Canadian Occupational Safety

DECEMBER/JANUARY 2019 23 to protective ability and specifies a pictogram mark, or label, to be used for each of the three different levels of protection. Moreover, unlike the EN 388, which covers only the knuckles, ISEA 138 includes knuckles and fingers, on the understanding that testing at many places on the fingers reflects the way many injuries actually occur in indus- trial workplaces. In addition to establishing objec- tive performance levels, the purpose of the standard was to come up with an agreed test method. Impact resistance is the ability of a material to withstand a high force or shock applied to it over a short period of time. Testing deter- mines the ability of the materials used to absorb energy during an impact. Impact tests are generally conducted during the production of PPE, such as helmets and safety goggles. The test method defined in ISEA 138 uses a drop rig, Taylor says. A sample of the glove material is placed on a curved anvil of a specified radius. A weighted striker is then dropped onto the curved anvil. The forces are recorded by computer through the duration of the impact, and the peak transmitted force is used to determine the performance of the glove. The writers of ISEA 138 have also included a requirement for indepen- dent laboratory testing, Taylor adds. To be compliant with the standard, test results must be provided by labs with a certificate of accreditation meeting ISO 17025:2017, General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories. "The real value of that is that manu- facturers will not be able to self-certify their own results, which is common in North American standards," he says. OUTCOMES The absence of an impact-resistance standard can result in under- or over- specification of gloves, Taylor says. With the new standard's establish- ment of industry-accepted test criteria and scale of performance levels, safety managers should be better able to choose protective gloves appropriate to the specific hazards of a task in a cost-effective way. "Prior to the standard, there's not been any objective means for an end user to evaluate the performance of back-of-hand protection on industrial gloves. And frankly, most manufactur- ers didn't put out any claims about the performance of the back-of-hand materials they were using," he says. "All that is going to change. End users are now going to ask for a spe- cific level of performance on the gloves that they're purchasing, which means manufacturers will have to start testing back-of-hand materials used in their gloves. And they're going to have to start reporting that. So, back-of- hand materials move away from mere decorative features to being true per- formance components of the gloves." While the introduction of a new standard is certainly a step forward for safety managers who need to choose the right impact-resistant protection for workers, it also means there's an extra factor to consider when making a choice, Slater says. As the selection process becomes more involved, it's all the more important for companies to seek good advice. "There are multiple different sizes of hands doing multiple different job tasks across different industries, and now we're going to add different levels of protection in this particu- lar area — not to mention there are combinations of other types of pro- tection that are added into gloves as well," he says. "It really complicates things when you're trying to make a selection. And so, when choosing a supplier, it's extremely important that you have one who is knowledge- able about the changes and who can help partner with you to make the right decision." ISEA 138 is being produced by a specialist subgroup of ISEA's hand protection group. The working group includes representatives of seven major glove manufacturers and has had the contributions of a physician who specializes in plastic and recon- structive hand surgery. The standard is expected to be published by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) by the end of 2018. An investigation into the plywood mill incident by the Ontario Minis- try of Labour found the accident had been caused by improper guarding on the machine. A Plexiglas guard put in place to prevent workers' hands coming in contact with the pinch point had become warped in several places by the heat generated by the machine. This warping led to gaps along the guard. The employer pleaded guilty to failing to ensure an in-running nip hazard was equipped with, and guarded by, a guard or other device that would prevent access to the machine's pinch point, as required by the Regulations for Industrial Estab- lishments. The company was fined $80,000 for a health and safety vio- lation that resulted in serious finger injuries to an employee. Linda Johnson is a freelance journalist based in Toronto, who has been writing for COS for seven years. Injuries BACK-OF-HAND Preventing • Keep hands clear of operating equipment. • Position hands carefully so fingers can't get caught. • Feed spinning or feeding machines with a stick. • Always use machine safety guards. • Be alert: Look for falling objects. • Never take short cuts. • Ensure bench-mounted machines are secured before starting. • Make sure gloves or other loose materials don't get caught in machines. • Remove rings or other jewelry before operating machines. Most hand injuries can be prevented by approaching work tasks with caution. Fracture and crush hazards can be reduced by wearing the proper PPE and following these steps: Source: WorkSafe Saskatchewan PHOTO: SUPERIOR GLOVE PHOTOS: D3O

• Cover