Page 26 - OHS, October 2024

P P E : R E S P I R A T O R Y P R O T E C T I O N
The Air We Breathe:
Using Personal Protective
Equipment to Keep It Safe
Technological advances throughout
the 20th century to today have made
possible the elimination of many
hazards in the workplace. For those
situations where exposure to hazards
is unavoidable, the use of PPE is a
literal lifesaver.
BY RUSS BOWMAN
cesses that have the unintended side eff ect of introducing
For centuries, humankind has fl ourished by developing pro-
contaminants into the air we breathe. Th e oldest of these,
fi re, poses hazards from airborne particulate (such as smoke
and soot) and harmful gases (i.e., carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide
and nitric oxide). In the mid-1600s, the concentration of industry in
London, England, led to city-wide respiratory problems. In one of the
earliest known works on the subject, English writer John Evelyn pro-
posed, in Fumifugium or Th e Inconvenience of the Aer and Smoak
of London, that industry be moved out of the densely populated ur-
ban area to the sparsely populated countryside. Th is was curiously
prescient of the Hierarchy of Controls developed by the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), in which the
most eff ective means of dealing with a hazard is elimination (i.e.,
physically removing it from the area). While this protects the general
population quite well, workers were still exposed to these hazards.
Over the years (centuries, really), other controls were implemented:
■ Substitution: replacing high sulfur bituminous coal with
cleaner anthracite coal or natural gas)
■ Engineering Controls: ventilation and air purifi cation systems)
■ Administrative Controls: hazard training, period health
screening, display of warning signs, etc.
It may sound counterintuitive that the least eff ective control is
the fi rst one that many people think of fi rst. It is, however, the one
that the user will ultimately be most familiar with. So it’s critical to
Tomasz Zajda/stock.adobe.com
know if – and when – diff erent Personal Protective Equipment will
provide adequate safeguards for airborne hazards. Per OSHA, the
responsibility for this rests with the employer:
Th e employer shall identify and evaluate the respiratory
hazard(s) in the workplace; this evaluation shall include a reason-
able estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazard(s) and
an identifi cation of the contaminant’s chemical state and physical
form. Where the employer cannot identify or reasonably estimate
the employee exposure, the employer shall consider the atmo-
sphere to be IDLH (Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health).1
Th e fi rst step is to assess the nature and magnitude of respira-
tory hazards that personnel may be exposed to. Th is will include
hazards present during normal operations as well as those that
may be the result of accidental releases or emergency situations.
It’ll also identify the physical state (gas, particulate or both) and
chemical form (toxin, corrosive element, carcinogen, biohazard,
etc.) of the contaminant(s). Oft entimes, the contaminant is a sub-
stance that’s used by the worker. In those cases, OSHA publishes
a Hazard Communication Standard (29CFR1910.1200(g)) which
mandates hazard identifi cation on Safety Data Sheets. Th is is a
valuable tool and is largely considered to be the primary source of
information for any hazards associated with the substance in ques-
tion. If the contamination is a result or byproduct of an operation,
air sampling of the actual environment or objective information
from similar operations, might be necessary.
26 Occupational Health & Safety | OCTOBER 2024 www.ohsonline.com