Air-Fed Visors Used for Isocyanate Paint Spraying--Potential Exposure When the Visor Is Lifted.

Annals of Occupational Hygiene Pub Date : 2015-11-01 Epub Date: 2015-08-24 DOI:10.1093/annhyg/mev055
Mike Clayton, Nick Baxter
{"title":"Air-Fed Visors Used for Isocyanate Paint Spraying--Potential Exposure When the Visor Is Lifted.","authors":"Mike Clayton,&nbsp;Nick Baxter","doi":"10.1093/annhyg/mev055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Continuous-flow air-supplied breathing apparatus with a visor is the respiratory protective equipment (RPE) of choice within the motor vehicle repair trade for protection against exposure to isocyanate paints. Whilst these devices are capable of providing adequate protection, a common workplace practice of sprayers lifting up the visor of their RPE immediately after spraying when checking the quality of the paint finish is thought to have an impact on the protection afforded. While the visor lift may be only for a few seconds, this action, especially if repeated numerous times during a work shift, could potentially result in a significant increase in exposure.Informal interviews with paint sprayers were conducted to understand the reasons for this behaviour followed by a series of laboratory tests to quantify the potential degree of exposure as a result of a visor lift.The majority of the paint sprayers interviewed explained their reasons for lifting their visors immediately after spraying and before the spray booth had been adequately cleared by ventilation. The main reasons given for a visor lift included a combination of habit, poor visibility due to poor visual clarity of the visor screen material, over spray, scratched visor screens, internal visor reflections, and poor booth lighting.The findings of the tests showed that the degree of protection provided by the visor when in the lifted position is in the approximate range of 1-3.7 (mean 1.7) and over the whole of the exposure period (from start of the lift to recovery of protection after refitting) is in the approximate range of 1.4-9.0 (mean 2.7). This is a significant reduction when compared to the assigned protection factor of 40 for this class of device and the measured protection factors of 5000-10 000 when worn correctly.These results clearly demonstrate that lifting the visor whilst still within a contaminated atmosphere considerably increases the wearer's exposure and that this is an example where improvements in RPE design can contribute to lower exposure.</p>","PeriodicalId":8458,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Occupational Hygiene","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/annhyg/mev055","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Occupational Hygiene","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mev055","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/8/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Continuous-flow air-supplied breathing apparatus with a visor is the respiratory protective equipment (RPE) of choice within the motor vehicle repair trade for protection against exposure to isocyanate paints. Whilst these devices are capable of providing adequate protection, a common workplace practice of sprayers lifting up the visor of their RPE immediately after spraying when checking the quality of the paint finish is thought to have an impact on the protection afforded. While the visor lift may be only for a few seconds, this action, especially if repeated numerous times during a work shift, could potentially result in a significant increase in exposure.Informal interviews with paint sprayers were conducted to understand the reasons for this behaviour followed by a series of laboratory tests to quantify the potential degree of exposure as a result of a visor lift.The majority of the paint sprayers interviewed explained their reasons for lifting their visors immediately after spraying and before the spray booth had been adequately cleared by ventilation. The main reasons given for a visor lift included a combination of habit, poor visibility due to poor visual clarity of the visor screen material, over spray, scratched visor screens, internal visor reflections, and poor booth lighting.The findings of the tests showed that the degree of protection provided by the visor when in the lifted position is in the approximate range of 1-3.7 (mean 1.7) and over the whole of the exposure period (from start of the lift to recovery of protection after refitting) is in the approximate range of 1.4-9.0 (mean 2.7). This is a significant reduction when compared to the assigned protection factor of 40 for this class of device and the measured protection factors of 5000-10 000 when worn correctly.These results clearly demonstrate that lifting the visor whilst still within a contaminated atmosphere considerably increases the wearer's exposure and that this is an example where improvements in RPE design can contribute to lower exposure.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于异氰酸酯涂料喷涂的充气遮阳板——遮阳板打开时的潜在暴露。
带遮阳板的连续流空气供应呼吸器是机动车维修行业中防止暴露于异氰酸酯涂料的首选呼吸防护设备(RPE)。虽然这些设备能够提供足够的保护,但在工作场所,当检查油漆表面质量时,喷雾器在喷涂后立即抬起RPE的遮阳板,这被认为对所提供的保护有影响。虽然遮阳板抬起可能只有几秒钟,但这个动作,特别是在轮班期间重复多次,可能会导致暴露的显着增加。对喷漆者进行了非正式访谈,以了解造成这种行为的原因,随后进行了一系列实验室测试,以量化由于遮阳板抬起而导致的潜在暴露程度。大多数接受采访的喷漆员解释了他们在喷漆后和喷漆间没有充分通风之前立即摘下遮阳板的原因。遮阳板提升的主要原因包括习惯,遮阳板屏幕材料视觉清晰度差导致的能见度差,过度喷涂,遮阳板屏幕划伤,内部遮阳板反射以及展位照明差。测试结果显示,遮阳板在提升位置时所提供的保护程度约为1-3.7(平均为1.7),而在整个暴露期间(从开始提升到改装后恢复保护)所提供的保护程度约为1.4-9.0(平均为2.7)。与这类设备指定的保护系数40和正确佩戴时测量的保护系数5000- 10000相比,这是一个显着的减少。这些结果清楚地表明,在受污染的大气中打开遮阳板会大大增加佩戴者的暴露,这是RPE设计改进有助于降低暴露的一个例子。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
2 months
期刊最新文献
Factors Associated With Non-compliance of Asbestos Occupational Standards in Brake Repair Workers. Whole Body Vibration Exposures and Health Status among Professional Truck Drivers: A Cross-sectional Analysis. Physicochemical Characterization of Aerosol Generated in the Gas Tungsten Arc Welding of Stainless Steel. Effect of Occupational Exposure on A(H1N1)pdm09 Infection and Hospitalization. A Systematic Review of Reported Exposure to Engineered Nanomaterials.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1