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
mmurray  
#1 Posted : 03 February 2020 10:57:09(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
mmurray

We have recently been advised by the HSE to "look into" using some sort of sticky, tear off strips on or near CNC Milling machines to measure the amount of coolant oils / contaminants that are settling on  or near machinery surfaces. we are using a 5-7% coolant oil /water mix on all our machines. 

We've had these machines tested by conventional means (Gravimetric, DRAM Aerosol, Dust Lamp, etc.) and the results have come back as very low levels or airborne contaminants but I've never heard of anything like these tear off strips. is anyone out there that could point me in the right direction?

I've seent the HYCON AGAR tear off strips used in clean rooms for mearusing specfic microbial contaminants via air sampling but it doesn't make any sense to use these to measure a general engineering machine shop. we aren't working in the food industry, its a general engineering jobbing shop.  

JohnW  
#2 Posted : 03 February 2020 11:08:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
JohnW

mmurray. I’m very interested to read your message, having never heard of these tear-off strips. In fact I’m also not familiar with the other ‘conventional’ methods you mention, so I must do some research!
As a consultant, I am often advising clients with CNCs to get LEVs installed for mist filtration (many businesses currently have no LEVs for their water-based metal-working fluids).
Even with LEVs I know mist can still escape, and mist is also created when operators use compressed air to blow parts for visual inspection.
John
chris.packham  
#3 Posted : 03 February 2020 11:44:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

I, too, have never heard of these. Why not ask the inspector who suggested them where you could get them from?

I have reservations about this concept anyway. MWF aerosol will move with the air flow, so my approach would be to monitor air flow. I have a device that I use to do this. It produces a continous stream of non-toxic white vapour which provides an excellent indivation of air flow. If you would like more on this PM me with your e-mail address and I will send you information. (Note to moderators - I have no commercial interest in the equipment described).

With tear-off strips what would you be measuring? Where would you locate them? How often would you need to check them and how would you interpret what the tear-off pads were telling you? 

A Kurdziel  
#4 Posted : 04 February 2020 09:39:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Interesting that the HSE guidance on cutting fluids suggests that the fluids themselves be routinely monitored for bacterial levels rather than looking how far any mist has been spread https://www.hse.gov.uk/metalworking/bacterial.htm

This advice makes sense rather than trying to work out what the mist spreads might be.

You are not being asked to take part in some sort of research project are you?

Roundtuit  
#5 Posted : 04 February 2020 10:06:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Historically used dip slides when monitoring water based cutting fluids - has someone confused these with some form of tear strip?

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 04/02/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 04/02/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#6 Posted : 04 February 2020 10:06:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Historically used dip slides when monitoring water based cutting fluids - has someone confused these with some form of tear strip?

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 04/02/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 04/02/2020(UTC)
chris.packham  
#7 Posted : 04 February 2020 11:41:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

My comments about monitoring for air flow was not purely about the problem of biological hazards. I have encountered several situations where inadequate control of airborne WMF has resulted in skin exposure, often including the sensitive skin of the face, that has caused an occupational dermatitis. 

mmurray  
#8 Posted : 04 February 2020 13:34:34(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
mmurray

Thanks for your comments, just as a summary reply to some of the comments:

I don't want to go back to the inspector until i know for sure its not a thing I should have known about and is used as an "industry standard" or similar measure somewhere in the Engineering industry. It doesn't look like it is from your comments. 

we've done smoke testing. I first tried it with a couple of smoke pencils inside the machine enclosures but there wasn't enough smoke for it to be visually revealing so I let off  a smoke bomb inside the enclosure to see how the air travelled. Both where inconclusive results insomuch as the medium didn't act like MWF mist does.

We banned the use of high pressure air guns on our machines over a year ago because of the increased risk of airborn contaminants. The operators either use vacuum cleaners or brush it off by hand.

We were giong to work in collaboration with the HSE on a methodology I "invented" whereby I mixed a UV flouescent die into the coolant (commonly used for leak detection) and then used UV Lighting to visualise the air contamination of MWF. It didn't work for me and the HSE were going to put thier considerable resources onto testing this method but reconed there was too much natural light for it to work in our factory so are not taking it forward with us. 

You are quite right, the MWF is not seen by the HSE as the probable cause and work they have done at other sites that have had outbreaks of COPDs, (Powertrain).  point the finger at the endotoxins that grow in the MWF itself. So we manage the MWF stringently on limiting bacterial and fungal growth. anyone interested in MWF management should go to the UKLA website for document tempates and methods for control along with a host of stuff on good MWF managment. Its the best I've seen and its free. 

Thanks again everyone, I'll leave the post open for a week or so before I take it down to see if someone has heard of this method. It was pretty much a shot in the dark to start with. 

JohnW  
#9 Posted : 04 February 2020 15:17:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
JohnW

mmurray,
You haven’t said if your CNCs are fitted with oil mist filtration/LEV. I’ve been to clients who had enforcement notices to install these.
As regards measuring air borne mist, there must be instruments/methods which can do quantitative particle size measurements.
My understanding is that CNC mist particles range is 0.1u -10+u, and that the respirable hazard concern is the range 0.3u - 3.5u.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (3)
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.