Is Face Fit Testing required when RPE is used because social distancing cannot be maintained? I'm certain I know the answer but I know people are advising it's not.

Who are you socially distancing?

Current advice is that the general public should not be in masks particularly the type required by health care workers. Nicola Sturgeon has talked about face coverings whilst Sadiq Khan and Andy Burnham announce their arrogance by calling for mandatory mask wearing.

If these are workers using workplace RPE then as Brian states HSE have not diluted any rules - tight fitting equipment requires fit testing to be effective.

If you aren't going to use the equipment in the manner required then donate it to those who need it.

https://www.hse.gov.uk/news/face-mask-ppe-rpe-coronavirus.htm

No mention of face fit testing not being required.

too not to. I know some pedant will point this out.

Kate has provided the link to the competent enforcement authority advice - 'nuf said

Not sure your latest post is particularly helpful as you remain coy about the context/location

TBH I am vociferous against blanket style PPE as it gives a false sense of security to the wearer and may be wholly inadequate for the actual task.

By example we talk of social distancing on construction sites your post indicates that where we can't achieve this a poorly fitting mask is adequate? - lets also remember in construction we have tight fitting RPE to protect against dusts and fibres. Looking across the site if they are all in masks surely they must be protected - NOT! Trouble is if they have one mask for "general" and one for "dust" the chances of cross-contamination increase significantly.

If the masks are just for show donate any serious true PPE to those who need it.

Rob 

I can see the logic of what HSE have told you. If you don't need anything like the protection that an FFP3 mask offers then you might not need to face fit test.

However, HSE should be perfectly well aware that there is a global shortage of FFP3 or equivalent protection for those who need this at the front line, so they shouldn't be doing anything that might be construed as promoting something that is unnecessarily protective for those who don't need it, let alone support a loosening of standard rules of thumb.

Relaxing the rules is this scenario is very liable to result in people taking this as the go ahead to do the same in other circumstances where the face fit test would be clearly expected by the regulator. Advice from HSE that is likely to backfire on them.

Edited by user 30 April 2020 18:11:56(UTC)  | Reason: Didn't read proper!

To my mind, it is quite wrong to use close-fitting RPE for a purpose for which a mere "face-covering" is deemed sufficient, especially where there are pressures on supply.

If you need RPE to protect against an inhalation risk - do a face fit test.

If you don't - then leave that RPE for those who have a genuine need for it.

Originally Posted by: Brian Hagyard

But i agree with Kate that we need to be clear why we are using face coverings or this type of Kit

Agreed.  The basis of general public wearing face masks seems to be that it limits spread of droplets breathed out by that user - and if that's what the mask is for you certainly don't need face fit testing. 

I also observe that if that's the purpose of a mask, all the people I see wearing masks with exhaust valves are possibly doing more harm than good, since I expect the exhaust valve, concentrating and directing their expelled breath, generates a warmer, wetter, further-travelling plume than does plain old breathing out.

Originally Posted by: achrn

The basis of general public wearing face masks seems to be that it limits spread of droplets breathed out by that user - and if that's what the mask is for you certainly don't need face fit testing. 

Trouble with the term mask as you have identified is that Joe Public associate the word with the RPE required for professional purposes or the surgical coverings frequently seen in asia.

I find myself suddenly pondering if nail bar workers derive any protection from the surgical appearance loose fitting devices they wear?

Now someone possibly has explanation but given an NHS dentist uses protective goggles and surgical mask why can we not get anything but absolute life threatening emergency treatment at this present time? A surgical mask appears to be the pinacle for post lockdown - other face coverings being available.

I think you are all rather missing the point...the whole idea of face covering in this context is what you EXHALE not what you INHALE...this is primarily for the pre-symptomatic period (6-14 days) before the symptoms come to the surface in an infected person..so it is the opposite way of thinking that we are all used to in the industrial setting...still needs to be good enough to stem the flow...so those with fashionable beards..they should go...the wearing of masks in the public setting should still be reserved for Health Care professionals and those in direct care setting...the key preventative measure is social distancing and hand washing..and wearing a mask may give a false sense of security and the temptation to relax these controls...

Once again emphasis on hand washing. If this is the real answer why does the NICE accredited guidance on prevention of infection recommend alcohol sanitising rub for routine hand decontamination (with two specific exclusions)? 

I am still getting requests from those in occupational health for assistance in dealing with the skin damage that the increase in hand washing is causing.  Now consider this from one of the experts in this field:

Despite some methodological flaws and data gaps, evidence for a causal relationship between hand hygiene and reduced transmission of infections is convincing, but frequent hand washing causes skin damage, with resultant changes in microbial flora, increased skin shedding, and risk of transmission of microorganisms, suggesting that some traditional hand hygiene practices warrant re-examination. Some recommended changes in practice include use of waterless alcohol-based products, and incorporation of moisturizers into skin care regimens of health care professionals. - Larson E, Skin Hgyiene and Infection Prevention: More of the Same or Different Approaches? – Clinical Infectious Diseases, 1999; 29, 1287-94

Time for a rethink?

Achrn. there is a YuTube clip doing the rounds of an Intense american woman demonstrating the flamability of hand gel.  like you I have no idea how to factor this into the RA- Non Smoking site, no gas or naked flames.

Not sure if it is wise to spread the word that you can do some interesting table magic with hand gel

From observation over a considerable time it is clear to me that one of the problems with alcohol sanitiser is that people take too much. The recommended dose is 3-5ml. Studies have shown that this is sufficient to adequately decontaminate the hands, taking about 15 seconds. I have had sales e-mails by 'suppliers' directing people to 'take a good handful'. This achieves no more and takes much longer to evaporate with the result that there is an increase possibility of people touching surfaces with hands that are still wet. 

Considering the vast number of people using alcohol sanitiser if fire was a real problem I believe we would have many more cases of burns. There are other issues with alcohol sanitiser, e.g. those with mental problems trying to drink it, that we need to address.

This reminds me of the story that went around about the use of moisturisers being a fire risk in hospital due to the clothing becoming saturated with paraffin from the moisturiser. It confused the type of paraffing that was used in moisturisers with the paraffin (really kerosene) used in camping cookers and greenhouse heaters. One was flammable the other not. Guess which was which!

As I have already stated, given the vast use of alcohol sanitiser used every day why has there apparently only been one case of the flammability causing a problem. If it is so flammable perhaps we should start to risk assess the danger of someone with a whisky in one hand and a cigarette in the other?

While we all wait with anticipation to read the Government's final version of their roadmap to get the country back to work it will be interesting if any reference will be made to the application of social distancing rules in an emergency situation in the workplace such as a fire evacuation in a large building in a high school or office.

Actually, if you adhere to the WHO formulation for an alcohol based sanitiser you start with alcohol at 98%. When this is mixed with other constituents (including glycerol) it is diluted to the desired alcohol concentration in the final product which, ideally, should be between 60 and 70%. This is, of course, still flammable and the appropriate symbol should be on the bottle. 

The fact is that once the sanitiser is placed on the skin it starts to evaporate and, given that it is then also spread around the hands, the level of alcohol at any one point on the hands is unlikely to be high enough to cause a fire. Within around 15 seconds the hands will be completely dry. If you splashed a large amount on to your hands and then exposed the skin quickly to a source of ignition (in a washroom) you might cause a fire.

In one study they found that the vapour from its use was causing a very short term increase in alcohol in a person's exhaled air. Had this been sufficient to trigger a fire then I would have expected there to have been a number of incidents of people smoking whilst using the sanitiser.

Originally Posted by: peter gotch

I predicted last week that the incident in Norway would soon hit social media.

The only problem is that the incident as described seems so improbable.

 

It looked improbable to me, too.

I have tried to set fire to alcohol hand gel, and found it relatively difficult to ignite, and not to burn very hot (but it was just a single brand, maybe the one I used was much lower alcohol content).  I also observe it's quite difficult to ignite things with a single static-generated spark (again, non-scientific misspent curiosity).

However, as noted in the thread, since it has now happened once, it is a foreseeable risk and we need to think about it...

Connor and achrn

But is it really that foreseeable or are some of the stories fake news.

Plural stories as I did some googling last week and found similar tales and have found some where the fact checkers have debunked the myths. 

Now the Alert says that it wasn't work-related. I don't know what reporting and recording requirements are in Norway (and am not about to investigate) but we have enough debates on these Forums about what is and is not RIDDOR reportable to be able to guess that there are probably similar debates in places other than the UK.

...and if RIDDOR and parallel OSHA requirements are to go by there are lots of rules of thumb, tricks and ruses (some wholly warranted, some less so) to let one decide to downgrade an incident classification or to determine that it was not work-related e.g. if involving someone of "a frolic of his own".

Now, suppose as a hypothetical scenario that someone was playing a little science in a welfare hut at the workplace and the science went a bit wrong, then I think that it would be fully merited to conclude that the incident was not work-related. But then the person involved has to go home and explain why their hand is bandaged up (or whatever) - might not want to tell the folks at home what they have done, so perhaps a motivation to massage the facts a little.

There's a page on the WHO website that is still there but very dated which refers to millions of uses of alcohol based sanitiser (the formulation is effectively the same as it has been for well over a decade) and just 7 fires, none involving static.

More recently, the National Fire Protection Agency in the US put out a utube in April basically saying that the fire risk can be focused on bulk storage.

So, I don't think we should be taking one report of a very, very improbable incident as any reason to influence ANY possible disinclination to use hand sanitiser (where appropriate) during a COVID pandemic or thereafter.

P

Didn't we recently debate lanyards causing horrific injuries in the event of a vehicle crash only to determine there was a single story that social media postings had managed to multiply beyond all proportion?

I can get the suggestion of static and aircraft fueling - very volatile liquid.

Hand sanitiser catching fire? I need the cognac to be at its boiling point in a hot pan to raise a flambe WAY above what the human body can impart.

ECD Guidance...

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COVID-19-use-face-masks-community.pdf

Thanks Kate :)

The ECDC guidance and risk assessment is actually quite good.  I use that for all the risk assessment scenarios I have to do at a country level...

There is also an emerging trend on Kamakazi-virus (affects mainly under 5s) in the UK which is being monitored at ECDC level...I wouldn't be so quick to remove the social distancing...