Is RPE really protecting you?
The HSE have just published a report (RR1087 - Market surveillance of FFP3 disposable respirators) where they looked at "Ten different models of mask were selected from ten different manufacturers to cover a range of different designs and prices."
These are the masks that are sold and used in their thousands every day by innocent workers under the impression that they are protecting their health.
The results are shocking.
- 50% of the models tested had faults or failures!
- 30% of the models tested had MULTIPLE FAULTS!
- These included faulty breathing flaps and pin holes in the mask rendering it "ineffective".
- 66% failed to meet the penetration test which in the workplace could lead to reduced protection.
- 20% had visible splits, this despite the masks being manufactured to a EU standard!
We know that masks a rarely worn correctly and that a good seal is very difficult to achieve but the report goes to show that even when they are worn in ideal conditions it is a lottery as to wether the mask will prevent the wearer from breathing in hazardous substances.
This report just goes to show why it is so important that engineering controls (LEV etc) are properly applied to control hazardous substances BEFORE masks and other PPE are considered and they should only then be used as last resort since they fail to danger and quite often this can be fatal (see the HSE statistics on occupational diseases - 14,000 people in the UK alone die every year from breathing in hazardous substances at work such as wood, flour and diesel fumes).
We (industry) need to wake up to this and stop killing people through ignorance of the risk of breathing in harmful substances.
The old saying "you only have one pair of eyes" is also true of your lungs.
In all my years of working in industry I have never seen a process where some form of local exhaust ventilation system or other controls can not be applied to reduce the harmful substances.
The hierarchy of control from the COSHH Regulations (i.e. the law) says you MUST only use RPE as a last resort and then only after all other controls (including engineering controls) are in place.
If you are unable to accept this and have to result to RPE then at least seek qualified competent advice from reputable occupational hygiene companies (not the ones selling the kit but independent companies) who can advise you correctly.
If in doubt contact the British Occupational Hygiene Society (BOHS) - they can put you in touch with people who can help.
Senior Occupational Hygienist at WSP Canada Inc
8 年I'd agree with Richard and Vincent - it's quite a disservice to say "hey we found all these issues with all these common types of RPE." and then to leave the reader hanging as to whether or not theirs is one of the questionable models that should be checked /replaced. It's the equivalent of the bank saying your credit card may have been compromised at a merchant, but not telling you which merchant, so you're likely to keep going back.
Managing Director of RPE2FIT Ltd
8 年BSIF new reaccreditation scheme should go a long way to stamp this out.
Consultant Occupational Hygienist at Hygea Plus
8 年What worried me about that report was the anonymity of the RPE that failed. These are CE marked products that can be purchased in good faith yet are clearly not fit for purpose and the HSE allows them to remain anonymous. I fully endorse your point that wherever possible we should avoid the use of PPE but in some circumstances that may not be possible. Changing filters on an LEV unit would be an example where there is little alternative.
Senior Occupational Hygienist @ TOXpro
8 年Very interesting study. But I missing the mask model indentification, all result are anonymous. How do I select the proper model ? AT this stage, without this information I'm almost 1 chance on 2 to select a faulty device.