VIEWPOINT INCLUSIVITY IN RESPIRATORY PROTECTION
Ian Kelsall, technical specialist, Respiratory Protection Equipment (RPE), Draeger Safety UK
PROVIDING RESPIRATORY PROTECTIVE equipment (RPE) for employees operating in the construction industry is a well-recognised and generally well-understood requirement for employers. However, the practical realities of supplying appropriately fitting RPE that requires a tight seal to the face, such as Filtering Face Pieces (FFPs) and half and full-face masks, and truly fits each user in order to protect them from airborne hazards, can be a more complex challenge. Employers are not only legally required to provide RPE, but they also have a legal obligation to carry out fit testing for all workers who are issued with tight-fitting respirators. This can frequently be where problems arise, particularly in light of the growing diversity of workforces leading to greater demand for protective equipment better suited according to gender, age, ethnicity and religion. As a result, those specifying RPE are facing challenges in selecting respiratory equipment that is suitable for each individual worker’s specific requirements. Historically, respirator mask design has been based on standardised adult head shape profiles, using a model developed in the 1960s. This provided very little accommodation for those who fell outside of these specifications, creating a problem given the fact that facial dimensions vary significantly between genders, ethnicities and with age, as well on an individual basis.
Today, in the UK, British Standards Institution (BSI) standards are based on the 50th percentile of four dimensions (face length, face width, face depth and mouth width), originally of the adult white male face shape, but recently a more ethnically diverse sample group has been used.
16
This is critical, as an increasingly diverse workforce is leading to greater demand for RPE that better accommodates different head and face size and shape as well as individual specifics such as facial hair.
Respiratory hazards There is a wide variety of respiratory hazards associated with construction sites. In fact, many common tasks undertaken across construction sites can create airborne contaminants that pose significant risks, even a simple task like sweeping a site can lead to harmful construction dusts being disturbed and create health hazard. Often, several tasks are being undertaken at the same time, leading to workers exposed to a number of different hazards in one particular environment. Unfortunately, due to the dynamic nature of the industry and sometimes limited use of engineering controls, construction workers are regularly exposed to these hazards and have a high risk of developing life changing diseases. Respiratory hazards on construction sites can lead to irreversible harm, resulting in serious health issues including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, silicosis and cancer. These diseases can cause permanent disability or even death.
Adequate suitability The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) states that there are two key considerations which are essential when specifying respiratory protection equipment. ‘Is the equipment adequate?’ and, ‘Is the equipment suitable?’ That is, is it appropriate for the wearer, the task and the environment? Fit is clearly an essential component to ensure safety across construction environments,
but the importance of fit goes beyond having a tight fit creating a seal to the face which is essential to ensure protection from hazardous substances entering around the sides of the mask.
Poor fit can also lead to poor compliance, as badly fitting respiratory equipment will often be uncomfortable, or the mask simply ‘won’t feel right’ and therefore workers may wear the RPE incorrectly, or not at all. On many construction sites workers are issued with disposable dust masks or FFPs, however finding a design of FFP mask that will fit most face sizes can be challenging.
To overcome this problem, Dräger carried out customer research on a single-use dust mask, speaking to 36 customers across seven countries, and benchmarking 16 products, with 50 participants in total, taking into consideration a wide range of face shapes and sizes. The faces of the participants were mapped using a grid system, which looked at the face width, length, depth and mouth width.
Analysis of this information led to an innovative design approach
which focused on a three-fold model, providing greater flexibility in both height and width. This, combined with easy-adjustment capabilities, a flexible nose clip and soft wide nose pads, ensured the mask could be effectively positioned, stayed in place and securely sealed the nose area. In addition, it was found that developing masks in two sizes would accommodate the majority of different face shapes and sizes, and extensive testing showed a 96% pass rate in face fit test procedures using this design. Of course, a wide range of other issues beyond face size and shape also affect whether a particular piece of RPE is suitable for the individual wearer. Wrinkles, moles, warts, deep cuts, scars, piercings, facial hair and medical fitness reasons can all impact the provision of respiratory protective equipment.
Mask alternative For these groups, a mask is often not an option, so a different approach is needed. In such scenarios, a Powered Air Purifying Respirator (PAPR) is a good solution. Such devices can be used with a range of different head pieces appropriate for the task required, and these can often provide additional benefits as they will not only accommodate different head and face shapes and sizes as well as individual characteristics such as facial hair, but they can also contain additional head face and eye protection, negating the need to worry about compatible PPE. Therefore, many workplaces looking for more flexible and inclusive RPE – including those in the construction sector – are turning to PAPR as a more adaptable and straightforward solution, without any compromise on safety. BMJ
www.buildersmerchantsjournal.net November 2025
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48
