You have no items in your shopping cart.

Set Descending Direction
With powerful machinery and heavy-duty tasks, construction sites are some of the noisiest places. Not only is the industry filled with loud sounds, it is also filled with noise-induced hazards. There are over 30 million construction workers who are exposed to prolonged noise on a daily basis.

Decibels (dBA) are the units used to measure and evaluate sound intensity. While human beings can register sounds above 140 decibels, any exposure to noise above 85 decibels is not recommended. Exposure time also comes into play — the longer your ears are subject to this noise level, the likelihood of permanent hearing loss rises.

The workplace risk for workers in construction is that loud noises on job sites damage hearing. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 14% of workers report having a hearing difficulty due to the hazardous noise at their work. Construction workers operate equipment above the 85 dBA level. While it may be harmless to listen to this sounds for a few minutes, construction workers are exposed to long noise constantly for hours on any day.

Exposure to sounds at the acceptable level for more than two hours consistently can cause physical damage to your hearing. While regulations are helping to combat this, construction workers also need to wear hearing protection. 31% of workers report that they do not.

To put the risks of workplace noise into perspective, BigRentz created a scale of common construction noises compared to everyday sounds and highlighted tips for construction workers to prevent hearing loss in the infographic below.


0 Comments | Posted in News & Articles By Admin
Footwear sheds weightRead More
Comments | Posted in News & Articles By Admin
An OSHA health compliance officer (an industrial hygienist -- IH) recently put me in an ethical dilemma. While conducting “side-by-side” air sampling as the employer’s representative during an OSHA inspection, I observed that the OSHA IH was not sampling for asbestos correctly.

OSHA 29 CFR 1926.1101, Appendix B, Asbestos Sampling and Analysis, states at section 5.2.3, “Do not use luer connectors – the type of cassette specified has built-in adapter.” And section 5.2.6, states “Remove the end cap of each cassette and take each air sample open face.” These regulatory advisory sections are consistent with OSHA Method ID-160 and NIOSH 7400 for air sampling for asbestos fibers.

Metal luer connectors should not be used because they may generate static charge during sampling that may create false negative results. Failure to sample “open face” may create false positive results. The OSHA IH made the novice, but critical asbestos sampling errors, by using metal luer connectors and sampling with filter closed face.

Ethically, as the employer’s representative, should I intervene to correct OSHA mistakes that may lead to invalid results, or stay silent and let OSHA sample as they want and contest possible citations later?

Side-by-side experience

In my early days, I would intervene. The downside to incorrect IH results is great. Now I let the OSHA IH “do his thing” with as little interference as possible. Intervention only occurs today if the OSHA IH is also a certified industrial hygienist (CIH). I am a CIH; if we both are certified, obligations to uphold CIH ethics outweigh other considerations.

I’ve done enough side-by-side sampling with OSHA to know this: OSHA IHs often make critical sampling and/or observation errors. There appears to be few seasoned OSHA IHs that make site inspections. OSHA IHs with less than five years of experience are generally good with IH science but lack the “art” of IH, such as knowing when and how employees may falsely alter exposure results.

Employer responsibilities

OSHA 1903.7 regarding the conduct of inspections permits OSHA IHs to use varied investigative techniques. Most employers know that they should mimic and meticulously document these techniques. For example, if OSHA takes a picture or video, or collects IH samples, the employer should do the same.

Collecting IH samples is one of the rare times when OSHA often must schedule an inspection with the employer, particularly when eight-hour time-weighted average samples are necessary to determine compliance with permissible exposure limits -- PELs. This scheduling gives an employer an opportunity, if they choose, to bring in their own IH to conduct side-by-side sampling with the OSHA IH.

The downside to false IH results is great. In the above example, if OSHA obtains a false positive result, the employer is required to post the citation and notice of penalty. The false positive result will remain until the employer contests the citation at an informal hearing. In the meantime, employees may believe they’re breathing in asbestos fibers, creating undue concern and animosity.

Scheduled inspection

The following nine key steps should occur if OSHA schedules an IH inspection:

1. Promptly secure the services of the corporate or third-party IH to conduct side-by-side sampling with OSHA. Because results may be contested, the IH should hold the CIH credential.

2. Promptly advise OSHA that an IH representing the employer will conduct side-by-sampling. OSHA will often agree to reasonably arrange dates to help fit into the employer representative IH’s schedule.

3. Upon request, provide the IH representative’s name and credentials e.g. CIH, CSP, etc. to OSHA. OSHA cannot refuse to work with the IH representative chosen by the employer.

4. Request OSHA to provide its sampling protocol. What flow rates will OSHA use? Flow rates established for any monitoring determine how often individual samples must be changed out over the course of the workday. This information and more, including copies of all applicable safety data sheets, should be passed onto the employer IH representative.

5. Advise your IH representative of expected conduct – handling ethical dilemmas, being cooperative, providing limited interference, and not volunteer information. The IH rep should be seen but rarely heard.

6. The IH rep’s objective is to obtain precise and accurate results. If best practices are followed by the OSHA IH and employer representative IH, then results should be statistically similar, though not necessarily exact.

7.Expedite your laboratory (should be AIHA accredited) analysis, so you have results before OSHA. Be aware that OSHA substance-specific standards e.g. asbestos, lead, benzene, etc. have time requirements for employee notification of the employer IH’s monitoring results. For asbestos, it is no later than five working days after the receipt of the results. The IH representative generally receives laboratory results first and then tabulates these findings, as appropriate, into PEL time-weighted average (TWA) comparisons. When these actions are completed, the employer is notified, and OSHA time requirements are triggered for employee notification of monitoring results.

8. An employer IH report, however, is not the same as results. “Employee exposure record” at OSHA 1910.1020 includes not just results but also “…related collection and analytical methodologies, calculations, and other background data relevant to interpretation of the results obtained…” Inclusion of OSHA findings helps make the IH report complete.

9. Be aware that 1910.1020 requires that exposure records be kept for a minimum of 30 years with requirements for employee access. Why? Epidemiological purposes, as one example. Because of these and other requirements, that may have significant potential future impact, the OSHA side-by-side IH report should be reviewed by the employer in draft and edited, as necessary, before final release and filling.


Comments | Posted in News & Articles By Admin
Fall protection beyond constructionRead More
Comments | Posted in News & Articles By Admin
Here’s a pre-work checklistRead More
0 Comments | Posted in News & Articles By Admin
An up-to-date research has been disclosed by Questale highlighting the EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa) PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) Mask segment. The report deep dives into the dynamics of EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa) PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) Mask providing useful and unique insights. The information is shared in a precise and structured manner, giving executives and leaders an accurate picture of the upcoming market movement. The document utilizes a number of monographs, pie charts and bar-graphs to provide data which can be used to derive the latest trends in the industry. The report is also divided according to usage wherever applicable, including (but not limited to) FnB, FMCG, Minerals, Electronics, Pharma, Polymers etc. All these details are available for all major countries and associations – APCA, EMEA, United States. Other locations can be included in the report on demand.

The document includes present industry magnitude of EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa) PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) Mask and the movement since past 5-10 years. Moreover, the list of major companies/competitors is also present including 3M , Honeywell , Kimberly-clark . The competition data allows users to gauge their current position against the market and take corrective measures to increase or maintain their share holds. Furthermore, details regarding the supply chain, manufacturers, distributors are also included in the report.

Research Focused on EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa) PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) Mask Market Report 2018

The document contains a comprehensive description of all the firms in question. The necessary details for the companies in EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa) PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) Mask , such as revenue, % share, supplier information, images of products are provided as well. Some of the known key players in the market are 3M , Honeywell , Kimberly-clark . It is expected that the industry will continue to develop in a swift manner with new competition trying to capture the share of the pie. Given the industry regulations, international government policies, state-of-the-art innovations – the competition would be fierce for all the participants.

The fragmentation is provided on the basis of Mask with Exhalation Valve , Mask without Exhalation Valve , . Additionally, the application wise division provides the data according to Anticipated industry growth details are provided along with the CAGR where applicable.

The report also demonstrates region wise data for geographies like:

Key points of the EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa) PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) Mask market report:

** Proper market environment investigation
** Concrete valuation market projection
** Multi-level Industry subdivision
** Upcoming technological advancements in market
** Evolving local segments and regional markets
** Past, current, and future magnitude of the market according to net worth and total capacity
** Market shares of key competitors
** Expert advice for executives to make an impact in the industry

Following queries are addressed in the document – EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa) PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) Mask Market Report 2018

** What is the expected industry size of EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa) PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) Mask market in 2022?
** Expected rate of growth to reach the potential?
** What are the major market trends?
** Major drivers for EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa) PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) Mask market?
** Prominent distributors/suppliers in EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa) PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) Mask market?
** Upcoming challenges for EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa) PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) Mask market?


Comments | Posted in News & Articles By Admin
Set Descending Direction
UAE Free Delivery on AED 100
GCC Free Delivery on AED 300
How we can assist you?
contact us for specialist advice
Money back guarantee!
send within 14 days