Clever Geek Handbook
📜 ⬆️ ⬇️

Legislative regulation of the choice and organization of the use of respirators

Legislative regulation of the choice and organization of the use of respirators

Background

After the advent of individual sampling systems , which made it possible to measure air pollution in the worker’s breathing zone during work, industrialized countries began to measure not only the pollution of the inhaled air, but also the protective properties of the respirators . These measurements showed that in production conditions the latter are very diverse, and very much depend not only on the quality of the respirator itself, but also on how well it is chosen, how its use is organized and how (well) trained workers use it correctly (see Tests of respirators in a production environment ). Since for the (reliable) preservation of workers' health it is pointless to care only about the quality of the RPD , disregarding other factors that strongly affect the effectiveness of its use, in developed countries the choice and organization of the use of respirators is part of a comprehensive respiratory protection program, and is strictly regulated by the appropriate legislative acts. This program affects all circumstances that can reduce the real degree of protection of a respirator when it is actually used in a production environment.

Developing Legislation of Developed Countries

  • Probably the very first law that regulated the use of respirators in the mining industry was the 1938 standard [A 1] . He demanded not only to check the quality of the respirators themselves in the laboratory, but also pointed out the importance of matching the respirator mask to the face of a particular worker (in shape and size) to prevent leakage of unfiltered air under the mask through the gaps due to a loose fit.
  • In the standard [A 2] in 1959, the choice of a respirator was regulated depending on the type and chemical composition of air pollution, as well as their concentration. This standard required that, after putting on a respirator, the worker check the correctness of putting on (he covered the air inlet with his hands, took a breath and held his breath; or closed the air outlet, made an exhalation and held his breath). For breathing apparatus, which are used with more severe air pollution, the standard recommended the use of more accurate, high-quality methods of checking for gaps between the mask and face. For this, the reaction of the worker’s sensory organs to smell, taste or irritation that occurs when the worker is in a dressed respirator in a special atmosphere is used. For this purpose, isoamyl acetate (banana odor) and formaldehyde (unpleasant pungent odor) were used as a control substance. The standard took into account the expected duration of work in the respirator and the nature of the work performed.
  • The 1969 standard [A 3] already suggested the use of respirators as part of a comprehensive respiratory protection program — written. To select a suitable respirator, the results of measuring the air pollution of the working area were used, and employees had to undergo training and training so that they correctly used respirators and knew the boundaries of their acceptable use. Respirators were selected for each worker individually, and they had to be regularly cleaned and disinfected. This standard introduced requirements for the storage of respirators in appropriate conditions, and for their regular inspections and maintenance during cleaning. The employer was obliged to monitor the working conditions (air pollution of the working area, etc.), and check the effectiveness of the respiratory protection program. The employer pledged to use certified respirators, and conduct a physical examination of workers. For the full implementation of the respiratory protection program, the employer had to appoint one person who would develop, implement and verify the effectiveness of such a program.
    • The 1969 standard paid more attention to the prevention of gaps between the mask of the respirator and the face of the worker. During training, each worker had to learn how to put on a respirator, how to regulate it, how to check the correctness of donning. To detect gaps between the mask and the face, isoamyl acetate and irritating smoke (tin chloride) were used.
  • The 1980 standard [A 4] introduced new methods for detecting gaps between a mask and a face - quantitative, which are described in a special separate chapter of the document, see the article Ways to check the insulating properties of respirators .
    • Based on the experiments conducted by the testers at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the values ​​of the Expected Respiratory Protection Coefficients of different types (RCS) were determined - those values ​​that determined the boundary of the acceptable use of a working respirator by trained workers after individually selecting a mask for his face (see Expected protection factors, OKZ ). The standard provided more detailed guidance on how workers should be trained.
  • In the 1992 standard [A 5], checks of gaps between the mask and the face of the worker were required to be carried out not only before starting work where a respirator is worn, but also after that - every 12 months. During the inspection (to confirm that the selected mask corresponds to the face of the worker) it was required that the degree of protection of the respirator be 10 times greater than its OKZ (safety factor). That is, if the worker used a full-face mask (OKZ = 50), then when individually selecting a specific model and size of a full-face mask, it should be checked (before starting work, and not at the workplace) to reduce the concentration of the control substance not by 50, but 500 times.
  • In all other developed countries (Canada [A 6] , Australia and New Zealand [A 7] , England [A 8] [A 9] , France [A 10] , Germany [A 11] , Austria [A 12] , EU [A 13] , Japan [A 14] , China [A 15] , India [A 16] , Singapore [A 17] , Republic of South Africa [A 18] ), Poland [A 19] where respirators are used, and where both the employer and the manufacturer of the RPE are responsible for damage to the health of workers , there are similar standards containing mandatory requirements for the correct selection and use of respirators - which ensures the health of workers.

Legislation of developed countries

In order to ensure that the use of respirators is safe for the health of workers, in industrialized countries, regulatory documents [A 20] oblige the employer to resolve the following issues (and record decisions made):

  • The employer must give a written commitment to develop and implement a set of measures that ensure the correct selection and organization of the correct use of respirators in order to ensure that no circumstances that may affect the effectiveness of the respirators used can make it lower than acceptable. A complete respiratory protection program includes the following issues:
  • The right choice of respirators in accordance with the expected conditions of their use, legal requirements and instruction manuals [W 1] [W 2] [W 3] [W 4] [W 5] [W 6] developed by labor protection specialists. These requirements and textbooks take into account the significantly lower efficiency of RPDs in production conditions compared with the conditions of tests in the laboratory during certification [D 1] .
  • Conducting a medical examination of workers who have to use respirators (or who already use them), taking into account the nature of the work performed, the conditions of its implementation and the type of respirator used.
  • When using respirators whose front part fits snugly on the face (for example, a half mask and a full face mask), the employer must ensure that the mask matches the worker’s face in shape and size, as well as its suitability. To do this, he must provide an opportunity for the worker to independently choose the most suitable mask from several proposed ones, and then check with a device how correct the choice is made (see. Methods of checking the insulating properties of respirators ). To do this, there is a variety of equipment that allows you to detect gaps between the mask and the face through which unfiltered air can enter the respiratory system.
  • The employer is obliged to develop such a process that allows you to use respirators correctly (for example, at elevated temperatures - reduce it, arrange breaks in work, etc.).
  • The employer must ensure timely and high-quality maintenance of respirators - filter replacement, repair, inspection, etc. When using gas mask filters, the employer (in the USA) must ensure their timely replacement, for which he can use the schedule drawn up on the basis of the calculated service life, or end-of-life indicators (ESLI) readings, and do not do so when a harmful odor appears under the mask. The reasons for such requirements are described in more detail in Methods for replacing gas mask filters for respirators .
  • When using self-contained breathing apparatus in which compressed air is used, the quality of the latter must meet the requirements for breathable air.
  • The employer must provide training and training for workers - before starting work and then (periodically), and the legislation establishes specific requirements for such training, see page 224 [W 1] ).
  • The employer should periodically check how effective the developed respiratory protection program is and how correctly it is implemented and, if necessary, improve it taking into account the identified shortcomings.
  • All decisions that are made by the employer and which determine the implementation of the respiratory protection program should be recorded, and records must be kept. This allows you to determine the cause of damage to the health of the worker (if this happens), and find the perpetrators.
  • and other requirements.

In addition, such regulatory documents may contain specific instructions for meeting these requirements.

The presence of science-based and well-thought out, clearly and unambiguously formulated requirements of the legislation allows you to effectively monitor the implementation of these requirements. For example, in the United States, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) , which established the requirements for the selection and use of respirators, has also developed instructions for verifying compliance with these requirements, which is used by OSHA inspectors in inspections of enterprises and organizations [A 21] . This document provides a list of what the inspector should check, specific instructions on how to check it, and recommendations for filing subpoenas for each possible violation. For example, when inspecting compliance with the requirements for respiratory protection of hospital medical personnel from tuberculosis and other harmful respiratory effects, the OSHA inspector conducted more than 3 thousand inspections in 1991-1995, and in 237 cases revealed violations. The average fine exceeded $ 2,000 [A 22] .

Regulation of the use of respirators in the USSR and in the Russian Federation

  • In the USSR and the Russian Federation, the Labor Code requires establishing the procedure for providing workers with personal protective equipment (including respiratory) at the expense of the employer. [1] employer must ensure the use of personal protective equipment that has passed conformity assessment in accordance with the legislation on technical regulation. [1] There are various “Standard industry standards for the free issuance of special clothing, special shoes and other personal protective equipment for workers working in harmful and (or) hazardous working conditions, as well as for work carried out in special temperature conditions or related to pollution”. On the basis of these documents, numerous “Instructions for labor protection for ...” were developed, which indicated which workers should be issued with a RPD , and how often this should happen. But in all of the above documents required by the employer, how to organize their application . Also, these documents did not provide links to other documents containing such information.
  • Neither in the USSR nor in the Russian Federation there were any ( national ) regulatory documents that were mandatory for implementation, which would clearly and unequivocally establish restrictions on the area of ​​permissible use of respirators of various types, and establish requirements for their choice and for the organization of their correct and safe use. Various expert recommendations were issued [S 1] [S 2] [S 3] [S 4] [S 5] [S 6] [S 7] [S 8] [S 9] [S 10] [S 11] [S 12] [S 13] [S 14] [S 15] [S 16] [S 17] [S 18] [S 19] [S 20] [S 21] [S 22] [S 23] [S 24] [S 25] [S 26] [S 27] [S 28] [S 29] [S 30] [S 31] [S 32] [S 33] [S 34] [S 35] [S 36] [S 37] [S 38] [S 39] [S 40] [S 41] [S 42] , which could not fill the gap between the requirements of the legislation on the mandatory issuance of a respirator to a worker (who works in a polluted atmosphere) and the specific choice and organization of the use of respirators , since they did not always specifically indicate the areas of acceptable use of respirators of different designs s with different air pollution, and since these recommendations were not binding on (or were local). In addition, as shown below, these recommendations systematically and significantly exaggerated the protective properties of RPDs. The administration of some individual enterprises, faced with such an abnormal situation, was forced to independently develop appropriate in -plant instructions and documents [S 6] [S 7] - but they were used only at these individual enterprises.
  • To answer the questions that arose when choosing a respirator for work in conditions with known air pollution, a large amount of reference literature was published. Table 1 provides some of these recommendations and their source. It can be seen that due to the lack of legislative regulation of the choice of respirators, different specialists in different ways limit the area of ​​permissible use of the same half-mask respirators made and used for several decades. In some half-mask models, the difference between the recommended boundaries of the area of ​​acceptable use (maximum and minimum) reaches 100 times or more. In the vast majority of cases, the maximum air pollution at which the authors consider it possible to use half-mask respirators is many times higher than the similar restrictions adopted in developed countries (for example, in half-masks in the USA - up to 10 maximum concentration limits). Moreover, in most cases, the authors give recommendations (tables 1, 2, 3 and Figure 1), but do not explain what these recommendations are based on.

Table 1. Recommendations of Soviet and Russian specialists (half-masks) , limiting the area of ​​acceptable use of common homogeneous half-mask respirators depending on air pollution (expressed in MPC [numbers without units], or in mg / m 3. If the source for one model respirator shows different restrictions when exposed to K rupodnodispersnoy and M fine dust, both restrictions are indicated with the marks K and M, respectively). All recommendations are made for the same models of half-mask respirators (in one column), but in different years by different authors.

YearPetal 200 [G 1]Petal-40 [G 1]Kama-200 [G 2]Kama-40Astra-2 [G 3]F-62Sh [G 4]U-2K [G 5]PRSh-741 [G 6]RU-60M [G 7]RPG-67 [G 8]
1957 [S 43]1000
1962 [S 9]1000
1966 [S 10]100050010001000500
1966 [S 11]10001000
1967 [S 12]20040 M , 200 K100
1973 [S 13]200402001002510-1510-15
1974 [S 14]200250-40020-10010-155-15
1976 [S 15]20040 M , 200 K200250-40020-10010-155-15
1976 [S 16]more than 200 mg / m 3200 mg / m 310-1510-15
1977 [S 17]2004015
1979 [S 18]20040 M , 200 K100200 mg / m 3200 mg / m 31510-15
1979 [S 19]400200250
1981 [S 20]2004020010025tenten
1982 [S 21]100 M , 200 K10 M , 200 K50-40020-100251510-15
1982 [S 22]20040> 40> 4025400 mg / m 310-1515
1982 [S 23]200100100400 mg / m 320050 mg / m 3200tenten
1982 [S 24]25002500--1250200014281428
1984 [S 25]20040 M , 200 K200
1985 [S 26]††, 200 K††, 200 K†
1987 [S 27]200100100ten200100> 100Ktenten
1989 [S 28]20040100> 100> 100ten10010-1510-15
1989 [S 29]100200 mg / m310-1510-15
1997 [S 30]100 mg / m 3100 mg / m 3100 mg / m 3400 mg / m 3400 mg / m 350 mg / m 31000 mg / m 3tenten
1999 [S 32]20040 M , 200 K100ten> 100100100 M , 50 K mg / m 3100 M , 400 K mg / m 3tenten
2005 [S 36]100 M , 200 K400 mg / m 3200 mg / m 310-1510-15
2005 [S 37]200100100ten200100200 mg / m 3100 Ktenten
2007 [S 38]ten12.5five50
2009 [S 40]505010010050
2011 [S 42]20040five200 k--1000 K <500 mg / m3100 mg / m310-1510-15

† - At a maximum single concentration of toxic aerosols of not more than 30-100 MAC, it is recommended to use aerosol filter respirators.

It can be seen that the recommendations of different authors regarding the same types of half masks are not even consistent with each other, and are not consistent with the scientifically based recommendations of American experts (up to 10 MAC).

Table 2. Recommendations of Soviet and Russian specialists (half-masks) that limit the scope of acceptable use of the same type half-mask respirators of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd classes, corresponding to the new state standards [G 9] [G 10] [G 11] [G 12] depending from air pollution ( expressed in MPC ). All recommendations are made for the same models of half-mask respirators (in one column), but in different years by different authors.

 
Fig. 1. A graphical representation of the recommended boundaries for the permissible use of half-mask respirators of different models, source: (from 1962 to 2011) [D 2] and are shown in Table 1. It can be seen that the recommendations of different authors regarding the same types of half-masks are not even consistent with each other , and completely disagree with the recommendations of American experts (up to 10 MAC).
Date of publication, sourceRespirator (filter) class
FFP1 (P1)FFP2 (P2)FFP3 (P3)
1998 [S 31]2.52550
2002 [S 33]2.52550
2002 [S 34]4-1010-40> 40
2005 [S 35]four1250
2005 [S 37]fiveeleven25
2006 [S 44]50
2008 [S 39]four1250
2009 [S 45]four1250
2010 [S 41]four1250
2012-14 [S 46]> 5,000

It can be seen that the recommendations of different authors regarding the same types of half masks are not even consistent with each other, and are not consistent with the recommendations of American specialists (up to 10 MAC).

Labeling of filter respirators is given in Respirator Filters ).

Table 3. Recommendations of Soviet and Russian specialists (full face masks) that limit the area of ​​acceptable use of common respirators of the same type - full face masks of various designs that meet old and new state standards [G 13] depending on air pollution ( expressed in MPC ). All recommendations are made for the same respirator designs (in the same column), but in different years by different authors.

Date of publication, sourceFull face mask
ShMPPPM-88 [G 14] [G 13]The mask complies with GOST [G 13]
1973 [S 13]Filter dependent
1974 [S 14]Filter dependent
1976 [S 16]†
1982 [S 21]Filter dependent,> 100
1982 [S 22]> 100
1982 [S 23]> 100
1987 [S 27]> 100
1989 [S 28]> 100
1989 [S 29]†
1998 [S 31]2,000
1999 [S 32]~ More than 100~ More than 1003M "6000" has more than 100
2002 [S 34]--More than 100
2005 [S 37]†more than 100 - up to 2000 ††more than 100 - up to 2000 ††
2006 [S 44]1000 (by aerosol) and 2000 (by gas)
2007 [S 38]Up to 100,000Up to 1000-
2009 [S 40]--1000
2009 [S 45]1000 (by aerosol) and 2000 (by gas)
2010 [S 41]--P3 filter - up to 200
2012-14 [S 46]--over 100,000 ( ARTIRUS, ARTIRUS-M and ARTIRUS-1 ) and over 1,000,000 ( IPY-IZOD )

† - it is recommended to use with air pollution up to 0.5% by volume without taking into account maximum permissible concentration.

†† - p. 225 tab. 8.7: "The coefficient of suction under the mask,%, not more than 0.05"

It can be seen that the recommendations of different authors regarding the same types of full-face masks are not consistent with each other, and are not consistent with the recommendations of American specialists (up to 50 MAC).

In all cases, the values ​​given in Table 3 exceed the scientifically substantiated restrictions on the range of permissible use of full-face masks with high-performance filters in the USA (up to 50 MAC) and the UK (up to 40 MAC), and they are significantly higher than the minimum values ​​of protection coefficients measured during work in a production environment (11, 17 ..) [D 3] . And the values ​​given in Tables 1, 2 and in Figure 1 exceed the scientifically substantiated restrictions on the area of ​​permissible use of half masks with high-efficiency filters in the USA (up to 10 MAC), and significantly exceed the minimum measured half-mask protection factors as in the USA (KZ = 2.2 ... ), and in the USSR (KZ = 2.5 ...) [D 4] . Thus, the implementation of the recommendations of Soviet and Russian authors could lead and often led to the selection of obviously insufficiently effective RPDS that were not able to reliably protect the health of workers by their very design - even with the correct and timely use and good condition. The same problems - by tradition - persisted in the CIS countries.

Selection and application of RPD in the Russian Federation (concept of Roskhimzashchita Corporation OJSC)

In 2012, the Roskhimzashchita Corporation based on the European Union standard EN 529: 2005 developed the standard [G 15] . The document is intended to be used as a guide when developing respiratory protection programs in an enterprise. However, this GOST contains a number of differences from the EU standard, which was taken as the basis for its development. Below it is compared with DIN EN 529:

- Unlike DIN, GOST does not establish any specific restrictions on the area of ​​permissible use of respirators of all designs - except that it prohibits the use of filtering RPDs with a lack of oxygen, with a volume concentration of gaseous contaminants over 1% and with air pollution that is instantly life-threatening . However, the document does not contain any specific instructions to determine when the concentration of a harmful substance or their mixture becomes instantly hazardous ( that is, exposure to which, if the PPE is faulty, can lead to death or irreversible deterioration of health ). Links to other documents containing such information (in Russian or another language) are also missing. This does not allow the use of the document to select sufficiently effective respirators for use in conditions of known air pollution.
- In Appendix D, it is recommended to determine the protection coefficients using the values ​​of the penetration of harmful substances through the filter and seepage through the gaps between the mask and the face, for which you should refer to the GOSTs of the Russian Federation [G 13] [G 9] [G 10] [G 11] [G 12] , containing requirements for facial parts during their certification in the laboratory. And these requirements for laboratory tests, as shown by measurements of protective properties under industrial conditions , do not correspond to real effectiveness in practice, and are not intended to establish the scope of acceptable use of RPDs. This directly contradicts the relevant section of DIN EN (Appendix C), where the use of laboratory short circuit to limit the scope. In the same DIN appendix, these restrictions are also given, and their significant difference from laboratory ("nominal") faults is shown.
- Unlike DIN EN, GOST does not give any information on how to replace gas filters in a timely manner (with the exception of the instructions on the block diagram - use the reaction of the worker to gas entering the mask space). DIN EN unambiguously defines the subjective reaction of the senses as an unreliable indicator of the end of the service life, and recommends collecting all available information on the chemical composition and concentration of contaminants, air temperature and humidity, air consumption by workers - then contact the manufacturer for information on the specific filter life in such conditions. More stringent US law [A 20] since 1996 has banned the use of the subjective reaction of the worker, and requires replacing filters either on a schedule or on the basis of a service life indicator. In addition, GOST does not contain any information about which harmful substances can be detected “organoleptically” and which cannot, and there is no indication where such information can be found.
- Recommendation of the respirator selection algorithm that allows the use of filtering gas mask RPDs at a concentration of pollution up to 2000 maximum concentration limits (reference to 9.2.5. And then to B.1.4, where GOST 12.4.189-99 is specified - penetration up to 0.05% when used for protection from harmful gases, corresponds to KZ ≥ 2000), in combination with the permission to use these respirators with a volume concentration of pollution up to 1%, can lead to the use of filtering respirators with full-face masks without forced air supply at a very high concentration. At the same time, it is known that when a full-face mask slides during operation, the leakage of unfiltered air can reach 9% [D 3] . The implementation of this recommendation may endanger not only the health but also the lives of workers.
- The respirator selection algorithm directly allows the use of insulating RPDS with air supply as needed with an unknown or instantly dangerous concentration of harmful substances. This does not provide reliable protection for workers, since dangerous substances can leak out when inhaled into the mask space. Moreover, when working in a hazardous atmosphere and using a hose respirator, there is no requirement to use an auxiliary self-contained breathing apparatus with a service life sufficient to evacuate to a safe place if the air supply to the hose is interrupted - which does not comply with the instructions in the same section of DIN EN, and which creates a potential a threat to the life and health of workers.

Thus, in more than 10 years since the start of harmonization of the RF standards for RPD with the standards used in the European Union, not a single document has been developed to determine which RPDs can provide reliable protection under known working conditions, and which ones cannot, and how to organize their proper application. And even existing ones - very imperfect documents - are not binding. The lack of legal requirements [D 2] does not allow the development of full-fledged teaching aids and, accordingly, the normal training of labor protection specialists, workers and inspectors of Rostrud, Rospotrebnadzor and trade unions (which greatly reduces the efficiency of their work). As a result, training of labor protection specialists in the right choice and organization of the correct use of respirators is not conducted in the Russian Federation.

All this, taken together, leads to cases of use of unsuitable RPD by untrained workers, and damage to their health. Unfortunately, often the workers themselves do not notice that they use deliberately unreliable RPDs. This is because, due to individual differences in the shape and size of persons, the leakage of unfiltered air [D 5] under the mask of different employees is different, and in combination with differences in individual “survivability” in a group of workers, some people can be reliably protected, or there will be no noticeable deterioration in health. When using identical respirators, this is confusing, and makes it difficult to understand that in general, RPDs are not reliable enough and do not protect other workers (see The effect of a healthy worker ).

Respiratory Control in Ukraine

Until 1991, all the problems described above fully applied to Ukraine. The miners used half-mask respirators with dusty air levels in excess of tens and hundreds times.

After the collapse of the USSR in Ukraine, two official documents [D 6] [D 7] were adopted, binding on the employer, and the second document [D 7] was developed on the basis of the relevant European Union standard [A 13] .

The first document gave instructions:

  • Do not use filtering respirators if there is a lack of oxygen, if the concentration of air pollution is unknown, and in cases when the harmful gases do not have a smell or other “warning” properties.
  • Use P1 filters for protection against coarse aerosol, and P2 and P3 from fine aerosol.
  • Use laboratory penetration measurement results to determine protection factors in a work environment when choosing a respirator. In accordance with this indication, it was shown in Table 1 of Appendix 3 that when using high-efficiency filters, the protection coefficient (half-mask) will be up to 50, and in the note to paragraph 6.2.2 it was recommended to use cartridge respirators at a dust concentration of up to 0.5 gram / m3 .
  • Regarding the replacement of gas filters, it was allowed to use the subjective sensations of the worker to detect the end of the filter's service life (If the gases have “warning” properties. True, the document did not have a list of such substances, and there were no references to other documents with such a list. This made it difficult to correctly fulfillment of such an instruction ...).

Fulfillment of the penultimate instruction may lead to the selection of obviously insufficiently effective RPDS (as in the Russian Federation), and the implementation of the latter may lead to the belated replacement of gas filters (due to the reduced individual sensitivity of the worker, etc.). The document does not correspond to the modern scientific level in the field of respiratory protection, and does not allow for reliable protection of workers.

In the second document [D 7] , made by an exact translation of the European Union standard [A 13], the developers translated Appendix C, where in the original document there were tables with protection factors for all types of respirators in combination with all possible filters (for different countries of the European Union - but not for Ukraine). Unfortunately, the developers did translate the document without setting appropriate restrictions for the same types of respirators for Ukraine. Therefore, DSTU EN 529 cannot be used to determine which type of respirator should be used with a certain degree of exceeding the maximum permissible concentration to ensure reliable protection of workers.

Also, instead of the requirement for the employer in [A 13], contact the manufacturer with a request - what is the service life of gas filters in the conditions in which they will be used - in [D 7], the recommendation is “follow the manufacturers' instructions for replacing gas filters”. In combination with the tradition of recent decades, this means that there will be no scheduling and filter replacement without using the subjective reaction of the worker (which contradicts the text of the original document).

ДСТУ не даёт определённых выполнимых указаний в отношении того, когда должны использоваться самые надёжные СИЗОД (при мгновенно-опасной концентрации ).

Таким образом, на Украине, как и в РФ, нет законодательных документов, обязательных для выполнения работодателем, устанавливающих научно обоснованные требования к выбору и к организации применения СИЗОД всех конструкций, что может привести к выбору заведомо недостаточно эффективных респираторов, не способных надёжно защитить рабочих даже при правильном и своевременном использовании и исправном состоянии. Стандарт [D 7] соответствует Европейскому стандарту [A 13] по названию, но не по содержанию (как и [G 15] ), и его использование не может надёжно защитить рабочих от чрезмерного воздействия воздушных загрязнений.

Измерение загрязнённости воздуха

При выборе СИЗОД для известных условий применения нужно знать концентрацию воздушных загрязнений. Однако методы её измерения в СССР и в РФ [D 8] [D 9] допускали брать пробы воздуха не в зоне дыхания , а в воздухе рабочей зоны (на расстоянии 1.5 м от пола). Это может привести к занижению измеренной концентрации по отношению к реальной [D 10] , и к выбору заведомо недостаточно эффективных СИЗОД при использовании научно обоснованных методик.

Нерешённые проблемы

Всё вышеперечисленное показывает, что мнение западных специалистов о низкой надёжности [D 11] респираторов — «самого последнего средства защиты» — при их использовании в условиях правового вакуума и избытка публикаций, значительно завышающих защитные свойства по сравнению с реально достижимыми — ещё более справедливо [D 12] . Использование недостаточно эффективных полумасок часто приводит к развитию необратимых и неизлечимых заболеваний [D 13] ( силикоза , пневмокониоза , и др.), которые редко регистрируются [D 14] (именно как профзаболевания — число врачей-профпатологов в РФ на 1000 работающих в ~17 раз меньше, чем во Франции [D 15] ). Выплаты компенсации пострадавшим (официально — очень немногочисленным) проводит государство, и это делает работодателя очень слабо заинтересованным в увеличении затрат средств и внимания на улучшение защиты рабочих. А вероятность того, что проблемы возникнут у изготовителя или продавца СИЗОД близка к нулю — даже завышая эффективность в сотни раз, они — формально — не нарушили ничего, так как ограничения области применения государством не установлены [D 2] . Заявления продавцов и изготовителей о том, что их продукция сертифицирована, и потому надёжна — не обоснованы [D 16] , и стали причиной обращений в Прокуратуру РФ [D 17] .

Таблица 4. Сопоставление требований законодательства разных стран к работодателю в отношении выбора и организации применения СИЗОД †
A countryGreat BritainUSAGermanyUkraineRF
Нормативный документBS 4275:199729 CFR 1910.134

Есть перевод: PDF Wiki

DIN EN 529:2006ДСТУ EN 529:2006ГОСТ Р 12.4.279-2012
Разработчик документаИнститут стандартов BSIУправление по охране труда OSHAКомитет Европейского Союза CEN/TC 79ГП УкрНДНЦКоммерческая организация ОАО «Корпорация Росхимзащита»
Обязательность выполнения требований нормативного документаОбязателен для выполненияОбязателен для выполнения, разработана инструкция для инспекторов по охране труда с подробными указаниями — что и как проверять, и как подавать иски в суд при разных нарушениях CPL 02—00-120 Перевод PDF WikiОбязателен для выполнения(Юридически) действующий; сведений о применении найти не удалосьДобровольное применение
Измерение загрязнённости воздуха ††В зоне дыханияВ зоне дыханияВ зоне дыханияВ воздухе рабочей зоны или в зоне дыханияВ воздухе рабочей зоны или в зоне дыхания [D 18]
Концентрация вредных веществ, мгновенно-опасная для жизни и здоровьяОписана, работодатель должен обеспечить рабочего изолирующим респиратором. Если используется шланговый респиратор, то рабочий должен снабжаться вспомогательным СИЗОД для эвакуации при нарушении подачи воздуха по шлангу.Описана, ( установлены конкретные значения для сотен наиболее распространённых вредных веществ ). Работодатель должен обеспечить рабочего изолирующим респиратором с постоянным избыточным давлением под маской. Если используется шланговый респиратор, то рабочий должен снабжаться вспомогательным автономным дыхательным аппаратом с постоянным избыточным давлением под полнолицевой маской для эвакуации при нарушении подачи воздуха по шлангу.Описана, работодатель должен обеспечить рабочего изолирующим респиратором. Если используется шланговый респиратор, то рабочий должен снабжаться вспомогательным СИЗОД для эвакуации при нарушении подачи воздуха по шлангу.Работодатель обязан обеспечить рабочего изолирующим СИЗОД с постоянным избыточным давлением под полнолицевой маской; при использовании шлангового респиратора должен иметься вспомогательный автономный дыхательный аппарат на случай нарушения подачи воздуха по шлангуДано определение, разрешено использовать шланговые респираторы — без вспомогательного автономного дыхательного аппарата для эвакуации на случай нарушения подачи воздуха по шлангу, и разрешено использовать изолирующие СИЗОД без избыточного давления ( [D 19] в [D 20] ) под маской
Ожидаемые коэффициенты защиты респираторовОграничения области допустимого применения СИЗОД всех конструкций установлены, для разработки их ожидаемых коэффициентов защиты использовали результаты 31 исследования СИЗОД в производственных условиях ( всего получено 1863 коэффициента защиты у СИЗОД 7 типов )Ограничения области допустимого применения СИЗОД всех конструкций установлены, для разработки их ожидаемых коэффициентов защиты (APF) использовали результаты 26 исследований СИЗОД в производственных условиях (более 294 участника, более 926 замеров); или при имитации производственных условий (5 исследований) [D 21]Установлены ограничения области допустимого применения СИЗОД всех конструкций, чем обоснованы выбранные значения — не известноОграничения области допустимого применения не установлены ни для одного из видов СИЗОДРекомендовано использовать результаты лабораторных испытаний при сертификации для ограничения области допустимого применения в производственных условиях, а также рекомендуемые изготовителем ( прямо противоречит соответствующему разделу EN 529 )
Замена противогазных фильтровРаботодатель обязан выяснить условия применения (температуру и влажность воздуха, химический состав и концентрацию загрязнений) и характер работы (расход воздуха), и передать эти сведения изготовителю СИЗОД для получения от него объективной оценки срока службы фильтров. Ответ используется для замены фильтров по расписанию.Работодатель обязан использовать индикаторы окончания срока службы (выпускаются, но не для всех газов), или менять по расписанию. Для составления расписания он должен сообщит изготовителю условия и характер работы, и получить от него сведения о сроке службы в конкретных условиях. Разрешается использовать оригинальное программное обеспечение изготовителя, или универсальную программу NIOSH для вычисления срока службы при защите от сочетания нескольких газов в разных условияхРаботодатель обязан выяснить условия применения (температуру и влажность воздуха, химический состав и концентрацию загрязнений) и характер работы (расход воздуха), и передать эти сведения изготовителю СИЗОД для получения от него объективной оценки срока службы фильтров. Ответ используется для замены фильтров по расписанию. Использование субъективной реакции органов чувств не допускаетсяРекомендуется использовать указания изготовителей ( общего характера )Рекомендуется использовать индикаторы окончания срока службы ( в РФ не изготавливаются ); измерять вес фильтра ( только для фильтров, используемых для защиты от угарного газа СО ); менять при отработке определённого количества часов ( только для фильтров, используемых для защиты от паров ртути Hg ); и менять при появлении запаха под маской ( не соответствует EN 529 )
TrainingУказаны конкретные требования — что должны знать и уметь рабочие. Работодатель отвечает за их обучение. Есть бесплатно-доступное учебное пособие [W 4]Указаны конкретные требования — что должны знать и уметь рабочие. Есть бесплатно-доступные учебные пособия [W 1] [W 2] [W 3]Установлены требования к работодателю по обучению рабочих. Есть бесплатно-доступное учебное пособие [W 5]Работодатель обязан проводить обучение, учебных пособий (соответствующих требованию законодательства) нетУстановлены требования; учебных пособий, соответствующих требованиям законодательства, нет

† — Жирным шрифтом выделены те положения ГОСТ Р 12.4.279-2012 ( разработанного, как декларируется, на основе EN 529 ), которые прямо противоречат соответствующим требованиям EN 529, или не соответствуют им — так, что это может создать повышенный риск для жизни и здоровья рабочих.

†† — Во всех упомянутых документах нет требований к способу измерения концентрации вредных веществ в воздухе. Но так как неправильное определение концентрации вредных веществ может привести к ошибкам при выборе адекватного СИЗОД, эта строка включена в таблицу для справки, поскольку концентрация загрязнений в воздухе рабочей зоны может быть в десятки раз ниже, чем в зоне дыхания.

Указанные недостатки (выбор заведомо недостаточно эффективных СИЗОД — по конструкции, и неправильная организация их использования) [D 22] [D 23] усугубляются низким качеством конкретных изделий:

Не секрет, что проблемы с качеством СИЗ существуют. К сожалению, ситуация в данной сфере такова, что достаточно выпустить 5-7 доброкачественных изделий, провести испытания и получить сертификат, а потом можно выпускать изделия более низкого качества. Особенно эта проблема актуальна для лёгких респираторов и некоторых других технически несложных СИЗ [D 24] .

  • Существуют альтернативные точки зрения на законодательное регулирование выбора и организации применения СИЗОД в РФ.

Для правильного выбора СИЗОД по назначению созданы необходимые условия. [D 25]

В той же статье авторы (эксперт и сотрудник администрации АСИЗ) предложили свой вариант правильного выбора противоаэрозольных СИЗОД — фильтрующие полумаски FFP3 — до 50 ПДКрз, эластомерные полумаски с фильтрами Р3 — до 100 ПДКрз, и полнолицевые маски с фильтрами Р3 — до 1000 ПДКрз.

В РФ существует хорошо проработанная законодательная нормативная база в отношении СИЗ… [D 24]

Можно отметить, что автор статьи — компетентный специалист с большим опытом работы в этой области. В 2001-2002г он работал и в руководстве Ассоциации СИЗ, и одновременно руководил Департаментом условий и охраны труда в Минтруда РФ.

Минтруда РФ поддержало создание Ассоциации СИЗ и предложило включить в состав Совета АСИЗ руководителя Департамента условий и охраны труда Минтруда России Сорокина Ю. Г. [D 26]

Следует отметить, что Минтруд РФ возложил на Ассоциацию СИЗ почётную обязанность по мониторингу ситуации в сфере обеспечения работников СИЗ. [D 27]

Но между советским и российским подходами к обеспечении рабочих СИЗОД и научно-обоснованными западными требованиями имеются существенные отличия (см. таблицу выше), и представители известного производителя СИЗОД высказали свою точку зрения:

Действующие в РФ государственные межотраслевые и отраслевые правила обеспечения работников специальной одеждой, специальной обувью и другими СИЗ основаны на принципе нормирования. Они определяют, какие именно СИЗ и в каком количестве требуется выдавать работнику в соответствии с его профессией. Однако в типовых нормах бесплатной выдачи сертифицированных СИЗ не учитываются защитные свойства конкретных изделий и особенности трудового процесса. В итоге на практике нередко возникают ситуации, когда выданные работнику СИЗ формально соответствуют типовым нормам, но не защищают от фактически имеющихся производственных факторов . [D 28]

Также авторы (3М) рекомендовали использовать фильтрующие полумаски с добавлением небольшого количества сорбента в условиях превышения концентрации вредных газообразных веществ до 10 ПДКрз и более (не имеет аналогов в промышленно-развитых странах из-за незначительной массы сорбента и увлажнения сорбента выдыхаемым воздухом).

Советник департамента социального развития Аппарата Правительства РФ ещё в 2003г высказал практически противоположную точку зрения, полностью согласующуюся с требованиями законодательства западных стран, заявив что согласно Конвенции 148 Международной организации труда, подписанной РФ ещё в 2001 г, и другим документам, приоритет должен отдаваться использованию средств коллективной защиты, а не индивидуальной. [D 29]

but

Использование СИЗ — наименее финансоёмкий и наиболее оперативный способ обеспечения безопасности труда и сохранения здоровья работников. [D 30]

По данным доклада на конгрессе «Профессия и здоровье» профессора, кандидата технических наук, директора АСИЗ Сорокина ЮГ из 6.36 млрд руб, израсходованных на профилактику развития профзаболеваний рабочих, на закупку СИЗ и (смывающе-обезвреживающих средств) было потрачено 2.4 млрд (38 %), а на уменьшение запылённости, загазованности, уменьшение уровней шума и вибрации — 0.074 млрд руб (1.16 %) [D 31] , то есть в 32 раза меньше.

… предприятия в первую очередь предпочитают использовать средства ФСС для приобретения качественных СИЗ. Думается, что с учётом упомянутых выше нововведений, предусмотренных Законом № 426-ФЗ, эта тенденция сохранится и в дальнейшем [D 27]

See also

  • Ожидаемые коэффициенты защиты респираторов
  • Способы проверки изолирующих свойств респираторов
  • Способы замены противогазных фильтров респираторов

Literature

Основная литература (промышленно-развитых стран)

Документы 1—20 являются (или являлись) обязательными для выполнения, а документ 21 используется для проверки выполнения требований законодательства при проверке предприятий инспектором по охране труда в США. В статье 22 приводятся сведения о результатах таких проверок.

  1. ↑ Стандарт США: American Standard Safety Code for the Protection of Heads, Eyes, and Respiratory Organs, ASA Z2-1938. - 1938.
  2. ↑ Стандарт США: American Standard Safety Code for Head, Eye, and Respiratory Protection ASA Z2.1-1959. — 1959.
  3. ↑ Стандарт США: American National Standards Institute, ANSI Z88.2-1969 Practices for Respiratory Protection. — 1969.
  4. ↑ Стандарт США: American National Standards Institute, ANSI Z88.2-1980, Practices for Respirator Protection . — 1980. Требования OSHA к выбору и организации применения СИЗОД 1981г
  5. ↑ Стандарт США: ANSI Z88.2-1992 Consensus Standards for a Respirator Protection Program . - 1992.
  6. ↑ Стандарт Канады CS Z94.4-02 «Selection, Use, and Care of Respirators» . — 2002.
  7. ↑ Стандарт Австралии и Новой Зеландии AS/NZS 1715:2009 «Selection, use and maintenance of respiratory protective equipment» . - 2009.
  8. ↑ Английский стандарт BS 4275:1997 «Guide to implementing an effective respiratory protective device programme». — London: BSI , 1997.
  9. ↑ Английский стандарт BS 4275:1974 «Spesification for recommendations for the selection, use and maintanance of respiratory protective equipment». — London: BSI, 1974.
  10. ↑ Французский стандарт NF EN 529 (2006)«Appareil de Protection Respiratoire — Recommandations Pour le Choix, L'utilisation, L'entretien et la Maintenance » . — 2006.
  11. ↑ Стандарт ФРГ DIN EN 529:2006 Atemschutzgeräte — Empfehlungen für Auswahl, Einsatz, Pflege und Instandhaltung
  12. ↑ Стандарт Австрии OENORM EN 529:2006 Atemschutzgeräte — Empfehlungen für Auswahl, Einsatz, Pflege und Instandhaltung — Leitfaden Архивная копия от 22 июля 2012 на Wayback Machine
  13. ↑ 1 2 3 4 5 Стандарт ЕС EN 529:2005 Respiratory protective devices — Recommendations for selection, use, care and maintenance — Guidance document (Средства индивидуальной защиты органов дыхания. Рекомендации относительно выбора, использования, ухода и обслуживания)
  14. ↑ Стандарт Японии JIS T 8150:2006 (Руководство по выбору, использованию и уходу за устройствами для защиты органов дыхания) текст
  15. ↑ Стандарт Китая GB/T 18664-2002 呼吸防护用品的选择、使用与维护 (выбор, техническое обслуживание и использование средств защиты органов дыхания) (недоступная ссылка)
  16. ↑ Стандарт Индии IS 9623:2008 Recommendations for the selection, use and maintenance of respiratory protective devices
  17. ↑ Стандарт Сингапура SS 548:2009 (Code of Practice for Selection, use and maintenance of respiratory protective devices) (неопр.) (недоступная ссылка) . Дата обращения 4 сентября 2012. Архивировано 23 ноября 2009 года.
  18. ↑ Стандарт Южно-Африканской Республики SABS 0220-1988. Code of Practice for the selection, use and maintenance of respiratory protective equipment
  19. ↑ Стандарт Польши PN-EN 529:2009 Sprzęt ochrony układu oddechowego - Zalecenia dotyczące doboru, użycia, obsługi i konserwacji - Przewodnik
  20. ↑ 1 2 Стандарт США (действующий) US Standard 29 CFR 1910.134 «Respiratory protection» . — OSHA. Есть перевод: PDF Wiki
  21. ↑ Charles Jeffress. «Instruction CPL 2-0.120» . — OSHA, 1998 Есть перевод: «Инструкция для инспекторов по охране труда с указаниями - как проводить проверку выполнения требований стандарта по респираторной защите (США)» .
  22. ↑ Usha Krishnan & Christopher A. Janicak. Compliance with OSHA's Respiratory Protection Standard in Hospitals (англ.) // AIHA & ACHIH American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal. — Acron, Ohio: Taylor & Francis, 1999. — Vol. 60 , iss. 2 . — P. 228-234 . — ISSN 1542-8117 . — DOI : 10.1080/00028899908984440 .
Error in the footnotes ? : The <ref> with the name "autogenerated1" defined in <references> is not used in the previous text.

These textbooks are developed on the basis of relevant national legislation, and are used in industrialized countries to prepare labor protection specialists for the right choice and organization of the correct use of RPDs.

  1. ↑ 1 2 3 Nancy J. Bollinger, Robert H. Schutz et al. NIOSH Guide to Industrial Respiratory Protection . - NIOSH. - Cincinnati, Ohio: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1987 .-- 305 p. - (DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 87-116). There is a translation (2014): Guidelines for Industrial Respiratory Protection PDF Wiki
  2. ↑ 1 2 Nancy Bollinger. NIOSH Respirator Selection Logic . - NIOSH. - Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 2004 .-- 32 p. - (DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2005-100). There is a translation: PDF Wiki Respirator Selection Guide
  3. ↑ 1 2 Linda Rosenstock et al. TB Respiratory Protection Program In Health Care Facilities - Administrator's Guide . - Cincinnati, Ohio: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1999 .-- 120 p. - (DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 99-143). There is a translation: Guidelines for the use of respirators in medical facilities for the prevention of tuberculosis PDF Wiki
  4. ↑ 1 2 Guidance on the selection and organization of respirator use (UK), in English by The Health and Safety Executive. Respiratory protective equipment at work. A practical guide . - 4. - Crown, 2013 .-- 59 s. - (HSG53). - ISBN 978 0 7176 6454 2 .
  5. ↑ 1 2 Guide to the selection and organization of the use of respirators (Germany), in German BGR / GUV-R 190 Benutzung von Atemschutzgeräten . - Deutsche Gesetzliche Unfallversicherung eV (DGUV). - Berlin: Deutsche Gesetzliche Unfallversicherung eV (DGUV), Medienproduktion, 2011 .-- 174 p.
  6. ↑ Canadian Guidelines for the Use of RPDD, in French, Lara, Jaime; Vennes, Mireille. Guide pratique de protection respiratoire . - Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail du Québec. - Montréal, 2002 .-- 55 p. - ISBN 2-550-37465-7 .
Additional literature (USSR and RF)

All these documents were not binding, but were recommendations, or were valid on the scale of one enterprise or organization, or had a purely advertising nature:

  1. ↑ A. Shafranova. What you need to know about respirators (respiratory protection from occupational hazards) (methodological and technical instructions) / Ed. By Kaplun SI. - Moscow: Gostrudizdat, 1930 .-- 32 p. - (Popular Library of the State Scientific Institute of Labor Protection, Issue 5). - 15,000 copies.
  2. ↑ Izraelson Z.I. Personal protective equipment for workers in the chemical industry. - Moscow: NKTP USSR, ONTI General editors of chemical literature, 1935. - 88 p. - 2000 copies. Djvu
  3. ↑ Vidgorchik EA. Instructions for the use of industrial gas masks (draft). - Leningrad: Leningrad Institute of Occupational Health and Occupational Diseases, 1938. - 19 p. - 500 copies. Pdf
  4. ↑ Toropov SA. Tests of industrial filter gas masks. - All-Russian Research Institute of Labor Protection. - Moscow: GONTI NKTP Editorial Board of Chemical Literature, 1938. - P. 11. - 40 p. - 3000 copies. Pdf djvu
  5. ↑ S. A. Toropov “How to choose a gas mask for protection against gases, vapors and dust” All-Russian Research Institute of Labor Protection, Moscow, 1938
  6. ↑ 1 2 Kovalev N.S. General rules No. 106 for the care, storage and work in insulating and hose industrial gas masks, care and work on an oxygen pump . - Lysva: Kama Pulp and Paper Mill, 1944. - 64 p. (inaccessible link)
  7. ↑ 1 2 V.A. Sipyagin. Instructions for the care of a respirator Nigrizoloto RN-9 . - NKTSM USSR. Chap. control gold platinum industry. - Moscow, 1945 .-- 20 p.
  8. ↑ Toropov SA, Khabarov PG. Individual means of protection against dust // Scientific Research Institute of Occupational Medicine RAMS Occupational health and occupational diseases. - Moscow, 1960. - No. 7 . - S. 62 . - ISSN 0016-9919 .
  9. ↑ 1 2 Trumpayts Ya. I., Afanasyeva E. N. Individual respiratory protective equipment (album). - Leningrad: Profizdat, 1962. - 55 p.
  10. ↑ 1 2 Toropov SA. Protective equipment when working with pesticides in warehouses and bases "Agricultural equipment" (Recommendations). - All-Russian Association of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR "Rosselkhoztekhnika". - Moscow: Bureau of Technical Information, 1966. - 21 p.
  11. ↑ 1 2 N.V. Soloviev, N.A. Strelchuk, P.I. Ermilov, B.L. Kaner. Fundamentals of safety and fire fighting equipment in the chemical industry. Textbook / Ed. B. L. Caner. - 2. - Moscow: Chemistry, 1966 .-- 532 p. - 50,000 copies.
  12. ↑ 1 2 Gorodinsky SM. Personal protective equipment for working with radioactive substances. - Moscow: Atomizdat, 1967 .-- 320 p.
  13. ↑ 1 2 3 I.N. Nikiforov, S.L. Kaminsky, E.N. Afanasyev. Guidelines for the selection and use of personal respiratory protection. - Leningrad: VTsSPS. All-Union. scientific researcher Institute of labor protection, 1973. - 37 p.
  14. ↑ 1 2 3 Shkrabo M.L. and other industrial gas masks and respirators. Catalog. - Cherkasy: Department of NIITEKHIM, 1974.
  15. ↑ 1 2 I.N. Nikiforov, S.L. Kaminsky, E.N. Afanasyeva. Guidelines for the selection and use of personal respiratory protection. - 2. - Leningrad: VTsSPS. All-Union. scientific researcher Institute of labor protection, 1976. - 37 p.
  16. ↑ 1 2 3 V.A. Linetsky, V.I. Pryanikov. Labor protection, safety measures and fire prevention at the enterprises of the chemical industry. Tutorial. - Moscow: Chemistry, 1976 .-- 438 p. - 25,000 copies.
  17. ↑ 1 2 Kupchin AP. Personal protective equipment for workers in the workplace. - Moscow: Profizdat, 1977 .-- 112 p.
  18. ↑ 1 2 Shpitonkova LA. Catalog of personal protective equipment. - M: NIAT, 1979. - 170 p.
  19. ↑ 1 2 Gorodinsky SM. Personal protective equipment for working with radioactive substances. - 3. - Moscow: Atomizdat, 1979. - 296 p. - 5700 copies.
  20. ↑ 1 2 V.P. Kholoptsev. Personal protective equipment album for employees of ferrous metallurgy enterprises. - All-Russian Research Institute of Labor Protection and Safety Cher. metallurgy. - Moscow: Metallurgy, 1981. - 27 p.
  21. ↑ 1 2 3 Shkrabo M.L. and other industrial gas masks and respirators. Catalog. - Cherkasy: Department of NIITEKHIM, 1982. - 42 p.
  22. ↑ 1 2 3 Kaminsky S. L. Basmanov P. I. Individual respiratory protection. - Moscow: Engineering, 1982. - 126 p.
  23. ↑ 1 2 3 Smirnov KM et al. Guidelines for the use of personal respiratory protection. - L .: VTsSPS, VNIIOT, 1982.- 43 p.
  24. ↑ 1 2 Red Kuzmichev AC. Handbook on dust control in the mining industry. - Moscow: Nedra, 1982.- 240 p.
  25. ↑ 1 2 I.V. Petryanov, V.S. Koshcheev, P.I. Basmanov, N. B. Borisov, D. S. Goldstein, S. N. Shatsky. "Petal". Light respirators. - 1. - Moscow: Nauka, 1984. - 216 p.
  26. ↑ 1 2 Sosenkov UN et al. Use of personal respiratory protection when working with pesticides in agriculture. The use of personal respiratory protection when working with pesticides in agriculture. Guidelines. - Moscow: USSR Ministry of Health, 1985.
  27. ↑ 1 2 3 S. L. Kaminsky and others. Methodological instructions for use, personal respiratory protection. - Leningrad: VNIIOT VTsSPS, 1987. - 20 p.
  28. ↑ 1 2 3 S. L. Kaminsky and others. Personal protective equipment. Reference manual. - Leningrad: Chemistry, Leningrad. Branch, 1989 .-- 398 p. - ISBN 5-7245-0279-8 .
  29. ↑ 1 2 3 G.V. Makarov, A. Ya. Vasin, L.K. Marinina and others. Labor protection in the chemical industry. Textbook / Ed. G.V. Makarova. - Moscow: Chemistry, 1989 .-- 495 p. - ISBN 5-7245-0246-1 .
  30. ↑ 1 2 A.P. Lapin, V.A. Ratnikov, B.M. Tyurikov. Recommendations on the use of personal protective equipment against pesticides. ” - Orel: All-Russian Research Institute of Labor Protection of the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources of the Russian Federation, 1997. - 26 p.
  31. ↑ 1 2 3 Eremenko S. Yu. Catalog of domestic personal protective equipment. - Vseros. Center for labor protection and productivity of the Ministry of Labor of Russia. - Moscow, 1998 .-- 205 p.
  32. ↑ 1 2 3 Kaminsky S. L., Korobeinikova A. V. Individual respiratory protection. The choice. Application. Modes of labor. Method. recommendations . - St. Petersburg: Krismas +, 1999 .-- 400 p. - ISBN 5-89195-036-8 .
  33. ↑ 1 2 Rodin VE. Personal protective equipment for workers. Tutorial. - Yekaterinburg: Ur. state mining technol. Acad, 2002 .-- 106 p.
  34. ↑ 1 2 3 Basmanov PI, Kaminsky SL, Korobeinikova AB, ME Trubitsin. Personal respiratory protection. Reference guide. - St. Petersburg: GIIII "Art of Russia", 2002. - 400 p. - 5,000 copies. - ISBN 5-900-78671-4 .
  35. ↑ 1 2 Sorokin SOUTH et al. Personal protective equipment: Textbook. - Ministry of Health and Social Development of Russia. - Moscow: PIC "Offset", 2005. - 288 p. - ISBN 5-88257-064-6 .
  36. ↑ 1 2 Olonets VF, Olonets BB. Russian industrial gas masks and respirators: directory. - Perm: GU Perm. CSTI, 2005 .-- 79 p. - ISBN 5-93978-030-X .
  37. ↑ 1 2 3 4 Gushchina TV. Personal protective equipment. (A manual for students. And labor protection specialists). - Interregion. societies. org labor protection specialists (ASOT). - Moscow: Safety of work and life. - 403 s. - ISBN 5-98690-005-7 .
  38. ↑ 1 2 3 Koshelev V.E., Tarasov V.I. Just about the difficult to use respiratory protection. - Perm: Style-MG, 2007 .-- 280 p. - ISBN 978-5-8131-0081-9 .
  39. ↑ 1 2 Sorokin SOUTH, Safonov AL, etc. Personal protective equipment. Tutorial. - 3. - Moscow: Golden Calf, 2008. - S. 43-92. - 288 p. - 5,000 copies. - ISBN 5-88257-083-2 .
  40. ↑ 1 2 3 Mironov LA. The use of personal protective equipment: a training manual. - Nizhny Novgorod: Biota-plus, 2009 .-- 123 p. - ISBN 978-5-902095-19-4 .
  41. ↑ 1 2 3 Karnaukh NN, Rodin VE, Sorokin SOUTH. Teaching materials for training and advanced training of managers of personal protective equipment: a training manual. - Moscow: ENAS, 2010 .-- 482 p. - ISBN 978-5-4248-0010-8 .
  42. ↑ 1 2 Voznesensky V.V. Personal protective equipment for respiratory and skin Tutorial. - Moscow: Military knowledge, 2011. - 80 p. - ISBN 5-93802-079-5 .
  43. ↑ S.N. Shatsky, P.I. Basmanov. Anti-dust respirator model ШБ-1 “Petal” for respiratory protection from radioactive aerosols / Ed. A.A. Letaveta. - Proceedings of the All-Union Conference on Medical Radiology. Hygiene and dosimetry issues. - Moscow: Medgiz ,, 1957. - S. 44-48.
  44. ↑ 1 2 K. Shalyga (expert). How to choose a RPM // Labor protection and social insurance. - Moscow, 2006. - No. 8 (p. 28-32), 11 (p. 28-30) . - ISSN 0131-2618 .
  45. ↑ 1 2 Kaminsky S., A. Rogozhin. Recommendations on the selection and use of personal protective equipment for respiratory organs // Ministry of Emergencies of the Russian Federation . - Moscow, 2009. - No. 8 (p. 43), 9 (p. 49) . - ISSN 0869-5881 .
  46. ↑ 1 2 Catalog of ARTI OJSC , Table 1 on page 5: half-mask “ARTIX” (KZ> 5000), full-face masks with panoramic glass “ARTIRUS”, “ARTIRUS-M” and “ARTIRUS-1” (KZ> 100 000) and a full-face mask with panoramic glass MPG-IZOD (KZ> 1 000 000 - with a MPC of non-toxic dust of 10 mg / m 3 this corresponds to a concentration of more than 10 kg / m 3 )
State standards and technical specifications of the Russian Federation
  1. ↑ 1 2 GOST 12.4.028-76
  2. ↑ TU 6-16-2942-86
  3. ↑ TU 205 of the Ukrainian SSR 102-82
  4. ↑ TU 6-16-2485-81
  5. ↑ TU 6-16-2267-78
  6. ↑ TU 12.43ED1-79-909
  7. ↑ GOST 17269-71
  8. ↑ GOST 12.4.004-74
  9. ↑ 1 2 GOST R 12.4.190-99 Personal respiratory protection. Half masks and quarter masks made of insulating materials
  10. ↑ 1 2 GOST R 12.4.191-99 Personal respiratory protection. Filter masks for protection against aerosols
  11. ↑ 1 2 GOST R 12.4.191-2011 (EN 149: 2001 + A1: 2009) Filtering half masks for protection against aerosols. General specifications
  12. ↑ 1 2 GOST R 12.4.192-99 Filter masks with inspiratory valves and fixed gas masks and (or) combined filters
  13. ↑ 1 2 3 4 GOST R 12.4.189-99 Personal respiratory protection. Masks.]
  14. ↑ Facial panoramic mask PPM-88 TU 2568-022-54598330-2005
  15. ↑ 1 2 GOST R 12.4.279-2012 Personal respiratory protection. Recommendations for selection, use and maintenance

Notes

  1. ↑ Kirillov VF, Filin AS, Chirkin AB. Review of the results of industrial tests of personal respiratory protective equipment (RPE) (rus.) // Federal State Budget Institution "Russian Register of Potentially Hazardous Chemical and Biological Substances" of Rospotrebnadzor Toxicological Bulletin. - Moscow, 2014. - No. 6 . - S. 44-49 . - ISSN 0869-7922 . - DOI : 10.17686 / sced_rusnauka_2014-1034 . Wiki
  2. ↑ 1 2 3 Kirillov VF, Bunchev AA, Chirkin AB. On personal protective equipment for respiratory organs of workers (literature review) (Russian) // Scientific Research Institute of Occupational Medicine, RAMS Occupational medicine and industrial ecology. - Moscow, 2013. - No. 4 . - S. 25-31 . - ISSN 1026-9428 . - DOI : 10.17686 / sced_rusnauka_2013-1033 . ( PDF , JPG , Wiki )
  3. ↑ 1 2 Tannahill SN, RJ Willey and MH Jackson. Workplace Protection Factors of HSE Approved Negative Pressure Full-Facepiece Dust Respirators During Asbestos Stripping: Preliminary Findings // The British Occupational Hygiene Society The Annals of Occupational Hygiene. - Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1990. - Vol. 34 , no. 6 . - P. 541-552 . - ISSN 1475-3162 . - DOI : 10.1093 / annhyg / 34.6.547 .
  4. ↑ BM Tyurikov, VI Gavrishchuk. Respiratory protection when working with mineral fertilizers // Ways to accelerate the normalization of working conditions of agricultural workers. - Eagle: VNIIOT, 1988 .-- S. 116-121 .
  5. ↑ Video recording of the half-mask test, clearly showing their low insulating properties: on Wikimedia Commons ; from youtube
  6. ↑ Rules for the selection and use of personal respiratory protective equipment (NPAOP 0.00-1.04-07)
  7. ↑ 1 2 3 4 5 DSTU EN 529-2006. Personal respiratory protection. Recommendations on the selection, use, care and maintenance.
  8. ↑ Guidelines R 2.2.2006-05 “Guidelines for the hygienic assessment of working environment and labor process factors. Criteria and classification of working conditions "
  9. ↑ Methodical instructions of MU 2.2.5.2810-10. "Organization of laboratory control of harmful substances in the air of the working zone of enterprises of major industries" Archived copy of October 19, 2014 on Wayback Machine
  10. ↑ Nelson Leidel, Kenneth Bush & Jeremiah Lich. NIOSH Occupational Exposure Sampling Strategy Manual . - Cincinnati, Ohio: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1977 .-- 150 p. - (DHHS (NIOSH) Publication Number 77-173). There is a translation: PDF Wiki
  11. ↑ United Kingdom, British Standard BS 4275: 1997 Guide to implementing an effective respiratory protective device program :

    If the air at the place of work is contaminated, it is important to determine whether it is possible to reduce (to an acceptable level) the risk posed by these contaminants with the help of technical means and organizational measures - and not with the help of respirators. ... If the identified risk is unacceptable, then to prevent or reduce the harmful effects, you must first use the methods that are indicated in paragraphs ( a ) - ( c ) for prevention and in paragraphs ( d ) - ( k ) to reduce the risk, not respiratory protection. ...

    a) Use of other substances that are less toxic.
    b) The use of the same substances in a less hazardous form, for example, the replacement of fine powder with coarse, or granules, or solution.
    c) Replacing the process with another so that dust formation is reduced.
    d) Process and material handling in fully or partially sealed equipment.
    e) Shelter installation in combination with local ventilation suction.
    f) Local exhaust ventilation - local exhausts (without shelters).
    g) Use of general ventilation.
    h) Reducing the duration of exposure periods.
    i) Organization of work in such a way as to reduce the ingress of contaminants into the air, for example, closing unused containers.
    j) The use of measuring equipment and related alarms to alert people that excess air pollution levels have been exceeded.
    k) Efficient cleaning.
    l) Implementation of a respiratory protection program.
    Since in many cases it is impossible to reduce the risk of inhalation of contaminated air by workers in one way, you need to carefully study all steps a) to l) that are designed to reduce air pollution, or to reduce the risk of inhalation of polluted air. But using a combination of two or more methods can reduce the risk to an acceptable level.
    The requirements of this standard should be met at all times while the risk of inhalation of contaminated air will be developed and carried out using all reasonable technical and organizational measures (without the use of an RPD), and after such a reduction has been completed.
    ... If carrying out measures to reduce risks does not allow to ensure safe and healthy working conditions, an assessment must be made of the residual risk of inhalation of polluted air or absorption of harmful substances through the skin. This will determine which (type) of respirators is needed, and what should be the respiratory protection program.

    USA, 29 CFR 1910.134 " Respiratory Protection " (available translation) PDF Wiki

    1910.134 (a) (1) The main way to prevent occupational diseases arising from inhalation of air polluted by dust, fog, smoke, smog, harmful gases and aerosols should be to prevent exposure to harmful substances in humans and to prevent air pollution. To do this, it is necessary (as far as possible) to automate and mechanize production, change the materials used and the technological process, apply technical means, for example, pressurize production equipment and use ventilation equipment. In cases where these methods are not effective enough, or during their installation and repair, reliable and effective respirators should be used.

    Germany, DIN EN 529: 2006 Atemschutzgeräte - Empfehlungen für Auswahl, Einsatz, Pflege und Instandhaltung - Leitfaden

    ... The effects of harmful substances on workers should be eliminated (reduced to a safe level). If this is impossible, or difficult to do, then it should be reduced to a minimum at the source through the use of technical, organizational and other measures - before respirators are applied.

    ... СИЗОД должны использоваться только в том случае, когда выполняется одно или несколько условий:
    а) Использованы другие средства, но их оказалось недостаточно;
    b) Воздействие превышает предельно допустимое, а средства (коллективной и технической) защиты пока только устанавливаются;
    c) Рабочим приходится работать в условиях, близких к ЧС, так как выполнение работы нельзя отложить до момента, когда воздействие будет снижено в источнике другими средствами.
    d) Рабочие подвергаются воздействию, превышающему предельно допустимое, редко и непродолжительно, так что использование других методов защиты непрактично;
    e) Необходим самоспасатель для самостоятельной эвакуации в случае возникновения ЧС;
    f) Выполнение аварийных работ спасателями.
  12. ↑ В. Голинько, С. Чеберячко, А Чиркин. Способны ли предотвратить профессиональные заболевания противопылевые респираторы? // Технополис. — Днепропетровск, 2015. — № 1 . — С. 30-32 . — ISSN 1606-9412 .
  13. ↑ Anita L. Wolfe и Jay F. Colinet Влияние на здоровье чрезмерного воздействия респирабельной пыли угля и кварца . В учебнике: Лучшие способы снижения запылённости в угольных шахтах. (Best Practices for Dust Control in Coal Mining) DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2010–110
  14. ↑ Роик ВД. Вызовы безопасности труда на индустриальном этапе и ответы на них // Совет Федерации Федерального собрания РФ Аналитический вестник Совета Федерации ФС РФ, "Актуальные вопросы совершенствования законодательства об охране труда". — Москва, 2007. — № 5(322) .
  15. ↑ Денисов Э.И. Реформа медицины труда во Франции: состояние проблемы и новый закон (рус.) // НИИ медицины труда РАМН Медицина труда и промышленная экология. — Москва, 2013. — № 5 . — С. 22-26 . - ISSN 1026-9428 .
  16. ↑ Использование высококачественных СИЗОД (как и качественной летней обуви) в условиях, на которые они не рассчитаны (летней обуви - зимой в неотапливаемых помещениях) приводит к развитию заболеваний. Но, в отличие от обуви (в примере), эффективность респираторов очень непостоянна, и потому даже заведомо недостаточно надёжные СИЗОД иногда хорошо защищают рабочих, что мешает им разобраться в происходящем.
  17. ↑ Чиркин АВ. Читатель просит поддержки. Письмо в редакцию (рус.) // ЗАО "Охрана труда и социальное страхование" Охрана труда. Практикум. — Москва: Профиздат, 2015. — № 2 . — С. 46-52 . — ISSN 0131-2618 .
  18. ↑ МУ 2.2.5.2810-10 Организация лабораторного контроля содержания вредных веществ в воздухе рабочей зоны предприятий основных отраслей экономики. стр. 11: Архивная копия от 19 октября 2014 на Wayback Machine "Отбор проб производят в зоне дыхания работающего либо с максимальным приближением к ней воздухозаборного устройства ( на высоте 1,5 м от пола рабочей площадки при работе стоя и 1,0 м - при работе сидя). Если рабочее место не постоянное, отбор проб проводят в точках рабочей зоны , в которых работник находится в течение смены"
  19. ↑ Согласуется с : «Изолирующие СИЗОД по виду защиты не классифицируются, так как предназначены для защиты от вредных веществ любых концентраций»
  20. ↑ Швецова ОА. Критерии оптимального выбора средств защиты органов дыхания // Справочник специалиста по охране труда. — Москва: МЦФР, 2010. — № 10 . — С. 38-44 . — ISSN 1727-6608 .
  21. ↑ Federal Register vol. 68, No 109Friday, June 6, 2003 pp. 34036-34119 Assigned Protection Factors
  22. ↑ В.Ф. Кириллов. Об эффективности фильтpующих сpедств индивидуальной защиты оpганов дыхания (рус.) // Безопасность жизнедеятельности. — Москва: "Новые технологии", 2015. — № 5 . — С. 24-28 . — ISSN 1684-6435 .
  23. ↑ Владимир Кириллов. Эффективность фильтрующих СИЗОД (рус.) // ЗАО "Охрана труда и социальное страхование" Охрана труда. Практикум. — Москва: Профиздат, 2015. — № 10 . — С. 49-52 . — ISSN 0131-2618 . Ссылка 2
  24. ↑ 1 2 Сорокин ЮГ (АСИЗ). Роль средств индивидуальной защиты в охране труда // Справочник специалиста по охране труда. — Москва: МЦФР, 2011. — № 7 . — С. 43-48 . — ISSN 1727-6608 .
  25. ↑ Шалыга ГК, Рогожин ИБ. Средства индивидуальной защиты органов дыхания должны соответствовать европейским стандартам. Объективная необходимость // Справочник специалиста по охране труда. — Москва: МЦФР, 2005. — № 12 . - S. 84-90 . — ISSN 1727-6608 .
  26. ↑ Рогожин ИБ. Разработчики, изготовители и поставщики средств индивидуальной защиты решили объединиться // Справочник специалиста по охране труда. — Москва: МЦФР, 2002. — № 4 . — С. 56-59 . — ISSN 1727-6608 .
  27. ↑ 1 2 Сорокин ЮГ (АСИЗ). Направления взаимодействия изготовителей и поставщиков средств индивидуальной защиты со специалистами по охране труда // Справочник специалиста по охране труда. — Москва: МЦФР, 2014. — № 8 . — С. 49-56 . — ISSN 1727-6608 .
  28. ↑ Васильев ЕВ, Гизатуллин ШФ, Спельникова МИ (3М). Проблема выбора и использования противогазо-аэрозольных фильтрующих полумасок // Справочник специалиста по охране труда. — Москва: МЦФР, 2014. — № 12 . — С. 51-55 . — ISSN 1727-6608 .
  29. ↑ Соловьёв А.П. Организация охраны труда с учётом международных норм и правил // Справочник специалиста по охране труда. — Москва: МЦФР, 2003. — № 10 . — С. 7-14 . — ISSN 1727-6608 .
  30. ↑ Мазеин СА, Усов АА. Правильный выбор средств индивидуальной защиты // Справочник специалиста по охране труда. — Москва: МЦФР, 2006. — № 11 . — С. 55-61 . — ISSN 1727-6608 .
  31. ↑ Sorokin SOUTH, President of the Association of PPE. The role of Personal Protective Equipment in reducing occupational morbidity // Materials of the 12th Congress “Profession and Health” 2013 - Moscow: Scientific Research Institute of Occupational Medicine RAMS, 2013. - S. Slide No. 7 . Archived on April 10, 2015.
  1. ↑ 1 2 Labor Code of the Russian Federation (as amended on August 3, 2018)
Источник — https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Законодательное_регулирование_выбора_и_организации_применения_респираторов&oldid=101921720


More articles:

  • Sodium trithiostate
  • 2C-C
  • IT45
  • Brossman, Karl-Friedrich-Gustav
  • Kustuzh
  • Shirley Fry
  • Parade, Oleg Vasilievich
  • Soul (song)
  • Lynch, Richard
  • Lermontov, Mikhail Nikolaevich

All articles

Clever Geek | 2019