We have a directive from our client (a major construction company) that they will no longer allow disposable masks to be used by sub-contractors on their sites. A quite concerning statement from their head of health and safety states "It has been identified that the disposable type respirators offer minimal protection EVEN IF WORN CORRECTLY".....I would be interested how this could impact future court cases where respiratory diseases are the subject; after years of using inadequate disposable masks that provided minimal protection! Anybody got recommendations on the best 'press to check' mask to use going forward?

I'm keeping my head firmly below the parapet, I've made the mistake of asking questions before. Ill just get the masks they want!!!

If the client is also the Principal Contractor then they can dictate what they like, that's the rule of the game. That said, it does seem odd. Disposable face masks (FFP2/3) come in different types and if used frequently can prove to be expensive in a dusty environment. There is a more robust type where only the filter is disposable, more expensive initially, but a saving in the long term. The other draw back with these is they have to be managed because the filter is only recommended for 4 weeks, or less if in a particularly dusty environment. May be worth taking a look and seeing whether these will conform to your client's dictate. Playing Devil's Advocate (again) I would be tempted to follow up the reasoning behind this decision and if there were any caveats. You could always cite 'updating your RA' if you needed an excuse.

The user has always been supposed to do a 'fit check' each time the mask is used as well as having had a face fit test. 'Press to check' is just a new way of doing the 'fit check' not a substitute for the face fit test.

Kate, misread you post you obviously are not referring to face fit tests before each use!!!!!

Could this be a simple miscommunication perhaps? Do they mean "nuisance" dust masks perhaps? http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2003/e03003.htm

That recent RR you mention also reported that half mask type RPE efficiency was affected by stubble - thus my suggestion that they may be thinking of nuisance masks. And the whole issue was about stubble, not the masks themselves. No filtering face pieces, no half masks - not much left in the way of cost effective or practical RPE options!!! Surely you must seek clarification from your client.