Presentation on theme: "3/31/2017 Introduction to Global CPC Standards & Product Selection Best Practice Presentation to: Genesee Valley Chapter of the American Society of."— Presentation transcript:
1 3/31/2017Introduction to Global CPC Standards & Product Selection Best Practice Presentation to: Genesee Valley Chapter of the American Society of Safety Engineers
2 Agenda Global Market Place = Global Standards (?) The Global “Types” of Chemical Protective ClothingCertification of PPEEuropean Chemical Protective Clothing Standards and Test MethodsSelection and use of PPE, including chemical protective clothing
3 Manufacturer of limited life chemical protective clothing Established: 1975Markets: Global distribution network covering over 50 countriesUK, Europe, Middle East, Asia, Africa, Australasia and the AmericasHeadquarters: Kingston upon Hull, UKProduction: Microgard Xiamen Ltd (Xiamen, China)Employees: Hull (35*), Xiamen (700), Leverkusen (7)*Figure includes a global sales team of 11Company was founded by our present Chairman & Managing Director Graham Stonehouse & his father. Registered as Orvec Ltd in 1975 the company manufactured limited life protective clothing and also passenger care products for the airline industry. Having specialised in non woven products for over 30 years Mr Stonehouse formed Microgard Ltd in 2004 and in 2006 sold the passenger care division (now known as Orvec International) to The Phipps Group, a privately owned investment company based in London, UK allowing him to focus his efforts on the continuing development of the Microgard brand Worldwide.In fact Orvec Ltd were chosen as Dupont’s first UK licensee for the manufacture of Tyvek coveralls, and in 1992 were the largest manufacturer of Tyvek coveralls in Europe.
4 Kingston Upon Hull, United Kingdom Microgard Ltd – Hull, UKMICROGARD Limited – Global HeadquartersKingston Upon Hull, United Kingdom
5 Kingston Upon Hull, United Kingdom Microgard Ltd – Hull, UKMICROGARD Limited – European DCKingston Upon Hull, United Kingdom
6 MICROGARD Xiamen Limited Opened in 2008 on the modern AEPZ Export development zone, our facility was designed and built to the highest standards and allows our employees to enjoy clean, safe and climate controlled working conditions, excellent canteen and sanitary facilities together with free first class dormitory accommodation for every employee!Xiamen, PRC
9 International Standards Major CPC StandardsEuropean Norms(EN)International Standards(ISO)AmericanNational Standards(ANSI)JapaneseIndustrial Standards(JIS)EN 943-1: 2002“Type 1”ISO 16602: 2007ANSI 103: 2010“Category 1”JIS T 8115: 2010“Type 2”“Category 2”EN 14605: 2005+A1: 2009“Type 3”“Category 3”“Type 4”“Category 4”EN ISO : 2004+A1: 2010“Type 5”ISO : 2004“Category 5”EN 13034: 2005+A1: 2009“Type 6”“Category 6”ANSI 103 is yet to take hold in the US and DuPont have set their stall out with ISO so it will be very interesting to see if there is any take up of this standard. It is in many ways fundamentally different to the EN and ISO system, including the inexplicable change from “Types” to “Categories”
10 XXXX Certification of PPE – CE Marking Category I (Simple Design) Production quality monitoring systemCategory I(Simple Design)Category IICategory III(Complex Design)Technical DocumentationEC Declaration of ConformityEC Type-ExaminationEC quality control system for the final productXXXX
11 “Neither simple or complex” Certification of PPE - Categories of PPECategoriesDescriptionDefinitionRequirementsCategory I“Simple Design”Minimal risk e.g. cleaning materials of weak action and easily reversible effectsSelf certificationSelf assessment of productionCategory II“Neither simple or complex”Intermediate risk e.g. protection against mechanical impactEC-Type Examination by anotified bodyEC Declaration of ConformityCategory III“Complex Design”Mortal risk e.g. worn or used in situations where there is a risk of mortal danger or irreversible harmNotified body assessment ofproduction (Article 11A or 11B)Clothing for protection against hazardous substances are designated as Category III PPE
12 European PPE Testing What is covered? Innocuousness. To ensure that no harmful, forbidden or restricted substance is used in product construction, as well as checking for sharp edges or injurious surfaces.Ergonomics. Design, comfort, fit. Can the wearer carry out the required activity comfortably?Protective coverage. Adequate coverage to provide sufficient protectionProtective qualities. Impact, abrasion, cut, chemical and thermal resistanceMarking and instructionsManufacturers name and addressStorage/ cleaning/ maintenanceProtective performance levelSuitable accessories/spare partsRelevant warningsType approval Notified Body detailsThe European standard which covers the “general requirements” for protective clothing is EN 340: 2003
13 EN340: 2003 Protective Clothing General Requirements PPE Directive 89/686/EECCategory III – Complex DesignEN 943-1: 2002Type 1Type 2EN 14605: 2005Type 3EN 14325: 2004Test Methods and performance classification of chemical protective clothing materials, seams, joins and assemblagesEN530Abrasion ResistanceEN340: 2003 Protective Clothing General RequirementsArticle 11A or BManufacturerAssessment & CertificationArticle 10Product EC-Type Examination CertificateEN ISO 7854Flex Cracking ResistanceEN ISOTrapezoidal Tear ResistanceEN ISOTensile StrengthEN 863Puncture ResistanceEN / ISO 6529Chemical permeation resistance(Materials & Seams)ISOSeam StrengthEN ISOJet Spray TestEN 464Leak TightnessEN 943-1, Annex AInward Leakage TestEN 943-1, Annex AInward Leakage Test (Type 1b* & 1c)EN 943-1: 2002Test methods and performance classification**EN530Abrasion ResistanceEN530Abrasion ResistanceManufacturers EC Declaration of ConformityEN ISO 7854Flex Cracking ResistanceEN ISO 7854Flex Cracking ResistanceEN ISOTrapezoidal Tear ResistanceEN ISOTrapezoidal Tear ResistanceEN ISOTensile StrengthEN ISOTensile StrengthTo carry the CE mark, under Category III of the European PPE Directive (EU Regulation 89/686/EEC), Chemical Protective Clothing in most cases will conform to one or more of the “Type” standards. As shown on the previous slide there are 6 types in total. Microchem’s expertise for the moment focuses on liquid and particulate chemical hazards, in other words Types 3, 4, 5 and 6Note: European standards are a recipe for proving that a product conforms to the basic health & safety requirement of the European PPE directive. Conformance to standards is not the only way of proving compliance….This slide sets out the test methods within each of these “Types”. Fundamentally, conformance to one or more of these types ensures that;Products are made in accordance with the highest quality standardsProduct are correctly identified and labelled (instructions for use documentation to be provide with the smallest commercial sales unit, i.e. each coverall, is a legal requirement!)Products meet or exceed the minimum performance requirements for physical performance and chemical barrier specified within the “Type” standardAnd finally, this system provides a common means for the comparison of product performance across different products and manufacturers(no one can pick a different test method just because it suits their product!!)*Type 1b suits are only subjected to the inward leakage test of the face mask is not permanently joined to the suit** EN 942 is out of sync with the other “Type standard” in that the test methods and performance classifications are specified within the standard and not referred to EN 14325Note: the inward leakage test for Type 1b, 1c and 2 suits is virtually the same as EN ISO (for Type 5 suits) only there is the option within EN 943 to use Sulfur Hexafluoride gas instead of sodium chloride particles in the inward leakage is measured from directly in front of the wearers mouth (EN ISO the measurements are taken from the chest, waist and knee). Also, the limit for inward leakage is set at “not greater than 0.05%” which is much more stringent than for Typ3 5 suits as we will discover later…XXXXEN 863Puncture ResistanceEN 863Puncture ResistanceEN / ISO 6529Chemical permeation resistance(Materials & Seams)EN / ISO 6529Chemical permeation resistance(Materials & Seams)ISOSeam StrengthISOSeam StrengthThe European Model
16 Chemical Protective Clothing - Whole suit test requirements, ergonomicsMovements to be performed prior to whole suit inward leakage testingSuit hinders one or more movements = automatic failure!!Any substantial rips, tears or other visible damage = automatic failure!!The movements to be performed vary slightly from Type to Type but in principle there are around seven standard movements specified as these are as follows;Movement 1: kneel on both knees, lean forward and place both hands on the floor (45 ± 5) cm in front of the knees; crawl forward and backwards on hands and knees for a distance of three metres in each direction;Movement 2: climb a vertical ladder at least four steps, rungs to be as encountered on a typical ladder;Movement 3: position hands at chest level, palms out; reach directly overhead, interlock thumbs, extend arms fully upwards;Movement 4: kneel on right knee, place left foot on floor with left knee bent (90 ± 10) °; touch thumb of right hand to toe of left shoe. Repeat movement with alternate posture, i.e. by kneeling on left knee and placing the right foot on the floor with knee bent at 90°;Movement 5: extend arms fully in front of body, lock thumbs together, twist upper body (90 ± 10) ° left and right;Movement 6: stand with feet shoulder width apart, arms at side; raise arms until they are parallel to the floor in front of the body; squat down as far as possible;Movement 7: kneel as in movement 4, left arm hanging loosely at side; raise arm fully overhead. Repeat movement with alternate posture by alternating arms.If the test subject is not able to perform one or several movements due to the hindrance of the suit or if the movements result in substantial damage to the suit, the suit shall be considered to have failed.
17 Chemical Protective Clothing - Whole suit test requirements, seam strengthClassSeam Strength (N)Min. Performance6>5005>300Type 1, 24>1253>752>501>30Type 3, 4, 5, 6Measures the force required to pull the seam apartUnit: NewtonEach straight seam type on a garment testedClassification based on the weakest seam type. Six performance classesISO
18 EN 943 / ISO – TYPE 1 Gas tight protective clothing – suits are intrinsically sealed against the environment
19 *“FDIS” indicates that this test method is under development EN 464 / ISO/FDIS* – Pressure Test for Gas-Tight SuitsThe suit is inflated to a predetermined pressure and then the pressure drop over a specified time is measured. The idea is to determine the leak-tightness of gas-tight suits with the principle being if gas cannot escape during this test then it cannot enter the suit during actual use.*“FDIS” indicates that this test method is under development
20 EN 943 – TYPE 2 Non-gas tight (positive pressure) protective clothing – suits which retain a positive internal pressure to prevent ingress of dusts, liquids or vapours
21 EN – TYPE 3 Liquid tight protective clothing - Suits which can protect against strong and directional jets of a liquid chemical.
22 Whole Suit Requirements Type 3 Inward Leakage TestTest Method: ISOTest liquid containing;Water at (20 +/- 2)°CWater-soluble dye e.g. methyl blueSurfactant e.g. genapolSurface tension: (30 ± 5) × 10⁻3 N/mPressure at the nozzle: 1.5 bar (150 kPa)Distance from nozzle to target: 1 meterTarget Areas: potential weak points (i.e. seams, zips)Pass Criteria: <3 time calibration stainBasic principle – the test liquid is sprayed horizontally at 1.5 bar from a single nozzle for 5 seconds at each test spot. The wearer has an absorbent (sontara) suit underneath which has been pre-stained with a specified amount of the test liquid and the size of this stain measured.ISO / EN 14605
23 EN14605 / ISO – TYPE 4 Spray tight protective clothing - Suits which can protect against saturation of liquid chemicals where volume of the liquid builds up on the suit, causing pools and rivulets
24 Whole Suit Requirements Type 4 Inward Leakage TestTest Method: ISO , Method BTest liquid containing;Water at (20 +/- 2)°CWater-soluble dye e.g. methyl blueSurfactant e.g. genapolSurface tension: (30 ± 5) × 10⁻3 N/mPressure at the nozzle: 3.0 bar (300 kPa)Distance from nozzle to target: 1.5 meterTarget Areas: whole suit (the full body)Pass Criteria: <3 time calibration stainBasic principle – Whilst “marching” slowly on a platform revolving at one revolution per minute, the test subject is sprayed with the liquid for 1 minute. The pressure at each of the four nozzles is set at 3.0 bar (300kPa) and they nozzles themselves designed to disperse the test liquid at a 75 deg angle. Each nozzle will spray approx 1ltr (total 4 ltr) during this 1 minute test. That is a lot of water!As per Type3, for Type 4 and 6 the wearer has an absorbent (sontara) suit underneath which has been pre-stained with a specified amount of the test liquid and the size of this stain measured.ISO / EN 14605
25 3/31/2017Chemical PermeationProcess where on a molecular level molecules of a hazard are passing through a fabricAbsorption of molecules of liquids onto contact surfaceDiffusion of the absorbed molecules through a materialDe-sorption from the opposite surfacePermeation is when a chemical transfers from one side of the barrier material to the other at the molecular level. The individual molecules of the test chemical find their way between the molecules of the barrier material (a process of molecular diffusion) and emerge on the other side of the barrier material.The rate at which a chemical can permeate a given barrier will depend on the structure of the chemical (what family it belongs to), it’s size, polarity and other factorsPolarity – the polarity of a compound is the extent to which it is electrically charged due to its components
26 Chemical Permeation Testing 3/31/2017Chemical Permeation TestingPermeation, for the moment, is recorded as “Breakthrough time” which is determined by taking a sample of a barrier material and applying the test chemical or solution to one side of it. The rate at which the test chemical permeates through the barrier material is then measured – (how this is done may vary).The breakthrough time is when the chemical under test achieves a particular rate of permeation set by the test method. The international test method (ISO 6529) sets the permeation rate limit at 1.0 µg/cm2.min (one microgram permeating through one square centimetre in one minute). The U.S. test method (ASTM F739) sets the rate at a tenth of the international limit – at 0.1 µg/cm2.minPermeation testing is invariably conducted on static samples of material at 23⁰C, with continuous contact between the material and the test chemical. Real use of clothing or gloves will invariably involve mechanical stressing of the protective material, possibly very different temperature ranges, and intermittent contact with one or more chemicals. Also, volatile chemicals (I.e. dichloromethane) in the “real-world” would evaporate from the surface of the material very quickly.For conformance to the current European Type 3 & 4 norm, EN 14605: 2005, protective clothing materials and assemblies must demonstrate, amongst other properties, a permeation barrier of >10mins at the normalised permeation rate of 1.0µg/cm²/min. Chemical(s) against which the clothing should be assessed should be specified in the relevant standard or be derived from the intended use, as described in the information for use. Since the norm does not specify the chemical(s) against which materials and assemblages should be assessed then manufacturers are free to choose whichever chemical they wish.According to EN 14605/EN 14325, permeation testing is to be conducted in accordance with EN or EN ISO 6529, methods A or B, using a normalised permeation rate of 1.0 µg/cm²/min.There are a number of variability's between the testing requirements of EN and EN ISO 6529, including the conditioning and test temperatures. Taking into account the requirements for testing according to ASTM F739 (North American Standard) then these differences are further highlighted.
27 Chemical Permeation Testing 3/31/2017Chemical Permeation TestingTermDefinitionPermeation rateThe measurement of the amount of chemical (usually by mass per unit area) passing through the test specimen in a given time.Open loopA test system where the detection medium is not of fixed volume and is continually replaced with fresh material for the duration of the test.Closed loopA test system where the volume of detection medium is fixed and is re-circulated throughout the test.Breakthrough detection timeThe time elapsed from start when the chemical is first detected. Depends on the sensitivity of the system to the chemical under investigation. Defined as the sample time immediately preceding detected breakthrough.Minimum detectable permeation rateThe lowest permeation rate determinable by the system in use.Normalized breakthrough detection timeTime elapsed when the measured permeation rate reaches a predetermined level (i.e. the “normalized permeation rate”)Normalized permeation rateThe permeation rate used for determining the normalized breakthrough detection time, i.e and/or 1.0 µg/cm2/min.Steady state permeation rateThe point in the test when the permeation rate is no longer increasing or decreasing.Cumulative permeationThe total amount of test chemical that has permeated over a specified time after initial contact.
28 Chemical Permeation Testing 3/31/2017Chemical Permeation TestingBreakthrough time is determined by taking a sample of a barrier material and applying the test chemical or solution to one side of it. The rate at which the test chemical permeates through the barrier material is then measured – (how this is done may vary).The breakthrough time is when the chemical under test achieves a particular rate of permeation set by the test method. The international test method (ISO 6529) sets the permeation rate limit at 1.0 µg/cm2.min (one microgram permeating through one square centimetre in one minute). The U.S. test method (ASTM F739) sets the rate at a tenth of the international limit – at 0.1 µg/cm2.minThe permeation behaviour of a chemical is best thought of in graphical form:These examples show four (hypothetical) chemicals with very different permeation rates.The yellow line shows a chemical with a breakthrough time (BT) of 165 min and the permeation rate continues to rise over the duration of the test.The purple line has a BT only slightly higher at 210 min – but its permeation rate only just creeps above the test limit of 1 µg/cm2.min. Clearly, just a very slight reduction in the permeation rate would have a large effect on the BT – and could easily move it from 210 min to >480 min.The turquoise line shows just such a chemical – it gets close to the 1µg/cm2.min limit but doesn’t actually get there. Hence it has a high BT of >480min even though there is little difference in the permeation rate of this chemical and that of the purple line. This is an artefact of the test method – inevitable with permeation rates near to the test rate limit.The dark blue line shows a chemical which barely permeates at all – in fact its permeation rate remains below the 0.1 µg/cm2.min limit used in the American test method.The graph demonstrates that more can be learnt by reference to both the breakthrough time and the permeation rate that can be learnt from the breakthrough time alone – hence the maximum or steady state permeation rate is also often quoted in test reports.The breakthrough time and permeation rate still don’t tell the whole story when considering the appropriate suit for a particular situation. The toxicity and corrosive nature of the chemical have to be considered along with the operational environment – the likelihood of contamination, the most likely form of the contamination (light spray, complete drench…) and the mechanical stresses on the suit. Thus, with a very toxic chemical, it might be more appropriate to recommend a more robust and higher barrier suit even though the breakthrough time data indicates a lighter weight suit might be adequate.
29 Chemical Penetration Testing 3/31/2017Chemical Penetration Testing“Penetration is a process whereby a liquid, gaseous or solid substance penetrates a fabric by passing through the pores or holes”
30 Chemical Penetration Testing 3/31/2017Chemical Penetration TestingISO “Penetration under Pressure”Determination of the resistance ofprotective clothing materials to penetration by liquids under pressureISO 13994:2005 describes a laboratory test method that enables the determination of the resistance of materials used in protective clothing to visible penetration under the conditions of continuous liquid contact and pressure, for example, clothing that is exposed to repeated splashes of liquid spray under pressure. Protective clothing "pass/fail" determinations are based on visual detection of liquid penetration.Microgard utilizes ISO 13994: 2005 Method D (as specified in ISO 16602) where the pressure is held at 0kPa for 5 minutes, followed by increasing the pressure in increments of 3.5kPa every 15s until failure is observed or a maximum of 35 kPa is reachedIs specified by the international standard ISO for assessing the performance of “Type 4” spray tight chemical protective clothingASTM F 903 is the US equivalent of ISO 13994Microgard perform this test as specified in NFPA 1992 (Liquid protective clothing for emergency responders) 0 psi for 5 min followed by 2 psi [13.8 kPa] for 1 min followed by 0 psi for 54 minDuPont does not use the penetration test because the 2 psi pressure causes its Tyvek material to fail. Tyvek will perform to 1 psi (6.9 kPa).Kimberly-Clark provides liquid penetration test results against a range of chemicals; however, uses a version of the test where the test is done at ambient pressure (0 psi)Some parts of industry disdain the use of the test because the results are “pass” or “fail” and allow no quantifiable result of liquid penetration performance that permits comparison or material performance
31 Chemical Penetration Testing 3/31/2017Chemical Penetration TestingEN ISO 6530 “Gutter Test”Test method for the measurement of indices of penetration, absorption and repellency for protective clothing materials against liquid chemicals, mainly chemicals of low volatility(replaced EN 368)EN ISO 6530 test method for a materials resistance to chemical penetration is often referred to as the “gutter test” and is specified for “Type 6” protective clothing which are to be certified in accordance with EN / ISO10ml of liquid chemical is applied in 10s (+/-1s) with results taken 1 minute after initial exposure, simulating a light splash of liquid chemicals. The test report details the performance of the protective clothing material in terms of it’s ability to repel the chemical and resist penetration.
32 Chemical Penetration Testing 3/31/2017Chemical Penetration TestingEN “Atomiser test “Determination of resistance topenetration by sprayed liquid chemicals, emulsions and dispersions (I.e. pesticides)This European Standard specifies a test method to determine the resistance of protective clothing materials against penetration by atomized liquid chemicals, emulsions and dispersions. It is reference in the DIN standard for pesticide protective clothing (DIN 32781)The penetration is expressed in per cent, as a ratio of the amounts of chemical applied and retained by the textile. The methods of quantitative physico-chemical analysis used for mass detection will depend on the chemical under test.
33 EN13034 / ISO – Type 6 Reduced spray protection - Suits for protection against light spray and splashes of liquid chemicals
34 Whole Suit Requirements Type 6 Inward Leakage TestTest Method: ISO , Method BTest liquid containing;Water at (20 +/- 2)°CWater-soluble dye e.g. methyl blueSurfactant e.g. genapolSurface tension: (52 ± 7.5) × 10⁻3 N/mPressure at the nozzle: 3.0 bar (300 kPa)Distance from nozzle to target: 1.5 meterTarget Areas: whole suit (the full body)Pass Criteria: <3 time calibration stainFor the Type 6 “spray test” the pressure at the nozzle (i.e. 3.0 bar) is the same but the flow rate is reduced to approx 0.50ltr per minute per nozzle (2 ltr) and the nozzle cone is smaller, hence the dispersion of the spray is greater. This results in a mist as opposed to a saturating spray experienced during the Type 4 tests.The other notable difference between the Type 4 and 6 spray test is the surface tension of the liquid. Less surfactant is added to the liquid for the Type 6 test. This results in what is known as a higher surface tension. Liquids with low surface tension will wet the surface of a fabric quicker and are therefore more likely to penetrate!EN / ISO 16602
35 EN ISO – Type 5 Protection against solid particulates - Suits for protection against hazardous dusts and dry particles
36 Whole Suit Requirements Type 5 Inward Leakage TestTest Method: EN ISOTest substance: Sodium Chloride AerosolParticle size range: 0.06 to 2µm (0.6 average)Key test parameters;10 wearers (10 coveralls)Standing still, walking and squatting3 probes inside suit (chest, waist, knee)continually measuring the ratio of particleconcentration inside and outside the suitTest Duration: 9 min standing, 9 min walking and 9 min squattingPass Criteria: 82 of 90 measurements ≤30%, 8 of 10 coveralls total inwardleakage (average) ≤15%Basic principle: Sodium Chloride (salt) particules are flooded into the chamber and measurements taken inside & outside of the suit during various exercises including standing still, walking & squatting.A total of 90 measurements are taken from 10 wearers (i.e. 10 suits) at the chest, waist and knee. For the suits tested, 8 out of the 90 measurements are allowed individual leakages greater than 30% but the Total Inward leakage (TIL), or average, for 8 of the 10 suits must be less than or equal to 15% !! Hence our expression that “there and Type 5 suits and then there are Type 5 suits!”Particle size within the test chamber ranges from 0.06 to 2 microns, with a mean/average of 0.6 micronsEN ISO
37 Other European Norms relevant to CPC EN Ventilated suits for protection from hazardous particulates, including radioactive particulate contaminationEN Non-ventilated suits for protection against radioactive particulate contaminationEN Protective clothing against infective agentsEN ISO Protective clothing with limited flame spread propertiesEN /EN Protective clothing with electrostatic properties
39 The Use of Personal Protective Equipment Questions to ask before considering PPECan I get rid of the hazard altogether?If not, how can I control the risks so that harm is unlikely?Controlling risks – options;Try a less risky option, e.g. use alternative chemicalsPrevent access to the hazard, e.g. by guardingOrganise work to reduce exposure to the hazards, e.g. automatic rather than manual transfer of hazardous substancesIf after all of the above there is still residual risk, then PPE will need to be providedRISK = (Probability of an accident occurring) x (expected loss in case of an accident)
40 The Use of Personal Protective Equipment Assessing suitable PPE Questions to ask when assessing PPE suitabilityIs it appropriate for the risks involved and the conditions at the place where exposure to the risk may occur?Does it prevent or adequately control the risks involved without increasing the overall level of risk?Can it be adjusted to fit the wearer correctly?Has the state of health of those who will be wearing it been taken into account?What are the needs of the job and the demands it places on the wearer?If more than one item of PPE is being worn, are they compatible?
41 The Use of Personal Protective Equipment Directive 89/656/EEC ARTICLE 3Identify & evaluate the risksUse where the risks cannot be avoided or limited technicallyOnly use PPE products as a final protection alternativeARTICLE 4Ensure the PPE conforms with EU RegulationsInform the user of the riskinvolved and train them about the right use of the PPESupply PPE free of chargethat is :- fit for purpose and ofappropriate size and comfortDefine the conditions of use, especially the period the PPE is wornARTICLE 5Assess whether the item(s)of PPE conform with EURegulationsAnalyse and assess the risks involvedDefine characteristics thePPE must have and comparewith the PPE selectedReanalyse the risk in case ofa process changeThese are the obligations of the employer!
42 Other regulations – working with hazardous substances Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH)Choosing control measures, in order of priority:Eliminate the use of a harmful product or substance and use a safer one.Use a safer form of the product, e.g. paste rather than powder.Change the process to emit less of the substanceEnclose the process so that the product does not escapeExtract emissions of the substance near the sourceHave as few workers in harm’s way as possibleProvide personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves, coveralls and a respirator. PPE must fit the wearerIf your control measures include 5, 6 and 7, make sure they all work together
44 Selection of Chemical Protective Clothing - Seven Key Factors 3/31/2017Selection of Chemical Protective Clothing - Seven Key FactorsCan the job be done without chemical protective clothing?The type of exposure most likely to occur?Immersion (continuous or intermittent)Spray (pressurised or not)Splash (continuous, intermittent, or not expected)Mist (continuous or intermittent)Vapours (Gaseous contact)What are the adverse effects of contact with the chemical?The physical demands on the suit?The chemical resistance properties required?The human factors? (i.e. ergonomics, wear ability, heat stress etc)The cost in use?
46 MICROGARD® CPC Selection Process Flow 3/31/2017Skin Protection Required?Perform a Risk AssessmentIdentify the chemical hazardDetermine potential for exposureDetermine exposure consequence(s)NoChemical Protective Clothing may not be requiredYesConsider Type 5Note: for higher concentrations of fine particulates a positive pressure suit (i.e. Type 2, PAPR or Air-fed should be considered)Liquid, Gas orParticulateParticulateGasConsider Type 1 or 2and Permeation dataLiquidRisk of vapour exposure at hazardous concentrations?YesConsider Type 1 or 2and Permeation dataNoExposure to liquid expected?Liquid under pressure?YesChemical Protective Clothing may not be requiredNoYesConsider Type 3and Permeation dataNoLiquid classified as harmful, carcinogenic or otherwise toxic?More than light spray expected?YesConsider Type 4and Permeation dataImportant note: This guide is simplified and as such a chemical Protective clothing’s suitability for a particular use should only be determined by a trained expert in occupational health & safety. In accordance with the PPE at Work regulations the responsibility for selecting the correct PPE remains that of the employer.Guidelines/ international standards to consider when utilising this flowchart:NFPA 1992 – Liquid Splash Protection (utilises penetration under pressure ASTM F 903/ISO testing)Clause This standard shall not apply to protective ensembles or clothing for hazardous materials emergencies involving known or suspected carcinogens, hazardous materials with known skin toxicity, or hazardous material vapor atmospheresEN – Performance Requirements for “Gas-Tight” (Type 1) chemical protective suits for emergency teamsClause 5.2 If Class 2 (>30mins normalised breakthrough time at 1.0ug/cm2/min) is not achieved for any material or component part tested the instructions for use shall identify that this chemical protective suit is not suitable for use with this chemical under continuous exposurePD CEN/TR 15419: 2006 Protective clothing — Guidelines for selection, use, care and maintenance of chemical protective clothingBreakthrough times should be considered as an indication of the resistance of materials to diffusive permeation, not as real use times. Real use times depend on a lot of other factors, e.g. temperature, movements, pressure etc.- Although class 6 performance is to be preferred, fabrics that only achieve class 2 or 3 may still give adequate protection, provided that any surface contamination is washed off the garment promptly and that no gross chemical degradation is apparent.GeneralThese tests intend to assess the barrier properties of materials against the ingress of chemicals by a diffusive molecular process (permeation test) or through small openings in the material (penetration test). The permeation test is performed on air-impermeable materials, whereas the penetration test is more appropriatefor air-permeable materials.YesMICROGARD® CPC Selection Process FlowNoConsider Type 4and Penetration dataNoLiquid classified as harmful, carcinogenic or otherwise toxic?Light spray,splash or aerosolYesConsider Type 4 or 6and Permeation dataYesNoConsider Type 6and Penetration data
47 Selection of Chemical Protective Clothing - Considerations 3/31/2017Selection of Chemical Protective Clothing - ConsiderationsBreakthrough time alone is not sufficient to determine how long a garment may be worn once the garment has been contaminated. Safe user wear time may be longer or shorter than the breakthrough time depending on;the permeation behaviour of the substancethe toxicity of the substancethe exposure conditions (i.e. temperature, pressure etc.)Permeation characteristics of a mixture can often deviate considerably from the behaviour of the individual “pure” chemicalsVery little is known about the relationship between the breakthrough of CPC and human toxicity, when permeation rates are extremely lowWhat about cumulative permeation? But without more toxicity data on chemicals this is potentially another means of comparing different materials resistance to permeation, rather than safe wear timeLaboratory testing is not necessarily reflective of “real-life”
48 Assessment - Example Exposure Scenarios 3/31/2017Assessment - Example Exposure ScenariosChemicalCAS NumberChemical RiskPotential Level of Exposure1Sodium HypochloriteCorrosive(causes burns)Light splash in a laboratory environment2Chemical wash down of equipment with jet spray equipment3BenzeneToxicCarcinogen(Skin Toxic)Saturation in a tank cleaning application4Hydrofluoric Acid71-75%Highly Toxic(skin toxic)Highly CorrosiveHigh pressure spray from a pipe burstingPossible “Type” protection requiredPenetration or Permeation data to be appliedType 6PenetrationType 3 / 4Penetration under pressureType 2 / 3 / 4Permeation/Penetration under pressure*Type 3 / 4Consider the exposure scenarios for 5 minutes and write down the following for each scenario;Possible “Type” protection requiredPenetration or permeation data to be applied (or both!)*For these examples there is the risk that continuous or prolonged exposure to this chemical could result in permeation through the garment fabric or seams (dependant on the breakthrough time offered by the CPC), which is relevant given the toxicity of these chemicals, but the immediate (i.e. acute) risk is from the pressurised liquid spray penetrating the garment fabric or seams.