No Respiratory Protection Required?

he does look a little jaundice. But to be fair... he could be an actor with a major in Journalism or something.

Couple of more years, he could end up the same fate as ours though.

I wouldn't spray any paint, or any finish really, without a mask....ends up as deposits in the kidneys....which have to come out, eventually....

Don't forget the lungs where it doesn't come out. Just spray painting a small part with a 12 oz. spray can can lead to some colorful mucus in your nose, so you know where that is ultimately going.

Electrostatic spray is attracted to the workpiece so there might be less accumulating in the air to be inhaled. Still, I would definitely want a face mask. I suspect the advertiser doesn't want to scare away any customers with safety equipment.

http://www.doityourself.com/stry/electrostatic-spray-painting-basics-explained

I agree that a simple particulate mask would be wise. There is an added detail most probably missed. This guy has no hair. I don't know if this is from the solvent fumes he's has been breathing for years or if the lack of hair hides the 40 MPH slipstream of air required to be able to see the paining process.

It is a very clean operation. The work piece is charged and the power is charged as it leaves the gun so it attracted to the item being coated.

I've had metal office desks painted, still in the offices with very little residual dust.

If it were me, It wear a mast just as a precaution.

It is different than powder coating where a hot part is dipped into a bed of powder and the coating melts onto the surface.

That's what I was wondering, considering the electric attraction. So a home hobbyist could unwisely get by with no mask. I see redfred mentions a strong air stream as well.

Go to get me one of those for my bike frames. (I do have a true spray painting mask)

I'd advise against any air stream. It will certainly blow the powder all over the place.

So does this mean you think the aromatic hydrocarbons from the paint solvent depleted all of that hair?

Powder coating by electrostatic spray...does it even require solvent? If there are no VOC vapors, then certainly no organic vapor mask cartridge is needed. I would still have some doubts about particulates.

I am not aware that there are aromatic hydrocarbons in any of the coatings.

I do not know, so I can't speculate.

Depends on the material being used.

he could use a little benzene and some advice of buddy, James Stewart, I insist.

I never ever use benzene - let us think "green" now - I use MEK which is very hazardous to the environment, but not nearly so hazardous to me. They haven't been able to link it to cancer ----- yet.

'...It is different than powder coating where a hot part is dipped into a bed of powder and the coating melts onto the surface.....'

Powder coating with which I am familiar is typically accomplished with an electrostatic spray gun with the piece at ambient, then the piece is heated.

Heating the piece and then applying the coating material would be called 'fusion bonded (epoxy)' in my neck of the woods.

I do all my own stunts largely without protection that way when I die the person doing the autopsy on me will have something worth talking about for years after I am gone.

When you go there won't be enough left of you for an autopsy.

Yep, i can see it now. Coroner: "I did a guys autopsy once and it only took 3 minutes, and that was only because I dropped my scalpel."

Perhaps he can hold his breath long enough to spray one bike frame.

I don't know much about electrostatic spraying but if the paint is attracted to the work-piece why, in the picture, does it look like so much goes past the bike frame?

In PPE terms, there is a new standard on the subject ISO/TS16975 pt 1 & 2.

I do believe that the use of PPE is not, in this case anyway, required by the equipment, but the material being used. All manufacturers will have a MSDS or SDS which gives recommended PPE. At home or for "recreational" use, it is up to the user, but in industrial and commercial establishments, different rules apply - IE, OSHA or in my case OHSA.

In order to not use the recommended PPE, one would have to do a battery of tests to prove that there is no exposure to any of the "hazardous" ingredients, probably including medical surveillance. Unless you really wanted to prove the point, probably not worth all the time/trouble it would take/be. Not to mention the ongoing regularly scheduled monitoring and testing that would likely be required to maintain the "exception".

Sure looks to me, looking at the picture, that not all of the sprayed substance, despite what "lyn" stated, gets to the target. This post was meant to be a bit facetious, as I know that any particles floating in air, unless we are talking about water, would require at least a dust mask level of protection by OSHA. I would think CanSHA would have similar rules. I assumed the person in the picture was violating an OSHA rule, but, made me wonder if there were some new metal coatings that really weren't super hazardous, as the old 2 part mixed coatings, that I used to spray on cars, were. You really didn't ever want to get that stuff into your lungs. Thinners and their obvious side effects aside, the catalyzed paint particles were considered nearly as hazardous as asbestos.

Maybe the picture is of a "public sector" employee at work. He'd be exempt from the OSHA laws.

Seriously, I did recommend a mask, if you recall.

Since the operator and the powder are usually at the same charge, they will repel each other.

All the manuals I have clearly state the the operator should be grounded when using electrostatic, which,,, is the same case for the product being painted.

Yes - I know, but apparently Kevin didn't. I meant your claim about most getting to the work piece - the picture defies that.

Correct on more than one count. Rules here are about the same as in the U.S.. And,, there are sprayable products out there now that do not require them same level of PPE that once was required, in particular waterborne product.

And, electrostatic does help, but,,, it rarely gets 100% of the "product" onto the product, as it were. After all, the only thing that stays on the final product are the solids, everything else flashes or evaporates off. If you can look up what % solids are in many a spray paint, you will rarely find anything more than 42%, the rest just "goes away" into the atmosphere.

That was my concern - 58% floating away - I want to use this in the same building that houses my restored / not for current weather conditions bike collection. I was hoping for a method of coating that didn't require a building inside a building. Looks like all methods of coating still do, except for a bristle brush, and I'm really not into 50 hand sanded coats anymore. Actually did a 30 coat job once - that was enough, and it still should have had a few more to remove all brush marks

Live demo of electrostatic painting. No PPE used due to very little overspray escaping.

Electrostatic paint spraying without PPE.

Depending on application and system used some use it some don't.

More videos here.

Electrostatic paint spraying videos.

But what does OSHA have to say?? If indeed they even visit.

Thank you for the links. I see enough missing that mini drum, which is 10 times as wide as a bike frame, to assure me that I don't want to do that in the vicinity of other bikes I don't want over spray on. At least a walled in area would be required.

Do you suppose a sheet of metal, also grounded to the system voltage, behind the target piece would collect the over spray? Majority of the electrostatic attraction should be to the closer object.

As far as PPE, I expect you would have to wear it in a major workplace, where OSHA could come knocking at any time, but it would be up to the individual if used at home. I've got enough crap in my lungs from spray can use to say - yes I would wear a mask.

As far as the original post is concerned, I think it is a definite error by the advertiser to not have their demo person wearing a mask. This would seem to be in the same category as all those "lawyer" warnings on everything you purchase anymore. Let someone get sick after using their spray gun and they could use that picture as a reason they chose not to wear a mask. With the current liability system and lawyers, that one picture could come back to bite them.

I Used to work at a plant Electrostatic powder coating aluminium for the architectural industry and we would spray in a booth that had air extracts to prevent powder that didnt end up on the product from going everywhere and we still had the sprayers wearing Tyvek paper suits and dust masks.

Probably dust masks are OK for powder coating - no VOC's to ingest.

That is the correct method to comply with OSHA. The home DIY sprayer is still a bit in question, but it doesn't change the fact that the advertiser's choice of picture will leave them at risk of a law suit by a DIY person. History has shown that actual proof of a source of a cancer or disease of an organ is not necessary - just a good suspicion that it could have originated from a company's product. Just ask J&J about that one.

Also I won't try to go the powder coat route, as the mandatory requirement for baking makes it a bit difficult for me. Good old paint still can be dried naturally, if you are willing to wait a few months for the high temperature reached in my closed garage in summer to set it or just spot heated in different areas for a while. Don't really savor building an oven to handle a bike frame.

So what you are saying the practicality of the operations negates the average person from doing the work themself as an at home in the garage DIY project where PPE usage or lack of would be solely up to them and not any governing safety agency?

And that if such a process is actively being used it more than likely in a business application where proper understandings of the processes as a whole and what PPE may or may not be necessary during what stages of said processes due to the additional working environment conditions possibly produced by such related systems?

Basically if the the guy was in a paint shop set up to do such spray coating operations there is a good chance that the additional systems, not visible in the picture, could very well make the local conditions suitable to do the work without any PPE as he is showing.

The guy is obviously, in the OP's video, not in a "paint shop" (that is a properly set up and inspected one in any case). All the tools I saw in the video were definitely not a "non-sparking" variety which is a requirement in such areas.

Am I not writing in English? Where did you get that idea? What I said is that the average DIY person will look at that picture and immediately assume no PPE necessary if using such a spraying system. I must admit, my immediate reaction was no PPE required - what???? - I waited a week to question it, but immediately assumed changes to spraying processes that allowed the lack of PPE. As an additional comment not previously expressed, at least 50% will not read the accompanying instructions in the section covering safety. As a whole, we have managed to get that safety section into the opening segment of any modern instruction sheet, so people just jump over this section. Yes - I do that. Don't you? That picture most certainly conveys that notion to any DIY'er looking at it, except those of us who have been concerned about safety in a workplace. The manufacturer of that sprayer should be concerned enough about misuse, just to cover his own a__, to either not run that picture or at least post a note somewhere explaining there are additional safety devices not apparent, if indeed that is the reason for no PPE.

You were clear enough, but there are a couple of points:

1 - the cost of the equipment usually precludes the garage mechanic from buying it, unless they have some serious cash laying around with no apparent use,

2 - the garage mechanic is highly unlikely to start legal action against the manufacturer(s) unless - refer to point #1,

3 - most garage mechanics have their own way of doing things - circumventing a lot of regulations that apply to "companies" but not to them(as they/we all think). I am sure we are all guilty of not wearing PPE when working around the house or garage no matter what the task is.

1. I am considering buying such a device. Of course, I want to go to "bike" school and start fabricating custom bikes, so that may put me into a class above garage mechanic. Also, to whom does Eastwood sell body shop supplies? Not really to body shops - to one off restoration freaks like a friend of mine, who can't afford the cost of a full paint job by a true body shop. But they can justify just as much expenditure to do it themselves because they now have possession of valuable tools. Heck, if they are good enough at fudging things, they may even set up a mock business and get a tax break. Don't ask me about this one.

2. Let a lawyer get wind of a few garage mechanics suffering damage to their lungs from spraying, and it can be attributed to one particular spray device, and there will be legal action. A company still must be ever vigilant in these lawsuit happy days.

3. That certainly applies, but we've all seen lawsuits brought against companies because of some idiots self injury. In a similar vein, I just saw an OSHA fine for a death in a grain elevator - worker was stupid enough, when removing a layer of material from the walls of a tall tank, to start at the bottom. Surprise - it collapsed and suffocated him. Now that is not a garage mechanic, but it points out that stupidity reigns and no one is self responsible anymore. Manufacturers have to assume stupidity rules today.

Yes - don't think I ever have worn safety glasses to drill at home. I am smart enough to don them when using a wire burnishing wheel spinning at 6K RPM. Hearing protection optional on my lawn tractor, but I do wear safety glasses on that thing.Fume rated respiratory mask to solder with lead based solder - not too often.

1. Setting up even a mock business puts them on the radar for OSHA. No business number, no way to really trace you.

2. Yes indeed, if there is a hint of successful litigation, lawyers will line up. There is no cure for stupidity but you can certainly sue if you have it.

3. All guilty as I said earlier, but at least most of us have the common sense to "suit up" with PPE when really required.

Good luck with your bike school and potential "business".

1. Not really - I believe you need at least 5 employees to be on OSHA radar - and I am talking about a 1 man business. Yeah - I had one of those for a while.

Just a little different up here,,, as soon as you hire your first employee you are subject to the rules of OHSA (not a typo-that's my equiv of OSHA), mind you the rules are just a little different depending on how many you do employ. The more employees the more rules and the more likely you are for inspections not just H&S, but environmental, labour laws, etc..

Oh - I thought it was CanSHA. Not as familiar with that as I am with CSA. We send electrical panels north occasionally.

Actually, OHSA in only in Ontario. Unless you are a federally registered company, only the provincial applies.

I for one put PPE at darn near dead last on my things to concern myself with when doing any sort of work. Always have always will.

Interesting side note to that is that off all my workplace related injuries every single one so far has been directly PPE related as in had I not had the over the top company required PPE on I would not have gotten into the position of getting injured.

Stuff in my eye? PPE safety glasses defected it in there and even the company safety inspector admitted that was the case and documented it as being so. three different occasions as well.

Cut on my forehead? Yep. Hard hat did it and had I not been wearing said hard hat I would have cleared the framing that pushed the hardhat down and cut me. Documented by safety inspector for that accident as well.

Puncture wound to leg? Yep. Safety harness caught on protrusion and pulled it into me. Documented as such again.

Slip trip and fall incident? Every time from steel toes on my boots catching in places a regular boot or shoe with a soft toe never would have had an issue. Documented as such every time.

Minor burn on stomach? Had I not been wearing my required coveralls for full body protection I would have felt the heat being deflected off the steel I was cutting through and immediately and stopped but since I had me PPE on I couldn't until it started on fire and burned me. Documented as so as well.

So yea. I have a lot to say about PPE that's been officially documented in several different places and every single one so far has been supposedly recorded on some paper shuffling bureaucrats records as I would have been less injured without it.

So given that am I going to wear a respirator to do painting? Hell no. I don't want to risk the chance of having to experience suffocation or a punctured lung from it!

Interesting - I have a bad 5th and 6th vertebrae from wearing a hard hat - I had to wear it on site when I was a well logging engineer and had to run out to help the riggers with the tools and run back in to get them moving to the well head - forgot about the hard hat many times and hit the doorway a good wack, compressing my neck. Never once did it do anything, in 11 years, to protect me on site. It did make for a very nice way to customize what I wore on site, as it took service company decals quite nicely. Still have one with 32 decals on it, some from the competition.

However, I did a stint as safety coordinator in both that job and here where I am now, so I am thoroughly indoctrinated to require it on the job. But, as mentioned, I am still a bit lax at home.

What I find interesting is how many younger guys in the neighborhood do wear goggles and hearing protection when mowing or weed wacking the lawn. Apparently the message is getting through these days. I guess I'm the crazy old _art to them as my lawn tractor has a high back seat from my drag car and I do wheelies on it by leaning back quickly against it and popping out the clutch.

Dang it. I never thought about it but I have lower neck problems now and I have to wonder if it isn't from just like you having my head drilled into my shoulders from hard hats catching on things so many times that it produced a repetitive strain injury effect thats just now showing up.

In highly specific application I do believe in using some degree of safety equipment (reasonable hearing protection for one) but in all reality every on the job application I have ever been in when things went bad unless a guy was in full head to toe black knight hardened steel body armor typical PPE was useless.

As the safety guys at my last job in the oil field doing frack work said.

"The only good your PPE will do is to make sure your insurance policy recipients get paid because plastic and cloth will not protect you from heavy iron when it goes flying. It's a insurance payout bureaucracy thing. Not a legitimate life saving thing. Sorry, but that's the reality of it"

And to be honest in every safety class and meeting ran by a honest experienced safety coordinator I have heard the same things. Stop, think, plan and pay attention. That's the real PPE that will save your life. Everything else is just circumstantial.

You do realize that the insurance companies have so much capital tied up in the stock market now that the government is concerned about their failure? Insurance companies run our country. OSHA is there to protect them - not us. NHTSA is there to protect them - not us.

Yes I do and unfortunately so does pretty much everyone who has insurance for anything.

It's another corporate system that needs to be burned down and rebuilt new to work as it was originally intended to.

The image does not show what other measures are already in place to protect the operative; one possibility, for example, is a continuous cross-flow of breathing air from image right to image left.

PPE is always the last resort in a properly risk-assessed operation.

The basic question. Whose problem?. Whose money? Whose decision? Whose life?

At one end, there are those who have the expertise and money, who volunteer to follow best practice, to do everything necessary to do then job properly to comply with the law - regardless.

At the other end there are those who will do absolutely nothing unless compelled by by law, by fine or imprisonment.

In the middle are the majority of people with limited expertise and money with a desire to do the job properly but who need good advice and guidance.

This where CR4 comes in.

In terms of PPE there is a time factor involved. You have to be exposed to the hazard long enough to breath in contaminants in excess of the occupational exposure limits.

Your personal risk assessment might show you do not need PPE, because a big breath of fresh air held long enough by you, for your spraying operation might be adequate for you.

The exposure risk of the whole operation is under your control. Your problem. Your money. Your decision --- Your life!.

But 'holding your breath' is not likely to be acceptable as the official procedure (traceable in written records) of controlling your risk in a multi-discipline industrial operation.

My cynical risk assessment is will an accident happen, will negligence be proven, will I be blamed, will I be punished.