BOHS Exposure Magazine - Issue 4 by BOHS

EXPOSURE PROMOTING A HEALTHY WORKING ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL

SPECIAL FEATURE

RPE FIT TESTING IN REAL WORLD SCENARIOS.

WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?

ALSO INSIDE THIS ISSUE ❚❚ History of occupational hygiene ❚❚ Interview with a young hygienist ❚❚ Pay & benefits report ❚❚ News from BOHS ❚❚ Meet Jonathan Grant The official magazine of

AUGUST 2018

INSIDE

EXPOSURE MAGAZINE #4

Welcome

3 WELCOME

Dear readers,

4 PRESIDENT’S COLUMN

Welcome to the fourth issue of Exposure Magazine. How have we entered the second half of the year so quickly? Time has flown with all the exciting projects we have been involved in: our new Asbestos in Soils qualification, our collaboration with EU-OSHA and EEF which brought a new series of manufacturing roadshows, our first FAAM conference and a brand new membership portal, to name a few - everything to improve your BOHS experience. Find out more in ‘BOHS News’ pages.

5 CEO’S COLUMN 6 HISTORY OF OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE - PART 1 10 RPE FIT TESTING IN REAL WORLD SCENARIOS 14 INTERVIEW WITH A YOUNG OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENIST 18 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH PAY AND BENEFITS REPORT 19 NEWS FROM BOHS 21 MEET THE MEMBER 22 SAVE THE DATES

BOHS FOCUS 14 INTERVIEW WITH A YOUNG OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENIST

ONLINE RESOURCES

In this edition Trevor Ogden publishes his first in a series of articles focusing on the history of occupational hygiene through the centuries. You can find this fascinating article on pages 6-9. On pages 10-12, David Lombardi and Dr. Alexander Bianchi examine the efficacy of respiratory protective equipment (RPE) in the ‘real world’. On page 18 John Ballard presents the very interesting results of the seventh biennial occupational health pay and benefits survey carried out by the At Work Partnership. On page 14 Laura Morris describes her experience as a young occupational hygienist, whilst on page 21 we are interviewing Jonathan Grant, one of our newly-appointed Council Members. And don’t forget, we are always looking for our next Exposure star; so, if you want to get involved in the production of our magazine, just email us at marketing@ bohs.org.

Happy reading!

Read the latest from our scientific journal, Annals of Work

THE EXPOSURE TEAM

Exposures and Health at:

CAROLINE SMITH

EVI KARMOU

academic.oup.com/annweh/issue

CLAIRE CREED

SHANI JACKSON

LATEST BOHS NEWS & INFO @BOHS BOHS Head Office 5/6 Melbourne Business Court, Millennium Way, Pride Park, Derby, DE24 8LZ, UK T: + 44 (0) 1332 298101 | F: + 44 (0) 1332 298099 | admin@bohs.org | www.bohs.org The views expressed in this issue are not necessarily those of BOHS Council

EXPOSURE MAGAZINE #4 - the official magazine of BOHS

@BOHSworld @BOHS Video @BOHSworld

PRESIDENT’S COLUMN

BOHS PRAISED FOR RUNNING THE BREATHE FREELY CAMPAIGN AND RAISING AWARENESS NEIL GRACE BOHS PRESIDENT

Firstly, for those stalwarts who could stay for the “round-up” session at OH2018, a big thank you! As I mentioned on the day, there had been a “book” running on how many attendees would still be at conference at 15:40 on the last day. In fact, it was 10 minutes later than that, due to a previous session having overrun. So maybe the bets were void anyway… But, to be honest, the turnout was better than expected. My closing session was a very positive one, which included a lot of thank you(s) to all the people involved in organising and delivering the conference, some names I have to mention include: Andy Wallace (Chair), Christian Dolphin, Katie Gray, Marie Townshend and Rachel Sipson. There had been an amazing range of topics and issues raised via the parallel sessions with “INNOVATION” being a strong influencer. The range covered all the major themes you would expect to see at an OH conference: Asbestos, RPE, Dermal protection, Legionella, EMF, REACH, OELs & Noise & HAV. Additionally, there were updates from FAAM, Breathe Freely, OHTA, NIOSH, and also, on what seems a regular topic now, Clive Johnson gave an update on the Mates in Mind (mental health) initiative. I am looking forward to welcoming you all to sunny Brighton for OH2019 next year!

For my second article for Exposure magazine, I am once again in a hotel room; although, this one is 3,400 miles from the UK… I am representing BOHS at the American Industrial Hygiene Conference & Expo (AIHce) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

BOHS was invited to speak at a Cross Working Party Group (accident prevention and safety) in the Scottish Parliament. On 1st May, I went along to the Scottish Parliament Building at Holyrood to give an update on the Breathe Freely campaign. Helen Pearson, who has close ties with the Scottish IOSH and RoSPA committees, managed to secure the opportunity; thanks Helen!

I spoke about the campaign background and why we originally initiated it, as well as Mike Slater being the driving force in his presidency and beyond. My main focus was the Breathe Freely in Manufacturing initiative, especially “welding”, since we had received a request specifically for this topic, as there would have been union representation from the BAE shipyard in Govan. The session went well and received some good questions and debate. My final challenge to the working group was to take positive action to reduce occupational ill health in Scotland, specifically on respiratory disease by asking them to “Join us and be part of the solution”.

A GMB Convenor, called John Brown, spoke after me. Firstly, he thanked BOHS for running the campaign and praised us for raising awareness on this topic as well as the free resources we provide. He challenged employers and the government to do more and gave examples of how the latent health effects I had previously described would increase if they didn’t take action. A paper had been written in conjunction with Unite the Union and the Scottish Hazards Centre: “Welding Fume – a fair work plan of action”, which was shared at the event. I have searched for a copy on their website to no avail, but I can provide a scanned version of the paper copy.

Finally with Mike Slater stepping away from the Breathe Freely campaign, I would like to personally thank him for all his hard work and determination in: firstly, seeing the potential for an initiative like this; and, secondly, for his dedication to ensure it would be a positive driver in raising awareness of occupational hygiene and also introduce “worker health protection” to thousands of workers across the UK. Well done Mike!

BOHS.ORG

CEO’S COLUMN

I’M ENSURING WE DELIVER EXCEPTIONAL SERVICE TO OUR MEMBERS In the first few editions of Exposure Magazine (since I joined the Society at the end of last year), I have elaborated on my ideas of how a professional body like BOHS should run. In particular, I have described my view that the staff run the “machinery” of the Society, whilst yourselves as members are responsible for the “content” (i.e. all of the expertise in occupational hygiene and related disciplines, which feeds into our collective work).

This implies, of course, that staff and members/volunteers should work together cooperatively and harmoniously to deliver the public benefit that we seek to achieve through promoting and developing the discipline of occupational hygiene. Since I’m still in my first year as CEO, I’m still in the process of shaping the Head Office to ensure we deliver exceptional service to our members. A substantial part of that is making sure that the machinery works well. As I reported earlier this year, we have had problems with our IT, website, and central database that allows membership and conference bookings. In order to ensure that our members have the best possible experience, we’ve decided to invest in our infrastructure. We are making good progress on the replacements of IT systems, and things should be very much improved by around the end of the year. Now that these operational plans are in place, staff will be looking forward to the time when we can all be more outwardfacing. The external relationships which BOHS develops and maintains are vital for us to work with and influence other bodies. We are already involved in many successful and ongoing partnerships and collaborations. As CEO I’ve made the initial contacts with closely related bodies, such as

SOM, IOSH, CIEH and the CIEHF. This summer and autumn, I will be following up with more detailed discussions of how we might collaborate with these and other similar related organisations. As part of understanding our external relationships, I attended the first of the EU-OSHA funded Breathe Freely roadshows in Sheffield in June. Both this and the subsequent follow-up event in Barrow-in-Furness in July were highly successful, with over 70 delegates each. I would very much like to thank our partners in these collaborations, in particular EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation and the EUOSHA initiative – Healthy Workplaces Manage Dangerous Substances. The focus of these events was the protection of welders’ respiratory health in manufacturing. This is a topic where there are significant questions about the adequacy of how current control measures are implemented; and therefore significant concerns about the ongoing health risks for welders. The Breathe Freely campaign has involved substantial commitment from many individuals, who have put in their time on a voluntary basis to further the cause. We are immensely grateful for that contribution. The feedback I receive when I liaise with other organisations is that Breathe Freely remains highprofile for BOHS, and so continues to contribute to raising awareness of occupational hygiene in the UK.

EXPOSURE MAGAZINE #4 - the official magazine of BOHS

There are, of course, plenty of activities going on across the spectrum for BOHS. I would like to flag up important conferences, which we are organising for the months ahead: • 25-26 September 2018, X2018 – the 9th International Conference on the Science of Exposure Assessment, Manchester, UK • 8-9 November 2018, Faculty of Asbestos Assessment & Management (FAAM) Conference, Park Inn Manchester The latter is the first conference to be organised by our new faculty - FAAM. We are delighted by the energy, enthusiasm and commitment of all those involved, and hope that everyone working in this field will make a special effort to attend.

Finally, on the theme of asbestos, the Society has just launched the longawaited Asbestos in Soils qualification. This is the first such qualification in the industry, and includes a practical assessment of soils under the AISS scheme. Candidates can learn how to safely identify and quantify asbestos in soil samples.

FEATURE HISTORY OF OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE PART 1

WORKERS GET ILL BUT CAN ANYTHING BE DONE? BY TREVOR OGDEN

People have been practising occupational hygiene in Britain for over 300 years, if by that we mean attempting to assess and control causes of ill-health at work. That is more than four times the age of BOHS! This article is the first in a series moving through the story of what happened, looking at some of the developments, ideas, and personalities. It is not a formal history, but I hope that this series gives a perspective on how we got where we are today. WORKERS GET ILL A few years ago, Michael Attfield, who has published many papers on the epidemiology of occupational lung disease, was researching his family history, and discovered an interesting record from 1705. The Parish Clerk of Ubley, at the foot of the Mendips in Somerset, broke into mournful verse as he recorded the death of a villager in the parish register. The clerk wrote that John Dirrick’s “constant employment was under ground, his long distemper was shortness of breath’ until after a life ‘in labour and forever in grief and pain’, he ‘surrendered his soul to God again”. John Dirrick was a lead miner, and the problems in that industry were well known. Later in the century, Dr Johnson wrote in his famous dictionary that the smoke from the Mendip lead works was a “prodigious annoyance’ and caused ‘mortal disease”. But the special thing about John is that he is the first individual we know by name who suffered from an occupational disease in Britain; although, by then, thousands of his fellow countrymen would have died early from diseases caused by their work, and tens of thousands elsewhere. The Royal Society had heard about occupational risks in 1665, a generation before John’s death. Walter Pope, Professor of Astronomy at Gresham

College, had written to the Society about a visit he had made to a mercury mine at Idria, in what is now Slovenia. He said that the miners “indure not long; for, although none stay underground above 6 hours; all of them in time (some later, some sooner) become paralytick and die.” Professor Pope also recorded that the workers he had seen in Venice using the mercury to make looking glasses suffered from palsy. His letter was included in the first volume of the Society’s journal, Philosophical Transactions. (For references, see note at end.) People have realised for thousands of years that work caused disease, and some suggested treatments; but did we have predecessors as occupational hygienists, who tried to do something about it? We did - they included physicians, engineers, and mechanics, who tried to find ways of improving conditions. The recognition and assessment phases were not formalised: they saw a problem and tried to solve it; and in most cases, their efforts were applied locally and were not recorded. In this series of articles, I have tried to highlight some efforts of these pioneering predecessors that were recorded, so we can honour what they did. One physician who looked widely into causes and had a long influence on occupational medicine in Britain

and elsewhere was an Italian called Bernardino Ramazzini, who about the time of John Dirrick’s death published De Morbis Artificum Diatriba (‘The Diseases of Workers’), and described the working conditions of an astonishing variety of trades, and the diseases which they caused, often after a short exposure. Ramazzini looked into the detail of a world of work which polite society ignored, but on which it depended: privy cleaners, pall-bearers, printers, starch processors, silk dressers, sifters of grain, salt-workers, scribes, sailors, soap-makers, woodworkers, well-diggers, wet-nurses, and many others; and he wrote about them with sympathy. In mining, he recognised the twin hazards of inhaling “vapours and toxic dust particles’, and ‘the violent and unnatural movements that impair the very structure of the body”. In doing so, he recognised two classes of hazard which have run through occupational disease: external agents, and the rigours which the body and mind have to face to do the work. However, Ramazzini’s focus was on what could be given to sufferers to relieve their inevitable sicknesses; he had little to offer on protection, other than averting the head from fumes, covering nose and mouth with a handkerchief to avoid dust, and washing body and clothes afterwards. But other people were at work on the problems.

BOHS.ORG

Ramazzini looked into the detail of a world of work which polite society ignored, but on which it depended. VENTILATION Ventilation and personal protection must have been obvious from antiquity as preventive measures. Georg Pawer (Latinised as Georgius Agricola) was a broadly-educated physician who between 1527 and his death in 1556 had a series of posts in the area around the present-day borders of Germany and the Czech Republic. He was, therefore,

about 150 years before Ramazzini. He wrote a detailed treatise on mining, De Re Metallica, and gave details of systems of ventilation, which tried to provide breathable air hundreds of metres from the surface. A simple technique was to build a wooden structure at the top of the shaft to divert the wind into the mine. More complicated structures were enclosed fans and bellows, which could

EXPOSURE MAGAZINE #4 - the official magazine of BOHS

be operated by men, horses, or wind or water power, to draw foul air out along wooden pipes, so that clean air would enter along the tunnels and replace it (see Fig.1). The area where Agricola worked then led Europe in mining, and some workers from there were brought to England in Elizabethan times; so similar techniques may have been introduced here.

FEATURE WORKERS GET ILL BUT CAN ANYTHING BE DONE?

Fig.1 One of Agricola’s devices for drawing “foul air” out of a mine. The bellows C draws the air out of the mine through pipe B, and clean air goes down the shaft D to replace it. This system clearly depends on a fit and committed operator. Image from Georgius Agricola, De Re Metallica, Book 6 (1556).

the manufactories in preparing minimum protect the face with masks of loose bladder-skin, in order to avoid inhaling the dust, which is highly pernicious; the covering being at the same time sufficiently transparent to admit of being seen through”. In Britain, underground mining had been going on since Neolithic times for flint, and since the Bronze Age for copper and tin, and continued in many places through Roman times and the Middle Ages. No doubt miners in this country protected themselves as best they could, but as with ventilation, we do not know for certain if any of Agricola’s or Pliny’s methods were used here. AN ATTEMPT TO CONTROL AT SOURCE

See http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38015/38015-h/38015-h.htm

Back in the deliberations of the Royal Society, in 1665, Sir Robert Moray described a somewhat similar device to Agricola’s in use in what is now Belgium. In this case the pipe from the working provided the air-supply for a furnace where the draught was created by a high chimney. This was less dependent on the continuous physical effort of an operator, and should have provided an effective way of drawing air from the pit, so that clean air would be drawn in to replace it. It was recognised at that time that having two shafts into a mine can provide improved ventilation if a through draught can be induced. This could happen if the temperature of the air in the mine was different from outside and the two exits were at different levels. Also, a fire could be used to increase the through draught. In 1686, Robert Plot, who was Professor of Chemistry at Oxford, described how in a Staffordshire mine an iron cradle containing a fire was lowered into one to the shafts to produce the through flow. Plot recognised that the gases in the mine could either asphyxiate (e.g, as we now know, by carbon dioxide), poison (e.g. by carbon monoxide), or explode (methane). Agricola was also aware of the additional longer-term problem for miners, that “sometimes their lungs rot away”, but apparently he did not know this was caused by dust.

So all of these techniques and learned insights predated John Dirrick’s death in the Mendips; but we do not know if any were applied there. Lead sulphide ore, which John worked, is very insoluble; so may not have been much of a hazard itself. The general dusts in the mine would have been damaging, and the more soluble lead compounds produced by lead smelting certainly would have been. In his 16th century treatise, Agricola describes smelting at length, but, as far as I can see, he does not say anything about protection. PERSONAL PROTECTION Agricola did however write about the use of personal protective equipment in mining, including the importance of protecting the hands and legs against acidic mine water. On respiratory protection, he says that the miners “should fasten loose veils over their faces; the dust will then neither be drawn through these into their windpipes and lungs, nor will it fly into their eyes”. There is, however, a much earlier record of respiratory protection overseas. Pliny the Elder, who died in the eruption of Vesuvius in AD79, wrote, amongst many other things, of the process of preparing minium – a pigment which could either be made of red lead (Pb3O4), or of cinnabar (HgS), both of course hazardous. Pliny says in his Natural History, “Persons employed in

At the beginning of the 18th century, about the time of John Dirrick’s death, there was a growing pottery industry in Staffordshire, and it was discovered that adding up to 50% of calcined flint to clay produced a pottery with enhanced strength, whiteness, and dimensional stability during firing. We now know that flint is a form of crystalline silica, about 99% pure. Calcining, which is heating to around 1000°C, produced a whiter flint which could be more readily crushed to a fine powder in large iron mortars. The fine powder was then passed through hair sieves. The process was mechanised, and spread in The Potteries area round Stoke-on-Trent. But the problem was that inhaling the powder quickly produced fatal disease, which we now recognise as silicosis, and there was a rapid increase in the number of cases in those “exposed to the baneful effects of the dry and impalpable dust which floated round them as they worked”. These are the words of Eliza Meteyard, who relates the story in her Life of Josiah Wedgwood, and tells how a decorator from London, called Thomas Benson, was painting at nearby Trentham Hall, heard of the problem, and thought that the process used for grinding colours might be adapted. He borrowed money, tried the process, and in 1726 was granted a patent for wet grinding of the calcined flint. The patent was described and illustrated in an Annals of Occupational Hygiene paper by Tim Carter in 2004 (see Acknowledgements below). The process involved first wetting and then grinding the calcined flints between iron “millstones”; this produced

BOHS.ORG

a sand-like powder. The powder was transferred to a pan, where the powder was crushed further under water by rollers or stones, pushed round by a paddle-wheel-like structure rotating round a vertical axis and powered by a water wheel (see Fig 2) . The pan had a hard chert floor, and the stones were of a slightly softer chert, so wore away quicker. The slurry of powdered flint could then be drawn off. Benson’s process was therefore an early – perhaps the first – example of a wet process being substituted to prevent dust getting airborne, permitting a very useful industrial advance in pottery without an increase in risk. However, according to Eliza Meteyard, Benson never recovered the money he had put into the development, and died in poverty. BOHS has been accustomed to name its awards after deceased or elderly members, including two after one person, but perhaps Benson deserves to have an award named after him to commemorate his initiative. Despite the work of Benson and others, silicosis in pottery making remained a serious problem until the middle of the

Fig 2. Grinding mills like those described in Benson’s 1726 patent, at the Etruria Industrial Museum, Stoke-on-Trent. Photo: the author, but thanks to the volunteers at the museum for their help. These mills can be seen in operation on a YouTube video, https://www.youtube.com/ watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vUZD5XmBNJY.

20th century, with 40 to 50 cases a year in the 1940s. Crushed flint was not only used in the clay, but to support pots in firing. The disease was finally dealt with by substituting alumina for silica. By 1800, then, the obvious measures of general ventilation and respiratory protection were used, and wet grinding had reduced the risk in at least one industry; but mechanisation was growing fast, and often meant more hazardous material in the air, and no doubt more noise and more accidents. There will be more on this and more predecessors to be proud of, in Part 2 in the next issue. Acknowledgements. Adrian Hirst and Tim

EXPOSURE MAGAZINE #4 - the official magazine of BOHS

Carter provided very valuable comments on a draft of this article, but of course are not responsible for the outcome. Tim’s paper, British Occupational Hygiene Practice, 1720-1920 (Ann Occ Hyg 48: 299-307 (2004)) is strongly recommended. It first interested me in this subject and has been a useful source for these articles.

SCAN QR CODE FOR REFERENCES

COVER FEATURE

RPE FIT TESTING IN REAL WORLD SCENARIOS

WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?

BY DAVID LOMBARDI & DR. ALEXANDER BIANCHI

It may be a simplistic opening statement, but most of us would recognise that, during training, almost all occupational hygienists are taught that the use of respiratory protective equipment (RPE) is a ‘last resort’. In the well-recognised ‘hierarchy of control measures’, selection of personal protective equipment (PPE) sits at the ‘ground floor’ of the hierarchy. And this includes respiratory protective equipment. Nevertheless, without going into detail, it is also generally recognised that under many circumstances the practical everyday application of risk measures in the workplace means that RPE is usually employed; this, whether used in isolation to control exposure, or, as is more likely, as part of an integrated suite of exposure control measures. As has been the case for some time, we accept that the use of RPE is necessary as a mitigation measure whilst enhanced controls are being developed. Ideally with the longer term objective of being able to take workers permanently out of RPE in a health-focused manner. In other cases, it is argued that RPE is always going to be necessary longerterm to control exposures that don’t lend themselves to other forms of control. Or needed to manage the identified residual exposure risk that may occur. In an ideal world every work situation could be engineered or organised so as to totally eliminate the need for RPE. However, as long as we have humans doing the hazardous work, we are still some way from this ideal situation.

THE PROBLEM WITH RPE It follows that if workers need to wear RPE to protect their health as well as benefit more broadly from its use, then it must basically work. To let the arrow fly, pull back the bow. But wearing RPE is not as easy as people who have never worn it in anger might recognise. Moreover, it has to be verified in the correct manner and in compliance with all necessary regulations and accepted good practices. As such, the well known HSE guidance publication, HSG53 Respiratory Protective Equipment at Work, is probably one of the most essential guidance documents in the UK for managers and users of RPE alike. It follows that, apart from someone wearing the wrong RPE entirely, and/or with incorrect or exhausted filtration, RPE that happens to leak during use can be a very serious detriment for performance and health. Put simply: it has to be the correct RPE (relative to the challenge hazard(s) and airborne concentration); it has to fit the worker’s face properly; and it needs to be leak tight. Any compromise on these requirements risks worker health in a potentially serious way, as well as a serious waste of money. (Marsh and Bianchi, 2011) But despite all of these caveats, we know, or at least suspect, that

in the so-called ‘real world’ many RPE programmes struggle to deliver on the expectations (e.g. regulatory, industry standard, site procedure), and succeed only in delivering performance well below par. (Bianchi et al, 2011; Lombardi and Bianchi, 2018) In some other quarters, it is postulated that some of the most worrying chronic health outcomes for workers might well have been historically related to longterm underperforming RPE use. Prosecution and litigation lawyers certainly think so and will ask defendants for proof in the case of legal action. But surely, RPE selection and implementation is so well developed nowadays that full compliance is essentially a low-hanging fruit? To explore this, as part of an MSc research programme (Lombardi, 2017), a focused study was conducted examining not only differences in how RPE was fit-tested (and what the results might help show), but also looking at the way RPE programmes are implemented and maintained by different management groups. Within the scope of this article, what follows is really only a brief summary of what was identified and where opportunities for improvement may sit. In other words, a brief snapshot examining the age old question… RPE - what could possibly go wrong?

BOHS.ORG

A BRIEF REVIEW OF EXPECTATIONS It would be fair to say that we, as occupational hygiene professionals, are in agreement that the management team are responsible for the development and successful implementation of RPE programmes in their workplace. It would also be fair to labour the point that RPE should be provided as a last resort or as a supportive secondary control measure to a more effective engineered solution, which protects not only the individual worker but the wider workforce as a whole, whilst remembering that employees have a responsibility to wear the respirator in the correct manner and use as instructed. With these in mind, it is evident that several factors – including how RPE is going to be used in the practical sense, how the type of RPE used will be verified as providing suitable protection and what follow up is needed – should be considered.

A. Review of RPE Fit Testing Methods Of the two main types of testing used, both have well documented advantages; although, neither are without limitation. For example: • Qualitative method • Subjective in nature in that this method relies on the wearer being able to smell or taste a chemical marker (as bitter, sweet or odorous) released into an enclosed environment. This is usually a proprietary ‘bag’ type device that fits over the test subject’s head whilst they’re wearing the respirator. • The wearer indicates the sensory detection of smell or taste normally by raising their hand. • Recognised as a straight ‘Pass’ or ‘Fail’ test. • Generally unsuitable for full-face respirators. • Considered unsuitable where workers could be exposed to a particularly toxic or harmful substance or where a higher level of protection assurance is needed. • May be viewed as intrusive due to the hood. • There is a potential scope for falsifying the user response.

• In some countries, concern has also been expressed about a test method that relies on exposing a test subject to a signal chemical, even if it is for a ‘health integrity purpose’. • Quantitative method • Numerical in response; this method provides an independent measure of the quality of fit referred to as the ‘fit factor’. • Typically utilises a measurement device (e.g. Portacount™), which carries out the test using ambient aerosol condensation nuclei counting and is based on comparing the ratio of particles inside and outside of the respirator worn by the wearer. It should be noted that other technologies are also available. • The overall fit factor is calculated from the independent fit factors obtained for all specified exercises and a minimum pass value must be obtained before the user can wear the respirator. All test subjects must obtain an overall fit factor of ≥ 100 for an orinasal respirator and ≥ 2000 for a full-face respirator. • Low particle count in the room may need to be overcome to perform the test. • The snug fit of the full face respirator adaptor within the RPE can be a challenge.

B. Relevance of First and Second Fit Testing - Some Results and Observations • RPE performance by user • Evidence for the importance of regular repeat user refresher training and ‘re-fit’ performance testing was collected by assessing the variance in performance between two test periods relative to user experience and familiarity with field use of the RPE (and in some cases the attached filters). • Over longer periods of time, RPE users who had either never received proper user training or who had not been refreshertrained for more than 3-5 years delivered consistently poorer fit-test performance than users who had been refresher-trained every few years.

EXPOSURE MAGAZINE #4 - the official magazine of BOHS

• Within these groups, performance was progressively worse from full-face RPE to orinasal RPE, with the worst performance occurring among disposable RPE users. Up to 50% of all subjects tested could not achieve a minimum fit factor of 100 with a disposable respirator. Without going into this further, the ramifications of this observation are far reaching. • Under experimental conditions, where a small population of uninitiated ‘test users’ were first tested and then repeat tested within 24 hours post user/ refresher training, some 57 percent yielded improved performance over all seven exercises, with 100% achieving a successful fit test only after training. Without oversimplifying the process, refresher training delivers results. • It was concluded that many users across the broad RPE user spectrum simply don’t recognise limitations in their own performance or how acquired or learned ‘bad practices’ (e.g. poor fitting practices, stubble, incorrect discipline in wearing of RPE, attitudes) contribute to substandard RPE performance in real world scenarios. That, combined with a lack of management and stewardship oversight of RPE programmes, only adds to the challenge.

C. Influencing Factors and Real World Issues • Facial hair and clean shaven practices • Tight fitting RPE relies on a good seal with the face so that, when you breathe air in, it is drawn into the filter material where the air is cleaned. If there are any gaps around the edges of the mask, ‘dirty’ air will pass through these gaps and into your lungs. It is therefore very important that you put your mask on correctly and check for a good fit every time. • Facial hair, such as stubble and beards, make it impossible to get a good seal of the mask to the face. This topic is well covered in scientific literature, including, more recently, a study published by the current BOHS President, Neil Grace.

COVER FEATURE RPE FIT TESTING IN REAL WORLD SCENARIOS

• If workers are clean-shaven when wearing tight-fitting masks (i.e. those which rely on a good seal to the face), this will help prevent leakage of contaminated air around the edges of the mask and into your lungs. If there are good reasons for having a beard, such as for religious reasons, alternative forms of RPE, which do not rely on a tight fit to the face, are available, such as Powered Air Purifying Respirators. • Clean-shaven issues are clearly a sensitive element of any RPE programme in the current day and age of designer stubble and fashionable facial hairstyles! • However, in general industry, there still remains evidence of tight fitting RPE being used with the presence of facial hair, especially in companies with a poorly implemented RPE programme. • Facial anthropometrics • As people’s faces (and heads) come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, it is unlikely that one particular type or size of RPE will fit everyone. Differences in facial dimensions and bone structure means that RPE selection should recognise such differences. Otherwise, the RPE just won’t fit. Fit testing will ensure that the equipment selected is suitable for the wearer. • It may not come as a surprise that recent findings suggest the importance of anthropometrics may not always be recognised and, in many cases, a blunt tool ‘one size fits all’ approach is implemented across the range. • Human behaviours and acceptance • It has been consistently shown that there is a significant value in employee involvement at the design stages of the RPE programme. It is also a powerful means of increasing user acceptance. The culture of the workforce can have a positive response to the introduction of RPE as well as a detrimental effect on its success. How employees will respond should never be underestimated.

LESSONS LEARNED AND PATH FORWARD? It remains the case that RPE size selection and anthropometric impact are not always at the forefront of the employer’s mind and that focus appears to be simply handing out RPE in some instances rather than driving a suitable programme. It also remains clear that there is still a great variance between the available guidance and the successful implementation of RPE programmes. It is also suggested that worker acceptance, from initial testing through to continued wearing, is highly dependent on the way the programme is implemented and the level of employee engagement. One of the biggest issues to overcome, however, is that, for what can be considered a simple concept, a cleanshaven policy can be very difficult to enforce, which may lead wearers to consider themselves protected, although the actual level of protection achieved may be significantly below expectation. It is often blithely accepted that once an RPE user has passed a fit test, they are protected from the substances of concern every time the respirator is worn. However, concerns have highlighted that wearers can potentially conduct their duties under false pretences regarding the true protection offered as they proceed in, what is believed to be, a safe manner. This really begs the question for what should be done to ensure the sustainability and integrity of a successful RPE programme. Clearly the awareness around posttest pre-start fit checks undertaken by the wearer must be encouraged. The use of proper auditing, leadership, supervision and wearer follow-up are also useful tools available to remind the RPE user of the importance of correct donning and usage of the chosen RPE. That said, it is evident that the RPE programme must get off on the right

foot from the word go, focussing on the correct RPE selection and suitability for the working environment. THE FINAL THOUGHT Through this study it has become very clear that, although there is a wealth of scientific literature and suitable guidance and regulatory documents available, there remains the often recognised critical challenge in ensuring worker health risks are appropriately recognised, evaluated and controlled. Respiratory protective equipment maintains its place in exposure control but only if it is correctly applied. Dependency on RPE will be with us for a long time yet.

References: • Bianchi A., Smith J.C., and Marshall J.R. 2011. “Applying Global Occupational Hygiene Practices Across Multiple Jurisdictions. Paper presented in Session RT210: Living with Differences: Addressing Standards for Respirator Selection/Use Worldwide” . AIHCe Conference. Portland, Oregon. USA. • Grace, N. 2010. “Evaluation of the reduction of respiratory protective equipment (RPE) fit factors in personnel with facial hair”. MSc thesis. University of Manchester. UK. • Lombardi, D. 2017. “Respiratory Protective Equipment (RPE) Face Fit Testing: A Comparison of current Quantitative and Qualitative Testing Methods and implications for the effectiveness of their implementation within RPE Programmes in Industry”. MSc thesis. University of Manchester. UK. • Lombardi, D. and Bianchi, A. 2018. “RPE Fit Testing in Real World Scenarios - What Could Possibly Go Wrong?” BOHS Conference (2018). Stratford-upon-Avon. UK. • Marsh, D. and Bianchi, A. 2011. “Development of RPE Fit Testing Programmes within Global Petrochemical Operations – Challenges & Solutions”. BOHS Conference (2011). Stratford-uponAvon. UK.

BOHS.ORG

Interview with a Young Hygienist

LAURA MORRIS

WHAT WAS YOUR FIRST JOB AFTER FINISHING YOUR STUDIES? This has been my first job since graduating in 2016. However, I’ve always worked throughout my studies in the retail and catering industries. HOW DID YOU FIND YOUR CURRENT JOB?

WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT POSITION? I’m an occupational hygienist for Validate Consulting Ltd. TELL US A BIT ABOUT YOUR STUDIES; WHAT QUALIFICATIONS DO YOU HOLD? I graduated from the University of Manchester in 2016 with a first class degree in Biology. HOW AND WHY DID YOU CHOOSE OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE AS A PROFESSION?

I found my current job through Sheffield RISE internship programme - a recruitment scheme run by the Sheffield City Council for graduates to be introduced to and, subsequently, interviewed by local small/ medium-sized companies. WHAT DO YOU ENJOY MOST ABOUT YOUR ROLE? I enjoy the diversity of the role; one week I could be down a mine conducting a personal air monitoring study, the next I could be at a cake factory carrying out a noise survey! It’s also interesting to meet and interact with different people from a variety of backgrounds and organisations.

If I’m completely honest, I had little knowledge of the profession before I saw the job advert! The job role description appealed to me due to the variety of tasks involved and I was looking for a graduate job where I could incorporate aspects of my science degree. The idea of getting out and about and not being stuck behind a desk all day was a bonus!

WHAT DO YOU FIND CHALLENGING IN YOUR ROLE?

WHAT OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE QUALIFICATIONS DO YOU HOLD?

CAN YOU DESCRIBE A TYPICAL DAY IN YOUR WORKPLACE?

I have currently passed two BOHS modules: the W501 Measurement of Hazardous Substances, and the W507 Health Effects of Hazardous Substances. I’m scheduled to complete another one by the end of the year.

Being a consultant involves early starts, long distance journeys and battles with motorway traffic jams! This was difficult at first; however, you get used to it and learn that it is part of the diverse nature of the occupation!

No day is typical for an occupational hygienist. Some working weeks involve overnight stays away from home. My work involves travelling 200 miles down to the south coast and even more up to sites in Scotland. If working on a more local site, my day usually involves an early start (quickly followed by a strong coffee or two). Before I set off, I double check I have all the kit I need for the day. There’s nothing worse than travelling for an hour and a half, only to find you have brought the wrong type of filter! After completing

any required site inductions, I liaise with the Health and Safety manager to discuss my plan for the survey. During the day, I will meet various front-line workers and fit them with the appropriate sampling equipment after explaining the purpose of my visit. I then carry out observations and discuss their working roles and environment. The day on site usually ends by holding a debriefing session with the manager sharing any initial feedback and recommendations ahead of the full report. Then it’s homeward bound! WHAT CHALLENGES HAVE YOU EXPERIENCED IN YOUR CAREER SO FAR? My career in occupational hygiene is fairly new, and I haven’t experienced any major challenges yet. I am lucky enough to have an employer who is very encouraging and eager for me to progress. WHAT ADVICE WOULD YOU GIVE TO ANYONE WHO IS INTERESTED IN PURSUING A CAREER IN OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE? Be prepared for early starts and thinking on your feet! Never assume that a particular job will be ‘easy’, as many curveballs can be thrown your way whilst on site. WHAT ARE YOUR FUTURE CAREER PLANS? I hope to carry on completing the BOHS W500 modules with my long-term plan being to obtain the Certificate of Operational Competence in Occupational Hygiene. WHAT DO YOU LIKE DOING IN YOUR SPARE TIME? I enjoy spending time with my friends and family. Living in Sheffield means I can spend my weekends exploring the beautiful scenery of the Peak District; this usually involves a pub lunch along the way! I visit the gym several times a week and love having holidays abroad to look forward to!

BOHS.ORG

“One week I could be down a mine conducting a personal air monitoring study, the next I could be at a cake factory carrying out a noise survey!”

EXPOSURE MAGAZINE #4 - the official magazine of BOHS

BRIGHTON The Premier Conference for Occupational Hygiene in the UK

1-4 April 2019 Hilton Brighton Metropole

Call for papers Welcome to OH2019 Occupational Hygiene 2019 is the leading international conference in the field of worker health protection in the UK, focussing on occupational hygiene and the prevention of occupational ill-health and disease.

The conference will bring together researchers, practitioners, regulators and other experts from around the world to discuss the very latest in issues that affect health at work.

Following on from the success of OH2018 which brought together a global audience of over 330 delegates, BOHS will once again be delivering an exciting programme which combines inspiring and thought-leading plenary sessions with scientific and technical sessions as well as a range of interactive workshops and case studies.

The location for this conference is the famous seaside resort and charming city of Brighton on the south coast of England.

Submit your abstract online at www.oh2019.com For further information visit www.oh2019.com or email conferences@bohs.org

BRIGHTON The Premier Conference for Occupational Hygiene in the UK

1-4 April 2019 Hilton Brighton Metropole

Call for papers We welcome papers on any aspect of occupational hygiene, worker health protection and occupational / environmental health but are especially keen to see papers covering topics in the following areas: Physical Agents • • • • •

Noise Vibration EMF MSDS Radiation (IRR17)

Chemical / Biological Agents • • • • •

COSHH (Including Legionella) CLAW Asbestos Chemical Safety (Product Stewardship) NANO Science

Types of submissions

Workshops Designed to be interactive with a good degree of audience participation, workshops provide an ideal opportunity to discuss emerging hygiene issues and/or develop participants’ skills. Those willing to initiate and facilitate a workshop are encouraged to submit an outline proposal via the abstracts submission process using the Workshop Submission Form. Usually 75-90 minutes.

Submission deadline 12 October 2018

Platform Technical Presentations

Practical Experiences in the Workplace and Case Studies

Professional practice or scientific research based presentations. Usually 15-20 minutes plus limited time for questions.

Usually 10 minutes plus limited time for questions. Intended to be short, informal talks illustrating real world problems and how they were solved.

Submission deadline 12 October 2018

Scientific Posters

IGNITE

Posters are especially suited to reporting small studies, preliminary findings or projects with large data sets that are difficult to display in oral presentations. Posters must be on display for the duration of the conference.

Not for the faint hearted; IGNITE gives presenters the opportunity to deliver a 5 minute session on any suitable topic with a slide deck of 20 slides that auto advance every 15 seconds. The results are memorable.

Submission deadline 28 February 2019

Psychosocial Agents • Stress Management • Mental Wellbeing / Resilience • Human Factors

Occupational Hygiene Management • Risk Management Strategies • Legal Compliance • Policy, Standards, Procedures and ISO45001 Implementation Techniques • Practical Workplace Experiences • Methods to Assess Control and Risk • Occupational Hygiene Training • Developing Tomorrows Future • Future Challenges

Speaker concessions

Earn extra CPD points

BOHS will continue to offer speakers and poster presenters one free day’s attendance at the conference. If one or more of your submissions are successful, you will be entitled to the following:

Free attendance on the day you are presenting* OR

If you wish to attend the full conference we have a discounted rate specifically for speakers, bookable from September via the website.

Submit your abstract online at www.oh2019.com

Remember, all presenters are entitled to an extra two CPD points, in addition to those gained from attending the conference as a delegate.

* Maximum of one day free for those presenting on one or more days at conference.

For further information visit www.oh2019.com or email conferences@bohs.org

Occupational Health Pay & Benefits report

BY JOHN BALLARD

THE GLASS IS HALF FULL: PAY AND BENEFITS SURVEY OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS Occupational health (OH) and hygiene professionals continue to be relatively well paid. However, only around half of all occupational health and hygiene professionals received a pay rise in the year to June 2018. And while most OH professionals believe they are adequately remunerated for their work, only 49% of the hygienists responding to the survey believe they are well paid for what they do. These are the headline findings of the seventh biennial Occupational Health [at Work] pay and benefits survey carried out by The At Work Partnership. The survey was conducted in June 2018, and based on 392 responses from occupational hygienists, OH nurses, occupational physicians, and OH physiotherapists. The overall response rate was 21%. For the four professional groups in our survey, mean salaries of employed professionals (i.e. excluding selfemployed) in June 2018 were: OH physicians – £106,049; occupational hygienists – £48,012; OH nurses – £43,562; and OH physiotherapists – £41,978. Median full-time salaries of employed professionals were: OH doctors – £100,000; occupational hygienists – £44,500; OH nurses – £41,125; and OH physiotherapists – £40,500. Median figures can be more useful for comparison purposes as they represent the midpoint in a range and are not affected by outliers, which can distort the mean figures. The full-time salaries reported by employed occupational hygienists ranged from £19,000 to £151,000. Some individuals were very well rewarded. For example, a hygienist working as a health, safety and environment director

in a commercial OH provider earned a salary of £151,000. Nearly half (45%) of our employed respondents had not been given a pay rise in the 12 months to June 2018, and where rises were reported they were typically worth no more than 2% of salary. Occupational physicians (75%) and occupational hygienists (74%) were the most likely to have received a pay rise, followed by OH nurses (51%) and OH physiotherapists (29%). Most OH and hygiene professionals earn considerably more than the average UK full-time worker, whose annual median salary for the year ending April 2017 (the most recent official figures from the Office for National Statistics available at the time of writing) was £28,600 – up 2.2% on the previous year. The vast majority of OH practitioners are satisfied with their overall remuneration, and satisfaction appeared to be higher this time than reported in our 2016 survey: 57% described it as good or very good compared with 47% in the 2016 survey. Nearly three-quarters (72%) of self-employed practitioners were satisfied with their income – a much higher percentage than employed professionals when taken together. There was some variation in satisfaction with pay across the different professions – with occupational hygienists the least satisfied with their pay. Just under half (49%) of occupational hygienists described their pay as good or very good. By comparison, nearly three-quarters (71%) of occupational physicians said there salary was good or very good. Factors that were strongly associated with pay satisfaction (even after

controlling for actual pay) were perceived changes in workload and receiving a pay rise in the previous 12 months; those who felt that their workload had increased tended to be less satisfied with their remuneration, as did those who had not received a pay rise. This highlights the multifaceted nature of pay satisfaction; it is not simply related to your salary but also, for example, to your perceptions of how fairly you are treated in the workplace. The full report is published in the August/September issue of Occupational Health (at Work). The second part of the analysis will be published in December. It will examine working hours, overtime (paid and unpaid), additional benefits, pensions, impact of career breaks, workload, and career and professional opportunities. Occupational Health (at Work) would like to thank all the BOHS professional members who took the time to complete and return the questionnaire. Your help is very much appreciated. Dr John Ballard is editor of Occupational Health [at Work] and has been a member of BOHS for over 25 years. Suggested citation: Sinclair A, Ballard J. OH pay and benefits 2018. Occupational Health at Work 2018; 15(2): 15–24. ohaw.co/ OHpay2018 (subscription required). About the journal: Occupational Health [at Work] is a unique publication providing expertly written legal, practical and management occupational health information. It is the UK’s only multidisciplinary journal for OH professionals. It is published by The At Work Partnership Ltd. Further information: www.atworkpartnership. co.uk/journal/about

BOHS.ORG

BOHS NEWS Marketing

Breathe Freely in Manufacturing We are delighted to report that this year, Breathe Freely in Manufacturing, the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) and EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation, collaborated to bring this year’s series of manufacturing roadshows. The events introduced BOHS’ ‘Breathe Freely in Manufacturing’ and EUOSHA’s ‘Healthy Workplaces Manage Dangerous Substances’ campaigns and the free tools and guides they offer. The agenda included expert speakers in the field of worker health protection and manufacturing, including: BOHS, HSE, TUC, EEF, Sellafield and Rolls Royce. Speakers talked about the extent of the health risks for welders, explored tangible solutions, and presented examples of good practice.

TOP & ABOVE: The Roadshow in Barrowin-Furness had a fantastic attendance

Two roadshows have already taken place (in Sheffield and Barrow-in-Furness) with over 70 delegates each, and one will be taking place in London this autumn. We are very grateful to everyone who contributed to the roadshows, and must particularly acknowledge the five BOHS members who volunteered to speak the success of these events would be much diminished without this valuable participation and support.

WELDING FUME CONTROL SELECTOR TOOL At OH2018, Mike Slater presented Breathe Freely’s latest tool – the Welding Fume Control Selector. The aim of this tool is to offer, through simple steps, the optimum solution for controlling welding fume. Marian Molloy, in collaboration with Mike Slater, is leading a team of experts to produce the tool, which is expected to be ready this autumn.

ABOVE & LEFT: Breathe Freely in Manufacturing in Sheffield

BREATHE FREELY IN CONSTRUCTION We are delighted that RVT Group will once more be sponsoring our forthcoming Breathe Freely in Construction roadshows, which will take place this autumn. The dates will be confirmed in due course on the Breathe Freely website.

EXPOSURE MAGAZINE #4 - the official magazine of BOHS

THE TEAM In July we had to say our farewell to our Marketing Executive, Caroline Smith. Caroline joined BOHS in 2015 and for the last three years she showed impeccable professionalism and became an invaluable member of our team. We wish Caroline all the best in her future career endeavours.

BOHS NEWS Qualifications

NEW QUALIFICATION LAUNCHED The 4th of July marked a significant day for the Qualifications team, almost on a scale comparable with the celebrations of our friends across the Atlantic! The date marked the official launch of P408, the first asbestos in soils analysis qualification in the UK. P408 – Identification and Quantification of Asbestos in Soils using PLM and PCM is an Advanced Proficiency qualification which teaches candidates how to safely identify and quantify asbestos in soils, in line with the Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) Asbestos in Soils Scheme (AISS). Highlights of this latest achievement for the Qualifications department are: • P408 is the first qualification of this kind to focus on the analysis of asbestos in soils. It equips candidates with the knowledge and skills required to safely identify and quantify asbestos in soils, to a standard consistent with the HSL Asbestos in Soils Scheme (AISS).

• This course provides not only the knowledge but also indepth training on analysing and identifying asbestos-containing materials in soil, for those working in the land remediation industry. This can include many disciplines, such as asbestos analysts, land surveyors, laboratory analysts and site investigators. • BOHS has worked with CL:AIRE, CIRIA and other organisations within the land remediation industry to address this training gap, and will be working on a suite of appropriate qualifications for asbestos in soils, including: strategies and sampling of soils and inspection of soils following asbestos remediation. If you’re interested in studying for this qualification, course dates are now available to book on the BOHS website. Spaces are limited for 2018 – so act now to avoid disappointment.

NEW QUALITY COORDINATOR POSITION A new position has been created to help the Qualifications department maintain and further develop a quality service to providers and learners – both in the UK and overseas, and in different sectors. The new Quality Coordinator position will support the Quality Officer and the Customer Services team.

SPECIALISTS REQUIRED BOHS wishes to recruit specialists in the fields of LEV, Legionella, Asbestos and Occupational Hygiene, to mark exams and assist with question writing – on an ad hoc basis. With training provided, the flexibility of working from home, and hours to suit you, this is an opportunity to contribute to raising competence within worker health protection, whilst offering a second income stream too. Please contact: qualifications@bohs.org for more details.

ARE YOU FLUENT IN A LANGUAGE? If so, we also need occupational hygienists to translate and mark our W series exams scripts in: Spanish; Mandarin; French; Russian.

Conferences and Events As with autumn 2017, the last quarter of 2018 will see the Conferences and Events team once more deliver a packed programme. The events schedule for the rest of the year is as follows:

X2018 24 - 26 September X2018 is the 9th International Conference on the Science of Exposure Assessment and will take place in Manchester, UK.

control exposure to hazardous agents in the work environment, at home, and elsewhere in the general environment.

The conference will provide a platform for international experts to exchange knowledge in exposure assessment sciences for human health studies. X2018 will contribute to the development of state-of-theart methodologies and practices, and thereby improve knowledge in order to effectively assess and

With six international keynote speakers and a further 53 international speakers already confirmed for the programme, this is an event not to miss; so if you haven’t already booked a place then you can do so here.

BOHS.ORG

MEET THE MEMBER

JONATHAN GRANT 1. What first degree did you take? It was a geography degree, but I got bored and dropped out after about a year - I’m not really sure that counts! (Later on, I did an MSc in Environmental Management then an MBA).

2. What was the first job you got when you finished your full-time education? Working for Hampshire County Council’s Scientific Service. My first job there was setting fire to cuddly toys as part of the Toy Safety Team. Best job I’ve ever had.

6. What do you enjoy doing when you are not working? Most of my time outside of work is taken up by my two daughters (3 and 5 years old).

3. When and why did you join BOHS? I’ve been involved on the periphery of BOHS for many years, but it was only in the last couple of years, during a meeting at Head Office in Derby, when it came out that I wasn’t actually a member - I was pretty much frogmarched to the card machine in the next room to pay to join as an Associate. Since the launch of FAAM I have become a full member.

4. Describe a typical day in your work. I’m sure a lot of people say this, but there really is no typical day for me.

5. How did you get your current job? I formed the company and employed myself.

7. Where did you last go on holiday? The Netherlands in our motorhome.

8. Favourite pet? When I was growing up we had an amazing golden retriever called Gemma, so I’m going to say ‘dog’.

9. Favourite film? This is the hardest question so far… Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back.

10. What was the last music album you bought? Honestly, I can’t remember. I listen to all my music on Spotify.

11. Favourite book? I’m not even remotely embarrassed to say it’s the Harry Potter series!

BOHS NEWS Conferences and Events ECCIII EXPOSURE CONTROL AND CONTAINMENT III 17 - 18 OCTOBER Following the success of the previous Exposure Control and Containment conferences in 2014 and 2016, BOHS is once more collaborating with the Occupational Hygiene Society of Ireland on this two-day conference. This year’s event will be held in Dublin, Ireland. The focus of the conference is the specification, design, installation, testing, maintenance and operation of engineering control measures to minimise health risks in the workplace. It is aimed at people involved in these aspects of exposure control, and will appeal to delegates from various industry sectors, both small and large, including: electronics; engineering; construction; pharma; fine chemicals; oil and gas; education.

FACULTY OF ASBESTOS ASSESSMENT & MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 8 - 9 NOVEMBER We’re excited to present the Speaker Mavis Nye at FAAM launch. first conference organised A mesothelioma sufferer, Mavis campaigns to raise awareness of the disease, and support other sufferers, via the by the Faculty of Asbestos “https://www.mavisnyefoundation.com/” Mavis Nye Foundation. Assessment and Management (FAAM), which will take place in • Methods of analysis for asbestos: Manchester, UK. The conference roles and limitations will include a combination of plenary • Asbestos management and control sessions, technical sessions and workshops, bringing together The full programme is currently being researchers, practitioners, regulators, finalised. To be part of the first FAAM and other experts to discuss the latest conference, book your place here. developments in asbestos assessment, management and control. And finally, don’t forget to save the date for next year’s BOHS conference... The three key topic areas will be: though the date is difficult to forget! • Asbestos-related diseases, current Registration will open in September. understanding and advances in their treatment

EXPOSURE MAGAZINE #4 - the official magazine of BOHS

SAVE THE DATE DATE EVENT

LOCATION

14 SEPTEMBER 2018 BOHS Regional Meeting: Statistics for Hygienists

Belfast, Northern Ireland

24-26 SEPTEMBER 2018 X2018 - The 9th International Conference on the Science of Exposure Assessment

Manchester, England

27 SEPTEMBER 2018 BOHS Regional Meeting: Physical Hazards; EMF and the Thermal Environment

Worcestershire, England

28 SEPTEMBER 2018 BOHS Regional Meeting: HSE Findings in Bakeries

Belfast, Northern Ireland

09 OCTOBER 2018 BOHS Regional Meeting: Noise and Vibration Control in the Food Industry

Belfast, Northern Ireland

17-18 OCTOBER 2018 ECCIII Exposure Control and Containment III

Dublin, Ireland

8-9 NOVEMBER 2018 Faculty of Asbestos Assessment and Management Conference

Manchester, England

04 DECEMBER 2018 BOHS Regional Meeting: EMF and Breathe Freely II

Belfast, Northern Ireland

1-4 APRIL 2019 OH2019 - BOHS Annual Conference

Brighton, England

BREATHE FREELY ROADSHOWS NEW BREATHE FREELY ROADSHOWS ARE TAKING PLACE IN THE UK THIS AUTUMN. Breathe Freely in Manufacturing BOHS in collaboration with the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) and EEF are running a Breathe Freely in Manufacturing roadshow in London in November 2018 – ‘Protecting Welders’ Health’.

Breathe Freely in Construction Two Breathe Freely in Construction roadshows, sponsored by RVT Group, are

taking place in Edinburgh and London this autumn. Exact dates to be confirmed in due course.

CORRECTION IN THE PREVIOUS ISSUE OF EXPOSURE, MISTAKES WERE MADE IN THE LISTS OF COUNCIL AND FACULTY MEMBERS. BELOW ARE THE CORRECT LISTS. 2018-2019 BOHS COUNCIL MEMBERS President: Neil Grace Immediate Past-President: Karen Bufton President-Elect: John Dobbie Hon. Secretary: Alex Wilson Hon. Treasurer: Amanda Parker Registrar of Faculty of Occupational Hygiene: Neil Pickering

ORDINARY MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: Douglas Collin Kate Jones Marian Molloy Kelvin Williams Helen Pearson Jonathan Grant

2018-2019 FACULTY OF OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE BOARD MEMBERS Registrar: Neil Pickering Chief Examiner: Len Morris

FACULTY BOARD MEMBERS: Carol Bladon Jason Hodgkiss Sarah Leeson Robert Preston Duncan Smith

BOHS.ORG