Page 44 - Occupational Health & Safety, June 2019

HAND PROTECTION
More Choices, More Challenges for Choosing Hand Protection
Choices in hand protection have grown significantly during the past 30 years.
BY JILL A. CLEMENTSHow often do you think about your hands? Typically, our hands are an afterthought to our daily routines, especially when it comes to protecting them. But could you easily go about your daily tasks without the use or even limited use of your hands? Most of us could not, but more
importantly, none of us want to find out.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
data for 2016, of all nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses involving days away from work, 13 percent were for hand injuries. And 20 percent of disabling workplace injuries involve hands.
Taking a closer look at the data, we see nearly 70 percent of hand injuries occur because the worker was not wearing gloves. What does that mean for the other 30 percent? It may mean they were wearing the wrong gloves. As odd as it may seem, wearing the wrong gloves can be just as dangerous as wearing no gloves at all. Clearly, there is room for improvement when it comes to protecting workers’ hands.
There are thousands of different styles and types of gloves and more than a handful of new and updated standards addressing hand protection. With all these choices and new and updated standards to review, it’s no wonder many people find it difficult to choose the correct hand protection.
First, Understand All Potential Hazards
There are numerous things to consider when choos- ing hand protection. Questions such as “What cut level do you need?” “Do you need impact protection?” and “What happens to the gloves if they’re exposed to high heat or a short duration fire?” are all a good place to start.
This is where a job task analysis can be critical. Thoroughly understanding the task that needs to be done and all hazards associated with that task are crit- ical to choosing the correct hand protection.
A job task analysis should start with the worker or safety manager (preferably both) taking time to un- derstand all of the possible hazards associated with the task. It is helpful to have a certified industrial hygien- ist brought in to assist with the analysis. Sometimes, it’s beneficial to involve an employee who performs different tasks to gain perspective from someone who has not become complacent to the potential hazards of the task being evaluated.
Taking time to acknowledge all of the potential hazards and gain the information needed to make an informed decision about choosing the correct per- sonal protective equipment, including hand protec- tion, often can save a worker from a serious injury, or
even potential death, and should always be a critical component of any safety culture.
Second, Understand the Different Hazards
After determining the possible hazards associated with the task, the next step is to understand which standard or standards apply and which one you are referencing so that you can make an informed deci- sion when choosing hand protection.
This can be a daunting task because existing stan- dards are regularly being updated and new standards are being issued. It’s an important, and often difficult, responsibility to stay informed about all of the chang- es in standards. Consider the fact that within just the past year, two PPE standards have been updated with changes that affect glove testing and classification; and one new glove standard will be issued later this year. These are in addition to the major changes that the industry saw in 2016 when the ANSI/ISEA 105-2016 handbook was issued.
Consulting with an expert who can help you navi- gate new and updated standards can be invaluable.
Holding Gloves to the Same Standard: Changes to NFPA 2112
In 2018, NFPA 2112, Standard on Flame-Resistant Clothing for Protection of Industrial Personnel Against Short-Duration Thermal Exposures from Fire, was up- dated to also include items such as balaclavas, hoods, and gloves. Some think of NFPA 2112 as the “thermal manikin standard,” but this standard contains many more test methods. In fact, gloves are not even cov- ered under the thermal manikin test.
Gloves are covered under three other test methods:
■ heat transfer performance test to determine how gloves would react to a combined convective and radiant heat source
■ right-angle test to determine flame resistance of the material
■ heat transfer test (oven test) to determine shrinkage in a hot air environment
One common theme among these three tests is the requirement that the material should “not melt and drip.” After all, if workers are wearing garments that are covered under these tests, shouldn’t their gloves perform to the same level of protection? This seems so logical, yet it is not the case for many workers.
For example, at a recent outdoor safety fair for a major petrochemical company, all of the workers were wearing flame-resistant (FR) coveralls and while their gloves were cut resistant, they provided no FR protec- tion. When these gloves were set on fire as part of a
40 Occupational Health & Safety | JUNE 2019
www.ohsonline.com