Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi all,
I am after a bit of advice here from any experts in powder coating, especially the production of powders. Does anyone has any experience using TGCIs in the production process of powders, and what arrangemets have you put in place to manage this.
In my case, the TGCI are in the form of pellets which are added to the recipe and then everything goes through a series of production steps and then the final step which is milling and in plastic bags afterwards to be delivered. Extraction systems are in place and staff are wearing face masks. Taking into consideration the above would you say that employees will be required to wear air fed respirators? And if yes, why?
My understanding after researching this on HSE is that the advice is to use air fed respirators when spraying isocyanates, however, the amount released during the spraying process is a lot larger than the exposure levels during production. A risk assessment has not been carried out as I am asking for information and advice first to help me with the risk assessment process. Any help will me much appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I would always wear air fed respirators when spraying anything for lots of reasons but mainly because they are more comfortable to wear and more user acceptable. The next thing to establish is if there are free isocyanate groups on the resin (forgive me I worked in the paint industry making powder coatings for 11 years but it was in the 80s so I may get some terminology wrong but will try to convey the meaning) From memory solid isocyanate resin does not have free isocyanate groups so is not reactive in the same way as monomer isocyanate is. Powder coating works by melting of solid resins not reaction of ingredients so technically I don't think the isocyanate resins (polyurethanes) are more of a hazard than any of the other ingredients. BUT like I said at the top air fed respirators in this sort of work are much more comfortable to use and more likely to be used correctly - don't forget too that other ingredients are equally harmful, eg flow modifiers based on amorphous silica so there are lots of reasons why air fed is best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Hsquared14, Thank you for taking the time to reply. I am just thinking of how feasible will be to ask them to wear air-fed respirators and if it's justifiable as the TGCI is in small concentration and solid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Sorry but what are / is TGCI? Acronym checker doesnt have it. AcronymDefinition TGCI
The Grantsmanship Center TGCI
Transient Global Cerebral Ischemia TGCI
Thai-German Ceramic Industry, PCL (Thailand) Edited by user 06 April 2018 09:24:16(UTC)
| Reason: splitting paragraph
|
 1 user thanked SNS for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I made the assumption that the original poster wanted only those people with sufficient knowledge of the subject to already know what TGCI is to comment - a sort of knowledge test before answering the question.
Edited by user 06 April 2018 09:30:52(UTC)
| Reason: typo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Kate  I made the assumption that the original poster wanted only those people with sufficient knowledge of the subject to already know what TGCI is to comment - a sort of knowledge test before answering the question.
So did I Kate, hence no reply to the question. However, this is an open forum and I was interested in a 'new to me' acronym (and still am as may others be)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I assumed the op had made a mistake... I think he meant tgic which stands for triglycidyl isocyanate. Which many powder coating formulations used to contain but which has been steadily losing ground to safer albeit more expensive and less robust alternatives... I didn't answer because the only possible answer is how long is this piece of string?
If the manufacturing process is fully enclosed clean, nearly sterile, the no respirators would be necessary. If the plant is caked on thick layers of crusted gunky product, then even air fed suits may not suffice. Without someone experienced describing the process in significantly more detail, then no answer seems better than one which may be wrong or misleading....
|
2 users thanked Steve e ashton for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
And, to be clear... I have some experience of powder coating plant, and significant experience of chemical formulation plant, but no direct experience of powder coating formulation plant if that makes sense... I can interpolate from my experience but the op seemed to be looking for an expert in powder coating production rather than use...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Steve e ashton I assumed the op had made a mistake... I think he meant tgic which stands for triglycidyl isocyanate. Which many powder coating formulations used to contain but which has been steadily losing ground to safer albeit more expensive and less robust alternatives... I didn't answer because the only possible answer is how long is this piece of string?
If the manufacturing process is fully enclosed clean, nearly sterile, the no respirators would be necessary. If the plant is caked on thick layers of crusted gunky product, then even air fed suits may not suffice. Without someone experienced describing the process in significantly more detail, then no answer seems better than one which may be wrong or misleading....
Goes to show that if people use acronyms and abbreviations without explaining them it can lead to misunderstandings and a case of the Blind Leading the Confused (also known as BLtC)
|
2 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
In my experience the provision of any RPE can only be made when there is knowledge of the concentration the worker is being exposed to. No sufficient risk assessment can say "mask required" if they do not know the concentration, how else can you determine if the protection level needs to be 10x, 20x, 40x, 1000x etc...
So my answer would be measure the concentration (either in air or biologically if possible) to determine if there is a problem that needs any RPE to be used at all. Then either fix/eliminate the source (you already use extraction systems - why are you using RPE - unless these are insufficient?) or provide suitable RPE or the correct filter type and degree / level of protection.
Edited by user 09 April 2018 12:34:51(UTC)
| Reason: spellink errorts
|
1 user thanked descarte8 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If you have a need for RPE for airborne exposure then if the chemical is a sensitiser this should be whole head protection. There is little purpose served by providing a half mask or whole face mask and leaving the sensitive facial and head skin exposed.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Let’s go back to the beginning: You are manufacturing a powder coating. The material arrives as pellets so there is no dust risk there (unless they’re dusty pellets!). They then undergo a milling process, which is enclosed and again there is no exposure of employees to the material (do you ever clean the equipment-that might be dusty?). The only stage where employees are exposed to the powder during routine non-maintenance is the final bagging step. And that cannot be automated or any sort of LEV applied? What do you do with spills and general tidying up in the bagging area?
Just getting more detail;trying to identify where any exposure might take place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.