Filtering Facepiece Respirator or a Dust Mask or N95 Respirator versus a Surgical Mask

Back in 2011 we posted this video from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Respirator Safety Video discussing the difference between respirators and surgical masks is a very good video to better understand the difference between these two pieces of equipment that can protect you from particular hazards.

There is a lot of confusion currently (during the coronavirus pandemic) about the difference between these two items.  The video above gives you a basic understanding.  To expand on that information realize the surgical mask does not protect the user from what's in the air its not designed to be a filter.  It's designed to protect the public from what the individual wearing it has.  Hence its popularity in Asian countries where it is considered a courtesy to wear it when you're sick.  See the chart below for more differences.

The filtering facepiece respirator was designed for the purpose of being lightweight, easy to use, and protect workers from particulates in the air but they are single-use (they should not be used for more than 8 hours and you throw them away).  If you're interested in learning about this mask's history read this article written in Fast Company "The untold origin story of the N95 mask".  Unfortunately, like most respirators, these need to be fit tested to ensure they fit correctly and also need to be fit checked to ensure it is placed on the face correctly.  An interesting point is that air will take the path of least resistance, and that is why respirators need to be fit tested to make sure all the air goes through the filter(s).  It is also why workers with facial hair cannot wear tight-fitting respirators.  The facial hair creates a path of least resistance into the respirator.  Digg posted an interesting video that shows a person coughing and the difference between a surgical mask (designed to protect the public) and an N95 respirator (designed to protect the user).  Properly putting on and taking off the N95 respirator is also important to make sure all the air goes through the filter.  See the video below to ensure you are doing this correctly.  Remember you should follow the manufacturer's procedures when putting on or taking off the respirator.

One more point, don't touch the filter it could be contaminated.  If you do immediately wash your hands or if unavailable use alcohol-based hand sanitizer.  If you're sick you wear the surgical mask and keep your distance (3 feet or arms-length or the preferrable 6 feet) or better yet stay home!  If you are trying not to get sick you wear the N95 respirator.  However, if you have not been fit tested with the respirator, have not performed the fit check, have facial hair, or not wearing it properly then the respirator would be better off in a Doctor, Nurse, or Emergency Responders hands to help them with the shortages they are experiencing.  Just keep your distance or better yet stay at home!!! 

Related articles

• Importance of Respiratory Protection at Demolition or Disaster Sites (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• Importance of Personal Protective Equipment (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• Reportlinker Adds Global Personal Protective Equipment Industry (prnewswire.com)
• N95 Respirators and Surgical Masks (cdc.gov)
• September 5 is N95 Day - Whaaaaaat?? (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• Filtering Facepiece Respirator or Dust Mask.  Which is it? (futureenv.blogspot.com)

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), One Size Does Not Fit All.

In our previous blogpost, we discussed Ebola and the use of personal protective equipment.  Since then the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has come out with revised guidance on purchasing PPE and protocols for wearing PPE while handling patients with the Ebola virus disease.  Find this information here.  

A disposable nitrile rubber glove. Nitrile gloves are available in different colours, the most common being blue and purpleCitation needed. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Fast Company Co.Design's article "Why Protective Gear Isn't Stopping Ebola" has an interesting discussion on the problems with PPE.  This discussion includes the usual complaints that its uncomfortable, it doesn't fit, restricts movement, visibility, etc.  It is interesting that before wearing a tight fitting respirator a worker must be either qualitatively or quantitatively fit tested with the respirator they will be wearing.  However, when it comes to PPE (like gloves or protective suits) there is no fit testing.  If you bought these items as clothing, you would try them on and purchase the best fitting one.
  

Asbestos Hands-on Demonstration

There is an unspoken assumption that the employer will purchase different sizes allowing workers to select the size that fits them the most comfortably.  This assumption is typically wrong and what actually happens is most employers buy larger sizes in the sense that one size fits all or they buy the size that fits the most people.  This results in complaints that wearing the PPE is more hazardous than not wearing it, which of course is the case if you are wearing ill-fitting or incorrect fitting PPE.

Wearing the proper PPE is not only about the right size, it is also about wearing the right type.  How many of you know that protective equipment are tested for how cut resistant they are?  The cut protection performance test (CPPT) is an American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) F 1790 standard cut test for protective equipment.  A glove's performance rating is classified by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/International Safety Equipment Association (ISEA) 105-2005 from a 0-5 level, with 5 being the best cut performance, based on the outcome of the CPPT test.  Gloves are also tested for how long it takes for chemicals to breakthrough, degrade, or permeate the material the glove is made of.  ASTM F739 standard details the process for testing protective equipment for liquid and gas permeation (the video clip below shows how this is done).  Ansell Healthcare produces the "Chemical Resistance Guide" that includes permeation and degradation data for various glove material and a rating system.

When selecting PPE for your workers, unfortunately its not as simple as looking in a catalog and buying the cheapest PPE and/or buying one size that will fit most or all.  As the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard (1910.133) requires for PPE, you must assess the hazard you want the PPE to protect the worker from and then find the best fitting PPE so the worker will wear it comfortably without creating a greater hazard.

Related articles

• CDC promises Ebola safety supplies being readied for hospitals
• CDC Invests $2.7M In Ebola-Specific PPE Kits
• WHO Updates Guidelines on Ebola Protective Gear
• Why Protective Gear Isn't Stopping Ebola

Chemical Accidents Sickens 54 in Bohemia, NY

Image via Wikipedia

Just before the Hurricane, the above headline was in Newsday, on August 19, 2011, regarding a chemical accident where two cleaning chemicals were accidently mixed causing 54 workers to become ill and requiring some of them to be hospitalized.  Workers were treated for symptoms including convulsions, dizziness, nausea, shortness of breath and vomiting.  Unfortunately, the report does not discuss the specific chemicals that were mixed.  It does mention that the company was using a new chemical for cleaning and did not fully purge the old cleaning chemical out of the system.
This incident highlights the importance of providing training to staff when a new chemical is added to the facility.  This will ensure the hazards of the new chemical will be understood and any problems that may occur with mixing chemicals are fully understood.  The most important part of this training is the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS).  The MSDS is created by the manufacturer to warn the users of its chemicals about the dangers of the chemical, the personal protective equipment (PPE) needed, first aid necessary if exposed, the path of exposure, and other important information.  The training on the new chemical should be on the specifics of handling the chemical including any PPE needing to be used when using the chemical, the first aid procedures should an exposure occur, proper storing of the chemical, and any other chemicals that should be avoided or prevented from coming into contact with the new chemical.  Maybe if this training was done the individuals responsible for purging the system would have been more cautious.

Related articles

• NY cellphone workers sickened in cleaner mishap (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Chlorine Leak Sickens 20 at Sacramento Water Park (shoppingblog.com)
• Fumes at McDonald's leave 2 unconscious, sicken 9 (ajc.com)

OSHA Announces Three-month Enforcement Phase-in for Residential Construction Fall Protection

OSHA announced June 9 a three-month enforcement phase-in period to allow residential construction employers to come into compliance with the agency's new directive to provide residential construction workers with fall protection.  During the phase-in period June 16-September 15, if an employer is in full compliance with the old directive (STD 03-00-001), OSHA will not issue citations, but will instead issue a hazard alert letter informing the employer of the feasible methods that can be used to comply with OSHA's fall protection standard or implement a written fall protection plan.  If the employer's practices do not meet the requirements set in the old directive, OSHA will issue appropriate citations.  If an employer fails to implement the fall protection measures outlined in a hazard alert letter, and OSHA finds violations involving the same hazards during a subsequent inspection of one of the employer's workplaces, the Area Office will issue appropriate citations.

OSHA's Residential Fall Protection Web page has many guidance products, including a fall protection slide show*, to help employers comply with the new directive. See the news release for more information.

Related articles

• OSHA at 40 (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• OSHA crackdown revisited (lawunderconstruction.com)
• N.L. company charged after fall from roof (cbc.ca)
• OSHA Saves Lives: Trench Collapse Edition (scienceblogs.com)
• Workers die on the job, prevention tools often disregarded (scienceblogs.com)
• OSHA cites Bush airport train operator over fatal crash (chron.com)

OSHA Respirator Safety Video

This Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Respirator Safety Video is a very good introductory video on respirator donning and doffing.  Probably will add this to our training classes since it is a very good entry level and refresher video.  The video is available in spanish, too.

Related articles

• OSHA Log Form 300A Posting Due February 1, 2011. (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• N95 Respirators and Surgical Masks (cdc.gov)
• Importance of Personal Protective Equipment (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• OSHA Construction Safety Video: OSHA Fall Protection Standards (ehssafetynews.wordpress.com)

OSHA Reminds Employers Of The Hazards Associated With Ice And Snow Cleanup

Image via WikipediaThe Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in Region 4 (Georgia) is warning employers of the hazards associated with ice and snow removal.  However, with the Northeast being hit by more snow just this week it is important to remember these hazards ourselves.

Common hazards can include:

• Electric shock from contact with downed power lines or the use of ungrounded electrical equipment.
• Falls from clearing ice jams in gutters, snow removal on roofs or while working in aerial lifts or on ladders.
• Being struck or crushed by trees, branches or structures that collapse under the weight of accumulated ice.
• Carbon monoxide poisoning from gasoline-powered generators in inadequately ventilated areas or idling vehicles.
• Lacerations or amputations from unguarded or improperly operated chain saws and power tools, and improperly attempting to clear jams in snow blowers.
• Slips or falls on icy or snow-covered walking surfaces.
• Being struck by motor vehicles while working in roadways.
• Hypothermia or frostbite from exposure to cold temperatures.

Means of addressing these hazards can include:

• Assuming all power lines are energized, keeping a distance and coordinating with utility companies.
• Making certain that all electrically powered equipment is grounded.
• Providing and ensuring the use of effective fall protection.
• Properly using and maintaining ladders.
• Using caution around surfaces weighed down by large amounts of ice.
• Making certain all powered equipment is properly guarded and disconnected from power sources before cleaning or performing maintenance.
• Using and wearing eye, face and body protection.
• Clearing walking surfaces of snow and ice, and using salt or its equivalent where appropriate.
• Establishing and clearly marking work zones.
• Wearing reflective clothing.
• Using engineering controls, personal protective equipment and safe work practices to reduce the length and severity of exposure to the cold.

Information on hazards and safeguards associated with cleanup and recovery activities after a storm or other major weather events is available online in English and Spanish at http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/hurricaneRecovery.html.

Related articles

• What OSHA Expects: The Electrical & Arc Flash Safety Questions OSHA Will Ask During an Investigation (ehssafetynews.wordpress.com)
• OSHA Quick Takes - January 15, 2011 (ehssafetynews.wordpress.com)
• OSHA to Roll Out 5 New Rules & Ergonomic Won't Be One of Them (ehssafetynews.wordpress.com)
• OSHA Proposes $51,000 in Fines Against David H. Koch Theater in New York for Asbestos, Fall and Crushing Hazards (futureenv.blogspot.com)

Importance of Personal Protective Equipment



An exterminator works yesterday (Saturday) inside the Huntington Public Library, which was closed Friday after bedbugs were found.



The above photo was published with the Newsday article "Huntington library fumigated for bugs."  It is an interesting photo from a health and safety perspective.  The article discusses the fumigation of the library using a chemical called Nuvan to eliminate the bugs.  If we look up the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS)for Nuvan 7 (Visit http://www.amvac-chemical.com/media/pdf/products/msds/nuvan_7.pdf for the MSDS for Nuvan 7), we learn this chemical is poisonous if swallowed, inhaled, or absorbed through the skin and eyes.  Based on the picture and the assumption that the worker is working with this chemical as the picture implies.  The worker is not wearing the right safety equipment or as we call it in the industry, personal protective equipment or PPE.  Since this chemical can be absorbed through the skin and eyes, the tyvek suit the worker is wearing in the photo is the proper PPE to protect his body.  However, since the worker is not wearing gloves or goggles this chemical can absorb into the worker through his hands or eyes.  If the amount absorbed is sufficient it could be fatal as the MSDS indicates.  The worker in the picture is missing gloves (nitrile is recommended type of glove on the MSDS), in addition his shoes or the coverings over his shoes should also be chemical resistant (we can't see this so we don't know if this is correct or not), and chemical resistant gogggles are required, too.  The half-mask air purifying respirator (APR) the worker is wearing seems to be correct since the cartridge appears to be purple (typically the color for HEPA cartridges) and black (the color associated with organic vapor cartridges, and specified on the MSDS).  However, the worker is wearing the respirator incorrectly.  The straps for the respirator always go under the hood of the protective suit.  This way when you take off the contaminated suit the respirator can remain on until you have decontaminated yourself.  For the worker in the picture to take off the suit, the worker would first have to take off the respirator exposing the worker to the chemicals that were on the suit.

On final item, it is our experience that when wearing a half-mask APR, like the one in the photo, together with goggles always causes problems.  When the goggles are worn on the face with a respirator the goggles typically do not seal properly on the face.  Since the MSDS requires workers to wear eye protection with this chemical (Nuven 7), we would recommend using a full-face air purifying respirator to make sure the eyes are protected, instead of the half-mask APR.  

All of these issues indicate a possible lack of training (or is it showmanship for the article) of the worker wearing the PPE.  The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires workers to be trained in hazard communication (how to read MSDS) and using PPE.  It is very important that workers are properly trained on the hazards they are exposed to and trained on the correct PPE for working with chemicals.  This training and knowledge is what Keeps Employees Safe!

Related articles

• Officials Close Huntington Library After Bedbug Discovery (newyork.cbslocal.com)
• World Market for Personal Protective Equipment to Reach US$33.3 Billion by 2015, According to New Report by Global Industry Analysts, Inc. (prweb.com)
• Importance of Respiratory Protection at Demolition or Disaster Sites (futureenv.blogspot.com)
• Dealing with Hazardous Substances on the Construction Site (constructionlawva.com)
• Work Related Asthma (brighthub.com)

OSHA Issues Clarifications on PPE

Sorry for the long lead time on this issue. However, this issue seems like it should be common sense. On December 12, 2008, OSHA published a final rule clarifying emloyers' duty to provide personal protective equipment (PPE) and train each employee. This rule revises the OSHA standards to clarify that, for employers to be in compliance, they must provide PPE and hazards training for each employee covered by the standards. Each employee not protected may be considered a separate violation and penalties assessed accordingly. The revison is consistent with language in other standards for which per-employee citatiuons have been upheld.

In addition, realize by May 15, 2008, OSHA also required all employers to provide PPE at no cost to their employees (the employer must pay for the PPE). These requirements addressed many kinds of PPE, such as: hard hats, gloves, goggles, safety shoes, safety glasses, welding helmets and goggles, faceshields, chemical protective equipment, fall protection equipment, and other types of safety equipment. Certain safety equipment were excluded from the provision of employer payment of PPE, these excluded items are certain safety-toe shoes and boots, prescription safety eyewear, and logging boots. OSHA considers these three items personal in nature, are used from jobsite to jobsite (employer to employer), and are typically used off the jobsite.