3/31/2017 Introduction to Global CPC Standards & Product Selection Best Practice Presentation to: Genesee Valley Chapter of the American Society of.

3/31/2017 Introduction to Global CPC Standards & Product Selection Best Practice Presentation to: Genesee Valley Chapter of the American Society of Safety Engineers

Agenda Global Market Place = Global Standards (?)
The Global “Types” of Chemical Protective Clothing Certification of PPE European Chemical Protective Clothing Standards and Test Methods Selection and use of PPE, including chemical protective clothing

Manufacturer of limited life chemical protective clothing
Established: 1975 Markets: Global distribution network covering over 50 countries UK, Europe, Middle East, Asia, Africa, Australasia and the Americas Headquarters: Kingston upon Hull, UK Production: Microgard Xiamen Ltd (Xiamen, China) Employees: Hull (35*), Xiamen (700), Leverkusen (7) *Figure includes a global sales team of 11 Company 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.

Kingston Upon Hull, United Kingdom
Microgard Ltd – Hull, UK MICROGARD Limited – Global Headquarters Kingston Upon Hull, United Kingdom

Kingston Upon Hull, United Kingdom
Microgard Ltd – Hull, UK MICROGARD Limited – European DC Kingston Upon Hull, United Kingdom

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

Global Market Place = Global Standards (?)

The Global “Types” of Chemical Protection
EN 943-1/2 ISO 16602 TYPE 2 EN 943-1 ISO 16602 Gas-Tight protection against liquids, gases & solid particulates non-gas-tight protection against liquids, gases & solid particulates TYPE 3 EN 14605 ISO 16602 TYPE 4 EN 14605 ISO 16602 Protection against strong & directional jets of liquid Protection against saturating spray of liquids TYPE 5 EN ISO TYPE 6 EN ISO 16602 The six “types” offer an indication of the performance of the product to protect against one or more chemical hazards in various states, be it vapour, liquid or particulate. Conformance to one or more of these types indicates that a garment has met the minimum requirements set by the product performance standard. Users have to be aware though that there can significant performance differences between different products, even though they are certified to the same “type”. Protection against solid particulates Limited protection against liquid spray © Microgard Ltd 2011

International Standards
Major CPC Standards European Norms (EN) International Standards (ISO) American National Standards (ANSI) Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS) EN 943-1: 2002 “Type 1” ISO 16602: 2007 ANSI 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”

XXXX Certification of PPE – CE Marking Category I (Simple Design)
Production quality monitoring system Category I (Simple Design) Category II Category III (Complex Design) Technical Documentation EC Declaration of Conformity EC Type-Examination EC quality control system for the final product XXXX

“Neither simple or complex”
Certification of PPE - Categories of PPE Categories Description Definition Requirements Category I “Simple Design” Minimal risk e.g. cleaning materials of weak action and easily reversible effects Self certification Self assessment of production Category II “Neither simple or complex” Intermediate risk e.g. protection against mechanical impact EC-Type Examination by a notified body EC Declaration of Conformity Category III “Complex Design” Mortal risk e.g. worn or used in situations where there is a risk of mortal danger or irreversible harm Notified body assessment of production (Article 11A or 11B) Clothing for protection against hazardous substances are designated as Category III PPE

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 protection Protective qualities. Impact, abrasion, cut, chemical and thermal resistance Marking and instructions Manufacturers name and address Storage/ cleaning/ maintenance Protective performance level Suitable accessories/spare parts Relevant warnings Type approval Notified Body details The European standard which covers the “general requirements” for protective clothing is EN 340: 2003

EN340: 2003 Protective Clothing General Requirements
PPE Directive 89/686/EEC Category III – Complex Design EN 943-1: 2002 Type 1 Type 2 EN 14605: 2005 Type 3 EN 14325: 2004 Test Methods and performance classification of chemical protective clothing materials, seams, joins and assemblages EN530 Abrasion Resistance EN340: 2003 Protective Clothing General Requirements Article 11A or B Manufacturer Assessment & Certification Article 10 Product EC-Type Examination Certificate EN ISO 7854 Flex Cracking Resistance EN ISO Trapezoidal Tear Resistance EN ISO Tensile Strength EN 863 Puncture Resistance EN / ISO 6529 Chemical permeation resistance (Materials & Seams) ISO Seam Strength EN ISO Jet Spray Test EN 464 Leak Tightness EN 943-1, Annex A Inward Leakage Test EN 943-1, Annex A Inward Leakage Test (Type 1b* & 1c) EN 943-1: 2002 Test methods and performance classification** EN530 Abrasion Resistance EN530 Abrasion Resistance Manufacturers EC Declaration of Conformity EN ISO 7854 Flex Cracking Resistance EN ISO 7854 Flex Cracking Resistance EN ISO Trapezoidal Tear Resistance EN ISO Trapezoidal Tear Resistance EN ISO Tensile Strength EN ISO Tensile Strength To 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 6 Note: 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 standards Product 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” standard And 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 14325 Note: 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… XXXX EN 863 Puncture Resistance EN 863 Puncture Resistance EN / ISO 6529 Chemical permeation resistance (Materials & Seams) EN / ISO 6529 Chemical permeation resistance (Materials & Seams) ISO Seam Strength ISO Seam Strength The European Model

EN340: 2003 Protective Clothing General Requirements
PPE Directive 89/686/EEC Category III – Complex Design EN 14605: 2005 Type 4 EN ISO : 2004 Type 5 EN13034: 2005 Type 6 EN14325: 2004 Test Methods and performance classification of chemical protective clothing materials, seams, joins and assemblages EN340: 2003 Protective Clothing General Requirements Article 11A or B Manufacturer Assessment & Certification Article 10 Product EC-Type Examination Certificate EN530 Abrasion Resistance EN ISO Trapezoidal Tear Resistance EN ISO Tensile Strength EN 863 Puncture Resistance ISO 6530 Chemical penetration/repellence ISO Seam Strength EN ISO 7854 Flex Cracking Resistance EN ISO , Method B Spray Test EN ISO Inward Leakage Test EN ISO , Method A Reduced Spray Test Manufacturers EC Declaration of Conformity The previous two slides can also serve as a checklist to spot potentially non-conforming/illegal product, since each of the test methods listed (excluding EN / EN 340) should be referenced on the product user instructions. This is in addition to the CE XXXX mark, reference to the Type standards (including the year of the standard) etc. EN / ISO 6529 Chemical permeation resistance (Materials & Seams) XXXX The European Model © Microgard Ltd 2008

EN & ISO CPC Standards and Test Methods

Chemical Protective Clothing
- Whole suit test requirements, ergonomics Movements to be performed prior to whole suit inward leakage testing Suit 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.

Chemical Protective Clothing
- Whole suit test requirements, seam strength Class Seam Strength (N) Min. Performance 6 >500 5 >300 Type 1, 2 4 >125 3 >75 2 >50 1 >30 Type 3, 4, 5, 6 Measures the force required to pull the seam apart Unit: Newton Each straight seam type on a garment tested Classification based on the weakest seam type. Six performance classes ISO

EN 943 / ISO – TYPE 1 Gas tight protective clothing – suits are intrinsically sealed against the environment

*“FDIS” indicates that this test method is under development
EN 464 / ISO/FDIS* – Pressure Test for Gas-Tight Suits The 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

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

EN – TYPE 3 Liquid tight protective clothing - Suits which can protect against strong and directional jets of a liquid chemical.

Whole Suit Requirements
Type 3 Inward Leakage Test Test Method: ISO Test liquid containing; Water at (20 +/- 2)°C Water-soluble dye e.g. methyl blue Surfactant e.g. genapol Surface tension: (30 ± 5) × 10⁻3 N/m Pressure at the nozzle: 1.5 bar (150 kPa) Distance from nozzle to target: 1 meter Target Areas: potential weak points (i.e. seams, zips) Pass Criteria: <3 time calibration stain Basic 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

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

Type 4 Inward Leakage Test Test Method: ISO , Method B Test liquid containing; Water at (20 +/- 2)°C Water-soluble dye e.g. methyl blue Surfactant e.g. genapol Surface tension: (30 ± 5) × 10⁻3 N/m Pressure at the nozzle: 3.0 bar (300 kPa) Distance from nozzle to target: 1.5 meter Target Areas: whole suit (the full body) Pass Criteria: <3 time calibration stain Basic 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

3/31/2017 Chemical Permeation Process where on a molecular level molecules of a hazard are passing through a fabric Absorption of molecules of liquids onto contact surface Diffusion of the absorbed molecules through a material De-sorption from the opposite surface Permeation 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 factors Polarity – the polarity of a compound is the extent to which it is electrically charged due to its components

Chemical Permeation Testing
3/31/2017 Chemical Permeation Testing Permeation, 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.min Permeation 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.

3/31/2017 Chemical Permeation Testing Term Definition Permeation rate The measurement of the amount of chemical (usually by mass per unit area) passing through the test specimen in a given time. Open loop A 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 loop A test system where the volume of detection medium is fixed and is re-circulated throughout the test. Breakthrough detection time The 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 rate The lowest permeation rate determinable by the system in use. Normalized breakthrough detection time Time elapsed when the measured permeation rate reaches a predetermined level (i.e. the “normalized permeation rate”) Normalized permeation rate The permeation rate used for determining the normalized breakthrough detection time, i.e and/or 1.0 µg/cm2/min. Steady state permeation rate The point in the test when the permeation rate is no longer increasing or decreasing. Cumulative permeation The total amount of test chemical that has permeated over a specified time after initial contact.

3/31/2017 Chemical Permeation Testing Breakthrough 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.min The 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.

Chemical Penetration Testing
3/31/2017 Chemical Penetration Testing “Penetration is a process whereby a liquid, gaseous or solid substance penetrates a fabric by passing through the pores or holes”

3/31/2017 Chemical Penetration Testing ISO “Penetration under Pressure” Determination of the resistance of protective clothing materials to penetration by liquids under pressure ISO 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 reached Is specified by the international standard ISO for assessing the performance of “Type 4” spray tight chemical protective clothing ASTM F 903 is the US equivalent of ISO 13994 Microgard 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 min DuPont 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

3/31/2017 Chemical Penetration Testing EN 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 / ISO 10ml 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.

3/31/2017 Chemical Penetration Testing EN “Atomiser test “ Determination of resistance to penetration 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.

EN13034 / ISO – Type 6 Reduced spray protection - Suits for protection against light spray and splashes of liquid chemicals

Type 6 Inward Leakage Test Test Method: ISO , Method B Test liquid containing; Water at (20 +/- 2)°C Water-soluble dye e.g. methyl blue Surfactant e.g. genapol Surface tension: (52 ± 7.5) × 10⁻3 N/m Pressure at the nozzle: 3.0 bar (300 kPa) Distance from nozzle to target: 1.5 meter Target Areas: whole suit (the full body) Pass Criteria: <3 time calibration stain For 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

EN ISO – Type 5 Protection against solid particulates - Suits for protection against hazardous dusts and dry particles

Type 5 Inward Leakage Test Test Method: EN ISO Test substance: Sodium Chloride Aerosol Particle size range: 0.06 to 2µm (0.6 average) Key test parameters; 10 wearers (10 coveralls) Standing still, walking and squatting 3 probes inside suit (chest, waist, knee) continually measuring the ratio of particle concentration inside and outside the suit Test Duration: 9 min standing, 9 min walking and 9 min squatting Pass Criteria: 82 of 90 measurements ≤30%, 8 of 10 coveralls total inward leakage (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 microns EN ISO

Other European Norms relevant to CPC
EN Ventilated suits for protection from hazardous particulates, including radioactive particulate contamination EN Non-ventilated suits for protection against radioactive particulate contamination EN Protective clothing against infective agents EN ISO Protective clothing with limited flame spread properties EN /EN Protective clothing with electrostatic properties

So what product do I choose…..???

The Use of Personal Protective Equipment
Questions to ask before considering PPE Can 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 chemicals Prevent access to the hazard, e.g. by guarding Organise work to reduce exposure to the hazards, e.g. automatic rather than manual transfer of hazardous substances If after all of the above there is still residual risk, then PPE will need to be provided RISK = (Probability of an accident occurring) x (expected loss in case of an accident)

The Use of Personal Protective Equipment Assessing suitable PPE
Questions to ask when assessing PPE suitability Is 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?

The Use of Personal Protective Equipment Directive 89/656/EEC
ARTICLE 3 Identify & evaluate the risks Use where the risks cannot be avoided or limited technically Only use PPE products as a final protection alternative ARTICLE 4 Ensure the PPE conforms with EU Regulations Inform the user of the risk involved and train them about the right use of the PPE Supply PPE free of charge that is : - fit for purpose and of appropriate size and comfort Define the conditions of use, especially the period the PPE is worn ARTICLE 5 Assess whether the item(s) of PPE conform with EU Regulations Analyse and assess the risks involved Define characteristics the PPE must have and compare with the PPE selected Reanalyse the risk in case of a process change These are the obligations of the employer!

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 substance Enclose the process so that the product does not escape Extract emissions of the substance near the source Have as few workers in harm’s way as possible Provide personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves, coveralls and a respirator. PPE must fit the wearer If your control measures include 5, 6 and 7, make sure they all work together

Selection of Chemical Protective Clothing

Selection of Chemical Protective Clothing - Seven Key Factors
3/31/2017 Selection of Chemical Protective Clothing - Seven Key Factors Can 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?

The six “types” offer an indication of the protective performance of the product ……
EN 943-1/2 ISO 16602 TYPE 2 EN 943-1 ISO 16602 Gas-Tight protection against liquids, gases & solid particulates non-gas-tight protection against liquids, gases & solid particulates TYPE 3 EN 14605 ISO 16602 TYPE 4 EN 14605 ISO 16602 Protection against strong & directional jets of liquid Protection against saturating spray of liquids TYPE 5 EN ISO TYPE 6 EN ISO 16602 The six “types” offer an indication of the performance of the product to protect against one or more chemical hazards in various states, be it vapour, liquid or particulate. Conformance to one or more of these types indicates that a garment has met the minimum requirements set by the product performance standard. Users have to be aware though that there can significant performance differences between different products, even though they are certified to the same “type”. Protection against solid particulates Limited protection against liquid spray © Microgard Ltd 2011

MICROGARD® CPC Selection Process Flow
3/31/2017 Skin Protection Required? Perform a Risk Assessment Identify the chemical hazard Determine potential for exposure Determine exposure consequence(s) No Chemical Protective Clothing may not be required Yes Consider Type 5 Note: for higher concentrations of fine particulates a positive pressure suit (i.e. Type 2, PAPR or Air-fed should be considered) Liquid, Gas or Particulate Particulate Gas Consider Type 1 or 2 and Permeation data Liquid Risk of vapour exposure at hazardous concentrations? Yes Consider Type 1 or 2 and Permeation data No Exposure to liquid expected? Liquid under pressure? Yes Chemical Protective Clothing may not be required No Yes Consider Type 3 and Permeation data No Liquid classified as harmful, carcinogenic or otherwise toxic? More than light spray expected? Yes Consider Type 4 and Permeation data Important 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 atmospheres EN – Performance Requirements for “Gas-Tight” (Type 1) chemical protective suits for emergency teams Clause 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 exposure PD CEN/TR 15419: 2006 Protective clothing — Guidelines for selection, use, care and maintenance of chemical protective clothing Breakthrough 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. General These 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 appropriate for air-permeable materials. Yes MICROGARD® CPC Selection Process Flow No Consider Type 4 and Penetration data No Liquid classified as harmful, carcinogenic or otherwise toxic? Light spray, splash or aerosol Yes Consider Type 4 or 6 and Permeation data Yes No Consider Type 6 and Penetration data

Selection of Chemical Protective Clothing - Considerations
3/31/2017 Selection of Chemical Protective Clothing - Considerations Breakthrough 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 substance the toxicity of the substance the exposure conditions (i.e. temperature, pressure etc.) Permeation characteristics of a mixture can often deviate considerably from the behaviour of the individual “pure” chemicals Very little is known about the relationship between the breakthrough of CPC and human toxicity, when permeation rates are extremely low What 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 time Laboratory testing is not necessarily reflective of “real-life”

Assessment - Example Exposure Scenarios
3/31/2017 Assessment - Example Exposure Scenarios Chemical CAS Number Chemical Risk Potential Level of Exposure 1 Sodium Hypochlorite Corrosive (causes burns) Light splash in a laboratory environment 2 Chemical wash down of equipment with jet spray equipment 3 Benzene Toxic Carcinogen (Skin Toxic) Saturation in a tank cleaning application 4 Hydrofluoric Acid 71-75% Highly Toxic (skin toxic) Highly Corrosive High pressure spray from a pipe bursting Possible “Type” protection required Penetration or Permeation data to be applied Type 6 Penetration Type 3 / 4 Penetration under pressure Type 2 / 3 / 4 Permeation/Penetration under pressure* Type 3 / 4 Consider the exposure scenarios for 5 minutes and write down the following for each scenario; Possible “Type” protection required Penetration 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.

Thank you Vielen Dank Merci beaucoup

3/31/2017 Introduction to Global CPC Standards & Product Selection Best Practice Presentation to: Genesee Valley Chapter of the American Society of.

Similar presentations

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:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

3/31/2017 Introduction to Global CPC Standards & Product Selection Best Practice Presentation to: Genesee Valley Chapter of the American Society of.

Similar presentations

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:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback