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
Rimmer22212  
#1 Posted : 17 July 2014 11:56:12(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Rimmer22212

When carrying out an assessment for PPE does the make and Model need to be stated other than when customising PPE?
David Bannister  
#2 Posted : 17 July 2014 16:05:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
David Bannister

Hi Rimmer, the PPE must be appropriate for the specific hazards being presented and must be chosen accordingly. It is therefore essential to know exactly what protection is being offered by the equipment. Different brands and model numbers will provide different levels of protection.

Thus when recording the findings of the assessment I believe that it is essential to include the exact identification of the equipment.

Just as a fire risk assessment is little use without reference to the premises concerned.
Ron Hunter  
#3 Posted : 17 July 2014 17:02:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

Customising PPE? Interesting Concept!
leadbelly  
#4 Posted : 17 July 2014 17:09:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
leadbelly

Go-faster stripes on a hard hat!?

LB
chris.packham  
#5 Posted : 18 July 2014 08:15:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

If your PPE requirements include gloves as protection against chemical hazards then not only will you need to specify the particular glove model from the particular manufacturer but also indicate for the specific task how long that glove will provide protection. This can vary enormously, not only between different gloves from different manufacturers but with the same chemical used for different tasks. Manufacturers' published performance data are not a reliable indicator of this, particularly where mixtures of chemicals are concerned.
I have data on one glove that show a permeation breakthrough time for each of toluene and MEK of >240 minutes, but when mixed 1:1 the permeation breakthrough time drops to just 9 minutes. In a study together with Sunderland University we found that the protection time for a particular glove with a solvent ranged from 2 hours to 5 minutes depending upon the task.
If you need more there is a whole chapter devoted to this in "Protective Gloves for Occupational Use (second edition)", Anders Boman, Tuula Estlander, Jan E. Wahlberg, Howard I. Maibach (eds.), CRC Press, ISBN 0-8493-1558-1.
Chris
achrn  
#6 Posted : 18 July 2014 09:43:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

David Bannister wrote:
Hi Rimmer, the PPE must be appropriate for the specific hazards being presented and must be chosen accordingly. It is therefore essential to know exactly what protection is being offered by the equipment. Different brands and model numbers will provide different levels of protection.

Thus when recording the findings of the assessment I believe that it is essential to include the exact identification of the equipment.


I disagree. If your risk assessment concludes (say) that you require an EN471 class 3 hi-visibility upper body garment, or glasses to EN 166 1F(T) I don't believe it is necessary to explicitly specify the manufacturer and precise model. I consider that if I have determined that EN 166 1F(T) is adequate, then any glasses meeting that specification may be used, it is not necessary for me to mandate (eg) Bolle Cobra HD, though if you go to our PPE person and ask for glasses, currently that's what you'll get because that's what we hold in stock.

In discussions about safety boots here, a significant proportion of people have said their organisation takes the same approach - a minimum standard is specified, and people can choose boots that meet that performance specification. That's certainly the way we do it - all boots must meet EN ISO 20345 S3 or SB+P+E+WRU and must provide ankle support and must be fitted with laces, zip or other positive
fastening. As long as you meet that specification, and fit under the budget, you can have what you like from the catalogues of our suppliers. I don't recall anyone suggesting this approach does not meet legal requirements.
piobaire  
#7 Posted : 18 July 2014 10:28:57(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
piobaire

I would agree with achrn. If you are too specific to the extent you are specifying brands and model numbers, what happens if this is not available? If an alternative was used that was technically the same but was not the brand or model specified then you would be operating outside your safe system of work. Don't make a rod for your own back. It is the technical aspects of PPE that provides protection not who makes them.
Ron Hunter  
#8 Posted : 18 July 2014 10:41:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

Agreed, except for RPE. Those of us familair with face-fit testing will appreciate the subtle differences across manufacturers - interchangeability is not a 'given' for RPE.
chris.packham  
#9 Posted : 18 July 2014 11:07:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

I have to take the same view as Ron, but in my case for skin protection. As I hope my previous posting made clear, this is not as simple as many assume. There can be wide differences in the protection offered by what appear to be identical gloves from different manufacturers. And some test their gloves according to EN374 at 21 deg C whereas others test at 35 deg C which more nearly represents the real conditions due to skin temperature of the gloves inside the hands. The results can be very different and may suggest to the unwary that the lower performance glove is actually better!
Chris
achrn  
#10 Posted : 18 July 2014 11:17:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Ron Hunter wrote:
Agreed, except for RPE. Those of us familair with face-fit testing will appreciate the subtle differences across manufacturers - interchangeability is not a 'given' for RPE.


I think it's precisely because of face-fit (and similar) issues that you should NOT precisely specify a manufacturer and model - if the PPE assessment specifies one particular model from one particular manufacturer and that doesn't fit your face...

This is why we take the approach we do. We don't actually have people working in RPE but we do have people wearing boots, and a boot that's comfortable for one person isn't necessarily so for another person even if their feet are nominally the same size. My feet (for example) are at the small end of normal for length, but very, very wide and I normally end up in shoes that are nominally at least two sizes too big. Actually less of a problem in safety boots than buying normal shoes - safety boots are normally a very wide fitting - but some of our slender-footed staff really don't like the boots that fit me best.
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.