title: Air-Fed Visors Used for Isocyanate Paint Spraying--Potential Exposure When the Visor Is Lifted.
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.
authors: Health and Safety Laboratory, Harpur Hill, Buxton SK17 9JN, UK mike.clayton@hsl.gsi.gov.uk.
authors: Mike
authors: M
authors: Clayton
authors: Health and Safety Laboratory, Harpur Hill, Buxton SK17 9JN, UK.
authors: Nick
authors: N
authors: Baxter
mesh_terms: D000395:Air Pollutants, Occupational / Q000032:analysis*; D001336:Automobiles; D004784:Environmental Monitoring / Q000379:methods; D006801:Humans; D019570:Inhalation Exposure / Q000032:analysis*; D017953:Isocyanates / Q000032:analysis*; D016273:Occupational Exposure / Q000032:analysis*; D010150:Paint / Q000009:adverse effects; D012134:Respiratory Protective Devices / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D014691:Ventilation; D017132:Workplace
chemical_list: D000395:Air Pollutants, Occupational; D017953:Isocyanates
keywords: air-fed visors; air-supplied breathing apparatus; isocyanates; motor vehicle repair; occupational asthma; paint spraying; respiratory protection