Having noticed a somewhat contentious thread about this topic, and having some practical experience of both specifying and using RPE I'd like to address some misconceptions.
1 - Powered Air Purifying Respirators (PAPR) are somehow "better protection" than unpowered alternatives:
2 - All RPE is created equal:
1 - Powered Air Purifying Respirators (PAPR) are somehow "better protection" than unpowered alternatives:
First off both Tight-Fitting Facepieces and PAPR are quantifiably better than the common non-woven fabric "dust masks", they're generally also more comfortable to wear for extended periods.
This is an understandable misconception, but is 100% wrong.
All RPE is given an "Assigned Protection Factor" (APF) based on a combination of their design characteristics, operating method, and physical testing of the masks conducted by organisations like BSI or TUV.
The Trend Airshield Pro headtop only PAPR widely used in the woodturning fraternity has an APF of 20. The 3M Versaflo and Jupiter belt-mounted PAPR systems much favoured by welders and metalworkers (largely because 3M's Speedglas range is the defacto gold-standard of welding headgear), has an APF of between 20 and 40 depending on which headtop is selected to go with it.
By contrast a Scott Promask, "tight fitting full face-piece" used as a "negative pressure filtering respirator", achieves an APF of 40, and the widely used 3M 7000 Series half face mask achieves an APF of between 10 and 20.
Both Tight-Fitting Facepieces and PAPR are quantifiably better than the common non-woven fabric "dust masks", they're generally also more comfortable.
So there's nothing to support the assertion that a PAPR offers superior protection to a tight-fitting filtering facepiece, (in fact the opposite can be true). filtering facepieces are far cheaper, more reliable and generally wearable enough to use over a full working day (unless you're unfortunate enough to have a pre-existing respiratory condition).
If you want to get better than that you need a supplied air system, and if you have a genuine need for that level of protection, then you should probably be paying someone to advise you on exactly what to use.
2 - All RPE is created equal:
The above point demonstrated that depending how you set it up, the same item of RPE can deliver greater or lesser levels of protection, and the same goes for different manufacturer's designs.
It's really important to correctly identify the hazard, identify the level of exposure and then select appropriate RPE and (where applicable) filters if you want it to work properly, yes it can be complex, but there's plenty of guidance out there including the HSE's excellent HSG53 guidance document available to download free.
3 - Reusable RPE is maintenance free compared to dust masks.
Speaking of filters, it's critically important to change the filters regularly, this is generally every 1 to 3 months from opening the filter packet, or the maximum level of usage time specified by the manufacturer, whichever comes first.
I've seen lots of non-professional users of RPE (and more professional users than I'd care to mention) not giving due consideration to this factor.
To be entirely clear:
- If you use the filter past it's intended life, it will not fully protect you,
- If you use a filter for an excessive length of time beyond its design life, not only will it not protect you, but it's likely increasing your exposure levels to hazardous dust, because it's still capturing the coarse dust which would normally irritate your respiratory tract, and only letting the very fine dust which represents a greater health hazard through, only now you're not getting any warning signs as to your exposure.
You should also be having it serviced and tested (or at least be inspecting and servicing it yourself), every 3-6 months. The elastomeric components which make the valves and seals work can wear out quicker than you think compromising function, and with non-tight fitting PAPR headtops with a neck seal, the join to the visor can become worn and reduce air-tightness to the point that the mask no longer offers effective protection due to reduced air-flow in critical regions of the face, or a different air path through the apparatus.
4 - Using RPE is a good solution to airborne dust:
It's a tolerable solution, though in fairness for some scenarios this assessment might be upgraded to "adequate at best".
The HSE has been abundantly clear that "Engineering Controls" should always be considered first, and I fully agree with them, you can't accidentally expose yourself to a problem that isn't there in the first place.
PPE (and by extension RPE) should always the last line of protection against hazards to health, it's also generally an expensive (in the long run) compromise compared to addressing the issues at source.
Rather than spending money on RPE and Filters, could you actually eliminate dust altogether by using different tools and working practices? Or reduce the airborne dust to acceptable levels, say by using an extractor which isn't vented inside your workspace, / HEPA vacuum cleaner closely coupled with the source of the dust?
It's hard to envisage all scenarios, but my guess is that the answer to this is mostly "Yes, but..." followed by some version of "I don't want to/can't think how to/it would be awkward/this is a hobby, etc." which is totally fine, it's your life at the end of the day... But don't kid yourself, you're not doing a good job managing the risk if you ignore these options and jump straight to RPE.
←[Green with envy]
