Assessment of personal protective equipment use and occupational exposures in small industries in Jeddah: Health implications for workers

Small-scale industries account for a large proportion of jobs and play a vital role in most countries' economic growth and prosperity. Due to the very low use of personal protective equipment (PPEs), employees are exposed to numerous physical, chemical, and accidental hazards in small-scale industries. PPEs are very effective in minimizing occupational injuries, accidents, and other hazards which otherwise result in substantial manpower and financial losses. The study objective was to assess the availability and use of PPEs as well as self-reported occupational exposures among workers in surveyed small industries in Jeddah. The study involved 102 workers from 28 small-scale industries (vehicle repair, welding, and paint). A survey was conducted to gather data of socio-demographic characteristics, self-reported occupational exposures, and frequency of PPEs used by workers. The occupational exposures (never exposed, sometimes exposed and always exposed) were reported in percentages including; noise exposure (19.6, 73.5 and 6.9%); dust/smoke exposure (9.8, 69.6 and 20.6%); vapors/fumes exposure (11.8, 60.8 and 27.5%); and direct sunlight (43.1, 56.9 and 0%), respectively. The reported use of different PPEs in descending order was; knee joints mats (50%), welding shields (50%), safety glasses (33.3%), gloves (27.5%), face masks (26.5%), safety shoes (10.8%) and earplugs/ muffs (8.8%). On the basis of this study findings, hand hygiene and general OSH awareness like interventions can be developed which will help in minimizing workplace exposures among small-scale industry workers.

Evaluation of reported fatality data associated with workers using respiratory protection in the United States (1990-2012)

OSHA revised the 1971 respiratory protection standard in 1998 to add guidance for selecting and maintaining respirators. Fatality reports from 1990 to 2012 were used to characterize historical trends in fatalities associated with respirators. Industry- and time-specific trends were evaluated to determine the effect of the revision to the standard on respirator-related fatalities; 174 respirator-related deaths were reported. The majority of fatalities were associated with using an airline respirator (n = 34) or the absence of using a respirator in required spaces (n = 38). Overall, 79% of fatalities were associated with asphyxia. Fatalities were associated with improper employee use or lack of employer compliance. Reductions in fatality rates over time appeared to be associated with the revisions to the respirator standard, although other variables may influence rates (eg, controls). Recommendations for employers and employees regarding maintaining safe use of respirators are provided.

A comparison of owner and expert evaluation of health and safety in small collision repair shops: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Workplace evaluation is one of the first steps in reducing the risk of injuries and illnesses, and is part of several programs that promote a participatory approach to occupational health among small business owners. The usefulness of written safety evaluations is contingent upon non-safety professionals obtaining accurate and reliable results.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to better understand auto body shop owners' ability to correctly identify occupational health and safety issues within their businesses.

METHODS

In this study, 11 auto body shop owners used a 25-question checklist, developed specifically for this industry, to identify key safety and health problems. Owner results were compared with those of an industrial hygienist (IH) experienced in using the assessment form.

RESULTS

The average number of safety problems identified by the IH was twice as large as the number identified by business owners (P = 0.02). The average percentage agreement of answers between owners and the IH was 81% (SD = 21%). Shop owners were more accurate in assessing the presence of written safety programs and records than the presence of unsafe work conditions. Overall, owners' sensitivity (ability to correctly identify a safety-deficient item) was low (0.22).

CONCLUSIONS

Collision shop owners had some difficulty correctly identifying many unsafe/non-compliant items or situations in their facility. Naïve users' ability to correctly identify potentially hazardous situations--sensitivity--should be the metric of concern for the validity of safety assessments, and efforts should be directed at bringing this number as close to one as feasible.

Workplace safety and health programs, practices, and conditions in auto collision repair businesses

This article describes the results of a pre-intervention safety assessment conducted in 49 auto collision repair businesses and owners' commitments to specific improvements. A 92-item standardized audit tool employed interviews, record reviews, and observations to assess safety and health programs, training, and workplace conditions. Owners were asked to improve at least one-third of incorrect, deficient, or missing (not in compliance with regulations or not meeting best practice) items, of which a majority were critical or highly important for ensuring workplace safety. Two-thirds of all items were present, with the highest fraction related to electrical safety, machine safety, and lockout/tagout. One-half of shops did not have written safety programs and had not conducted recent training. Many had deficiencies in respiratory protection programs and practices. Thirteen businesses with a current or past relationship with a safety consultant had a significantly higher fraction of correct items, in particular related to safety programs, up-to-date training, paint booth and mixing room conditions, electrical safety, and respiratory protection. Owners selected an average of 58% of recommended improvements; they were most likely to select items related to employee Right-to-Know training, emergency exits, fire extinguishers, and respiratory protection. They were least likely to say they would improve written safety programs, stop routine spraying outside the booth, or provide adequate fire protection for spray areas outside the booth. These baseline results suggest that it may be possible to bring about workplace improvements using targeted assistance from occupational health and safety professionals.