Page 26 - Occupational Health & Safety, January/February 2020

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY
The ProtectiAon Misconception Surrounding Climbing Helmets
BY KURT MATEJKA
ccording to a report from the American force impact tests, which has an object striking the Journal of Industrial Medicine, construc- protector. This is intended to represent a real-world tion workers have the highest rate of brain situation where a worker may strike an object dur- injuries among U.S. workers—both fatal ing a slip or fall. This scenario aligns with what the
and non-fatal. Traumatic brain injuries represented 25 percent of all construction fatalities and 24 percent of all occupational traumatic brain injury fatalities. The report cited the leading causes of traumatic brain injuries for construction workers to be falls from roofs, ladders and scaffolds.1
With studies reporting such staggering statistics as these, it’s no surprise that head protection has become a popular topic in discussions surrounding construc- tion worker safety. It also may explain why more and more construction companies have been exploring the use of climbing helmets, rather than traditional hard hats, when assessing their head protection needs. This trend can be attributed to the belief that all climbing helmets provide the same, enhanced level of head protection by protecting workers from both top-of-head and side impact.
This misconception assumes that climbing helmets possessing a foam liner, a common feature among climbing helmets, will protect to the equivalent of a Type II style, which is not true. The foam liner is not what escalates a climbing helmet from providing Type I to Type II protection. Specific testing is required in order to receive Type II status, which is what renders the helmet effective in protecting against side impact. The first step in unveiling any protection misconcep- tions is understanding the difference between Type I and Type II hard hats.
The Difference Between Type I
and Type II Protection
The main difference between Type I and Type II hard hats is the type of impact that they protect against:
■ Type I hats are designed to reduce the force of impact located at the top of the head only.
■ Type II hard hats are designed to reduce the force of impact both at the top and the sides of the head. This element is straightforward. However, an ad- ditional component that distinguishes Type I helmets from Type II helmets that we previously eluded to is that Type II styles are subjected to more testing than Type I styles are. Both Type I and Type II hats are sub-
ject to penetration testing, but:
■ Type I styles are only tested at a single position,
compared to Type II hats, which are also subjected to an off-center penetration test.
■ Type II hard hats must also go through an Im- pact Energy Attenuation test.
The Impact Energy Attenuation test is differ- ent than the force impact test because this test has the protector falling to strike an object, instead of
report referenced at the beginning of this article attributed most traumatic brain injuries to—con- struction workers falling or slipping from roofs, ladders and scaffolds.
There’s one final difference in the testing that Type II styles are subject to in comparison to Type I hats— this one relates to the chin strap. If a Type II hat is pro- vided with a chin strap, there’s an additional testing procedure for the retention and elongation of the chin strap. On Type I hats, there is no chin strap retention test that’s required to meet the ANSI Z89.1 standard.
The Role Work Environment Plays
When identifying which climbing helmet fits your needs—a Type I or Type II style—evaluating your work environment and assessing the hazards is criti- cal. Your work environment plays a crucial role be- cause you may not require the additional protection that comes with a Type II style.
Do the conditions or situations present a concern for enduring impact on the sides of the head? Is there a risk of one’s head striking an object, instead of just an object striking the hat only at the top of the shell? Due to the varying hazards when working at height, a climbing style helmet may be the best fit for you if it is tested to ANSI Z89.1 Type II standards. That is the only way to guarantee you are receiving an increased level of protection from falls or slips.
In the United States, OSHA has only adopted the ANSI Z89.1 standard for head protection. Compli- ance enforcement and judgment of if the level of pro- tection is adequate is only based on compliance with ANSI Z89.1, not any other standard in any other mar- ket worldwide.
In summary, it is important to recognize the dif- ferences between the testing requirements of Type I and Type II hard hats. Additional features, such as a foam liner or chin strap, do not make a Type I hard hat offer equivalent protection to a Type II. Assessment of the potential workplace hazards is also crucial to determining which protector will provide the best protection for the work environment.
Kurt Matejka is Protective Industrial Product’s Cat- egory Manager for Above-The-Neck products.
REFERENCES
1. Tiesman H, Konda S, Reichard A (2016). Fatal traumatic brain injuries in the construction industry: 2003−2010. Am. J. Ind. Med. 59:212–220.
22 Occupational Health & Safety | JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2020
www.ohsonline.com