A popular author once said, “It is an important and popular fact that things are not always as they seem.” This holds particularly true in the realm of PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) and hazard protection, perhaps more than in any other aspect of business. The global industrialization of recent decades has given rise to the safety industry. Workers worldwide operate in environments where multiple hazards pose threats. The UN International Labour Organization suggests that nearly 3 million people die annually due to workplace accidents or work-induced injuries and illnesses. This is a significant challenge, and the safety industry exists to address it.
While improved education, technological advancements, and the development of safety programs and standards have dramatically improved the situation (statistics clearly indicate that countries with more developed safety industries and standards experience fewer accidents), a lack of in-depth understanding regarding real protective issues often persists. We live in a world that increasingly seeks quick, easy, and simple answers. However, the reality of protecting workers against hazards like toxic chemicals is not straightforward; it is complex. To ensure proper protection, a thorough understanding of this complexity is essential.
Yet, numerous fundamental misunderstandings – or PPE myths – surrounding specific protective issues, PPE standards, and safety protocols remain. Below are five examples related to the chemical protective clothing sector.
1. Myth: Chemical Suits Guarantee Zero Contamination
The most common type of chemical suit is a coverall with a hood. Users globally don this style – often certified to an appropriate standard – to protect against hazardous chemicals and assume they are safe from contamination.
However, regardless of the chemical barrier provided by the coverall fabric, the suit must be worn with other personal protective equipment such as a face mask, gloves, and boots. Inevitably, even with efforts to seal the joins with tape, a low level of ingress into the suit is very likely, if not unavoidable, due to wicking (the tendency of a liquid to be drawn through small holes or gaps) and the fact that many chemicals vaporize easily, behaving more like a gas than a liquid.
For many chemicals, this low-level contamination may not be significant. However, toxic chemicals can often have dramatic long-term adverse health consequences resulting from even low-level dermal exposure. The absence of an immediate apparent problem does not equate to the absence of a problem. This might partially explain the continuing global increase in cancer incidence.
The reality of chemical protection is that the only reasonably certain way to achieve zero contamination of a worker is through the use of a gas-tight suit, which many businesses might find difficult to justify. However, a better understanding of the limitations of current chemical suit selection methods would undoubtedly be beneficial.
2. Myth: EN 1149-5 Certification Ensures Complete Anti-Static Protection
A constant hazard in many applications is the risk of an Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) – a spark – igniting a flammable or explosive atmosphere. Most types of protective clothing are made from synthetic fibers, which have a high propensity to build a static charge with movement. Work environments, especially in the petrochemical industry, contain numerous flammable liquids and vapors that could pose a risk.
EN 1149, the standard for “anti-static” clothing, is the apparent solution. In fact, the correct term is “static dissipative.” The standard provides various tests to confirm that the fabric’s surface resistance is sufficiently low to allow any static charge to dissipate harmlessly across its surface to the ground before an ESD can be generated.
However, several problems exist that many users are unaware of.
First, while the garment fabric may allow charge dissipation, this charge can only go to ground harmlessly if a route exists. This might be through the wearer’s body (being mostly water, we are good conductors of electricity), the suit’s design (e.g., a coverall with attached feet ensures constant contact with the floor), or even a conductive wire clipped to the coverall and a known grounding point. The crucial point is that without a confirmed route to ground, EN 1149 certification alone does not guarantee the coverall is anti-static and may still generate an ESD.
Second, on disposable coverall fabrics, reduction of surface resistance is achieved by applying a coating of a weak detergent that dries on the fabric surface. Detergent is moisture-absorbent, so in use, it absorbs moisture from the atmosphere, creating a thin conductive film across the surface, thus reducing resistance (or increasing conductivity). In theory, this is effective and enables garments to meet the standard’s requirements for reduced surface resistance. However, potential problems include:
- It relies on atmospheric moisture absorption, making it less effective in low humidity and potentially ineffective in very dry atmospheres.
- It is a topical treatment that can rub off (applied to the fabric before garment manufacture, some may be lost during manufacturing, even before reaching the distributor and user) and may degrade over time. For these reasons, using new garments and avoiding prolonged use or reuse is advisable.
For users, this means that simple certification to EN 1149 standards should not be taken as a guarantee of effective anti-static or static dissipative properties. Minimizing the risk of an ESD in an explosive or flammable atmosphere depends as much on the management of the garment in use. Without proper management, EN 1149 certification may be meaningless.
3. Myth: Higher Particle Filtration Equals Better Dust Protection
It’s a reasonable assumption that a protective coverall made from a fabric with higher particle filtration efficiency will provide better protection against hazardous dusts.
However, this is not necessarily the case.
A key question in any chemical protective application is, “Why would the chemical get inside the protective clothing?” In the case of dust particles, the answer lies in the “Bellows Effect.”
As the wearer moves in a disposable coverall, the air inside shifts. If it cannot easily pass through the fabric, it tends to be forced through other openings in the suit construction – the zipper, seam holes, and especially gaps between the suit and other PPE worn, such as masks, gloves, and boots. This results in constant airflows in and out of the suit, with the coverall acting like a pair of bellows, hence the name. Any dust particles in the air will be drawn inside the suit with these airflows.
Conversely, if the fabric has greater breathability, allowing air to pass through more easily, the suit will generate a lesser bellows effect, reducing airflow and resulting in fewer particles being drawn inside.
This is not just theoretical. In fact, it is the sole explanation for why dust particles end up inside a disposable coverall. The Type 5 dust Inward leakage test can prove this. This test measures the percentage of dust outside the suit that ends up inside during different movements performed by the test subject. Comparing a breathable and a non-breathable coverall highlights this point.
This data proves two key points:
First, despite the microporous film coverall having superior particle filtration, overall inward leakage is lower in the SMMS coverall because the breathable fabric results in less bellows effect and fewer particles drawn into the suit, demonstrating the existence of the bellows effect.
Second, during each individual movement, inward leakage is much higher with the microporous film coverall because it generates a much greater bellows effect – especially during the most strenuous movement, squatting.
The crucial takeaway is that users should not assume that a coverall with better particle resistance will automatically provide better protection. If it has low or poor air permeability, it is likely to produce a greater bellows effect, leading to a greater tendency for particles to be drawn inside the suit.
4. Myth: PPE Standards are Always Clear and Guarantee Adequate Protection
Oh, if only this were always the case!
PPE standards – whether NFPA, ASTM, or European EN – are undoubtedly a significant positive force in the ongoing effort to keep people safe. They ensure that PPE meets minimum performance requirements and allow users to compare performance to select the most appropriate PPE for the task. However, the fact that they are often written in a way that makes them challenging to read and understand diminishes their potential positive impact. Here’s an example:
EN 943 is the standard for gas-tight suits. This paragraph explains the number of samples required for the practical performance test:
“Four tests shall be carried out. For enhanced robustness suits two sample suits shall be tested, each being tested by two test subjects. For regular robustness suits two test subjects shall each test two new samples suits (four suits in total).”
With some effort, one can decipher the meaning. But is it truly clear, concise, and unambiguous?
Perhaps because standards are not written in a “user-friendly” manner, not enough people actually read them. This might explain why important paragraphs like this one, from the EN 14325 standard, which provides methods and classifications for protective clothing and is related to the chemical suit fabric permeation resistance test, are often overlooked:
“It can be dangerous to base considerations of safe wear time of given chemical protective clothing only on the value of normalized 1 breakthrough time for a specific tested chemical.”
Unfortunately, many specifiers of chemical suits have missed this because what it expressly advises not to do is precisely what much of the market does anyway!
Standards are undoubtedly a positive for helping to keep people safe. But rewriting them to be clear and concise so that more people in the industry actually read them would make them even more effective.
5. Myth: Any Distributor or Manufacturer Provides Effective PPE Guidance
PPE distributors are a vital link in the PPE supply chain. However, they do not manufacture the products, and many market thousands of items. Therefore, even with the best intentions, they cannot achieve the in-depth expertise required for individual PPE items.
The world of protection and PPE is complex. In a culture where people are increasingly time-pressed and seeking quick, easy answers, safety practitioners need to connect with genuine experts – manufacturers who take the time to understand the complexities, interpret the standards accurately, and ensure workers receive the necessary protection. Real PPE experts are invaluable.
At Lakeland, our mission is to protect people. Ensuring worker safety is at our core. We bring over four decades of experience in the development, manufacture, and supply of chemical protective clothing. We are the experts, and we are the manufacturer to partner with when your workers require protection from hazardous chemicals.
Contact us for a consultation on your chemical protection. We’ll help Protect Your People. Because that’s what we do.
