unless it's a cynical decision to make it appear that safety is a concern. What is your relationship to the business? Have they engaged you to advise them?
HR  
#23 Posted : 11 June 2013 19:00:14(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
HR

Yes Kate, I have been asked but not on this issue. This was something I saw as amusing.
Mohammed Al Nakib  
#24 Posted : 12 June 2013 03:29:38(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Mohammed Al Nakib

Fire extinguishers are provided is open and closed areas, they are usually safe to use and does not require any special precautions apart of basic training and the application itself (do not use water extinguishers on electic fires etc ..). If we are talking about a CO2 flooding system, that would be a completely different issue with its awn operating Hazards, usually facilities have interlocks to prevent release while personnel are within the buildings.
Kate  
#25 Posted : 12 June 2013 20:44:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

Funny though it is, I think you ought to give some free, bonus advice on this one. After all, you won't need to draw on much expertise for it.
boblewis  
#26 Posted : 12 June 2013 20:49:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

Perhaps there should also be free milk provided as per dusty atmosphere workers up to a decade or two ago!!!!!!!:-) Bob
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.