PPE AND RISK MANAGEMENT

Risk Management, the corner stone of any safety program, is a systematic approach to minimizing an organization's exposure to risk, lessening the negative effect of risk, and avoiding risk altogether if possible. Providing PPE is often considered a risk management strategy, but there are hidden layers of risk inherent in a PPE program that are frequently overlooked.

Failure to work through a rigorous PPE Buying Decision Process, using the OSHA recommended process as the foundation, runs the risk of providing inadequate or inappropriate PPE. Remember, 60% of those injured on the job were wearing the PPE they were supplied. The risk of that happening can be greatly reduced with an improved PPE Buying Decision Process. (See prior posts for details). Because there is a structured PPE Buying Decision Process readily available, failure to use it is taking a risk.

Buying cheap PPE that has to be assembled by the user, especially head protection, introduces the risk that the PPE will not be assembled correctly and its protective properties will be compromised. Quality PPE comes from the factory fully assembled by trained factory experts. Every component of a protective cap must be assembled correctly in order for the complex impact energy control process to function properly. If the suspension is installed incorrectly by a user, and it can be something as simple as not seating a suspension leg fully in its pocket, nobody knows it and the wearer is at a high risk of injury if an accident happens. Because there is top quality, high performance protective caps available, failure to use them is taking a risk.

Failure to consider the “human” side of PPE, the need for comfort, adjustability, and style, is very risky because it is the primary reason PPE is not worn. 40% of injured workers were not wearing the PPE they were supplied. The leading reasons were that it was “too hot, too heavy, didn’t fit, kept them from doing their jobs and looked weird”. This usually occurs when PPE is bought on purchase price alone. The leading brands of PPE contain adjustability features for a perfect fit and feel. They are ergonomically designed for proper balance and stability. They have clean, sleek designs that provide a professional look. Because top quality PPE is available in every category, failure to use it is taking a risk.

Quality Head Protection

Not taking the time to develop a store of knowledge about the different PPE designs, materials, and levels of performance is risky. You should know that injection molded, preformed faceshield windows eliminate the risks of distortion, potential weak spots, and poor faceshield/window seal that are present in flat windows stamped from sheet stock. You should know the risks associated with hard hat accessory mounting slots. You should know the risks of inferior auto darkening filter lenses that don’t always work how they should when they should. There are many more examples. The information is available from suppliers, OSHA, NIOSH and other sources. Failure to do your homework puts you at great risk of using PPE that is inadequate for your hazards.

Providing PPE to employees is a basic risk management strategy. But providing the wrong PPE for the wrong reasons could be exposing workers to unnecessary risks. If there is a better alternative to what you are doing or what you are using, and you fail to utilize it for any reason, you are taking a risk.

INVENTION OF THE WELDING HELMET

(Correction: In our haste to respond to a comment we inadvertently listed Charles E. Bowers, Sr. as the inventor of the welding helmet and the founder of The Fibre-Metal Products Company. We should have listed his father Frederick M. Bowers as the inventor and founder. Charles E. Bowers, Sr. was the President of Fibre-Metal for many years and held more than 45 patents. But his father invented the welding helmet and founded the company.)

Today we received a comment about our "WELDING HELMET" post. The commentor challenged our statement that the "Fibre-Metal Products Company invented the welding helmet". He said that statement is "false" and claimed that William Dinkuhn invented the helmet.

The primary goal of this Forum is to foster a discussion. We welcome comments and respect readers right to challenge anything we say. But this comment was from "Anonymous" with no identification of who he was and no documentation or substantiation of his claim that our information was false. So there is nothing to discuss.

For our regular readers, there is overwhelming documentation and substantiation of the fact that Frederick M. Bowers, the founder of The Fibre-Metal Products Company, invented and produced the first welding helmet in 1905. There are ample records,  dated photographs, extemporaneous comments from others at the time, etc to prove it. Mr. Bowers had his helmet invention patented in 1914 with the patent being approved in 1915. The patent is below.



I have been in the welding helmet business for almost 50 years and with all due respect to Mr. William Dinkuhn, I have never seen nor heard of a "Dinkuhn" helmet. A quick search of the Internet shows just one entry and that was a one line answer to a question on Answers.com, again by "Anonymous" saying that William Dinkuhn invented the welding helmet in 1916. That is a full 11 years after Frederick M. Bowers had invented and was producing welding helmets, and 2 years after Mr. Bowers had received a patent on his invention.

UPGRADING PPE CAN REDUCE INJURY COSTS

Injury frequency, severity and cost data for 2009 (the most recent data) is now available from the three major sources that compile it. The National Safety Council, The Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Liberty Mutual Safety Index each report similar, but not exactly the same results. There are no absolutes, much of the information is based on estimates, but a few things are clear:

 1. Following the trend of recent years, the overall (all industries) lost time injuries are down by a fraction to about 2 per 100 full time employees. But at least a portion of that is because there are fewer workers working fewer hours.


2. The industry segments with historically high LTI’s (construction, manufacturing, agriculture, health care) remain at about 4 per 100 workers.

While injury frequency and severity went down or stayed about the same the cost of those injuries increased. The following model, updated with the latest estimated data, shows the various outcomes of an accident. A safety expert once said “when an accident occurs, the only difference between a fatality and a near miss is the outcome”:

Based on this data, companies on average are incurring between $106,000 and $212,000 in injury costs for each 100 employees they have. That cost comes right off of the bottom line. If for no other reason, this information should be enough to overcome the inertia we discussed in our prior posts on The PPE Buying Decision. If an employer is spending money on PPE, but is still experiencing high injury costs, obviously, what they are using is not working. Investing the time to determine the most appropriate PPE for the hazards, and investing the money to upgrade to the highest quality PPE available provides an ROI in terms of reducing injury costs.

Properly selected, high performance, comfortable PPE that is worn everyday instead of being left in a locker, reduces injury costs by pushing them down the Cost Pyramid. For example, if an accident occurs, resulting in a worker being struck on the head by a falling object, the result may be a $53,000 LTI if the worker was wearing a low price 4-point suspension protective cap. But if that worker was wearing a high quality protective cap, with a high performance Impact Energy Control system, like the Fibre-Metal SUPEREIGHT brand by Honeywell, or any other top quality cap, the result may be reduced to a $1,200 trip to the nurse. So by investing an additional $10.00 or so in the better quality PPE, the company saved $51,800 on just that one accident.

Safety officials and all others involved in the PPE Buying Decision should capture those savings and use the information to justify their investment in a top quality PPE Program. It can be done on a per accident basis, or overall results can be compared with the aggregate statistics for their specific industry. The LTI for Construction Laborers is 4 per 100 employees. If a company upgrades its PPE and their LTI rate drops to 2 per 100 employees, the Safety Department should calculate and take credit for the savings.

PPE suppliers should play an active role in this process by being able to explain the differences of their products and “Dollarizing” the benefits of upgrading to their products. In the old days, presenting the features of a product was enough to make a sale. Then we had to develop a benefit for each feature. Adding value followed and today, the impact on a customer’s bottom line must be clearly stated. If you can’t explain how your product will reduce costs or increase profit, you can’t compete with suppliers that do.

And that applies to inside sales people and customer service associates as well as the field sales force. They must be able to talk a customer through the “Value Chain” to the bottom line impact just like a sales person in order to help customers justify buying their products or to help customers gather enough information to buy their products.

The CEO of a Top 50 Construction Company said PPE was “one of the 10 most important buys his company makes because of the potential risks and the opportunity for cost savings”. He went on to say that “injury costs and workers comp costs are the last major cost saving potentials available”. Whether it is a PPE supplier trying to sell a PPE program upgrade to a customer, or a company Safety Official trying to sell a PPE program upgrade to top management, the need to reduce injury costs should be the starting point.

PPE BUYING DECISION PROCESS

This is the second part of our “PPE Buying Decision” discussion. In the first part, in our prior post, we talked about the PPE Buying Decision being a contributor to injuries and injury costs because if not done properly and carefully, it can result in inadequate and inappropriate PPE being issued to the work force. We also talked about the OSHA PPE buying decision guidelines that are not well known and not usually followed.


Today’s post continues that discussion with a look at the complexity of a PPE buying decision, the consequences of failure to give it the time and attention it needs, and the benefits for both users and sellers of PPE in altering and improving the decision making process.

A recent study shows that there are basically 3 types of buying decisions made for MRO products which PPE falls under:

A straight rebuy is when a purchase order is issued for the exact same thing that was ordered before. A modified rebuy is when there is at least a perfunctory look at what else is available but then the same product is purchased for the same reasons it was originally. A clean slate is when an exhaustive search of everything that is available is undertaken, new choice criteria are developed, and the best product for the application is selected and purchased.

The OSHA Guidelines require a “Clean Slate” process for every PPE buying decision, but as the pie chart shows, that occurs just 22% of the time. The other 78% of the time, PPE buying decisions makers could be putting their work forces at risk and could be costing their employers money in terms of higher injury costs by buying inadequate or inappropriate PPE.

Why do they use a straight or modified rebuy? It is easy, it is quick, they do not have enough information to justify changing, and they think they limit their personal risk by using what they always used. They are also very busy people, with numerous priorities and they do not see the connection between the PPE they buy, injury costs and the company’s bottom line.

Many PPE buying decision makers engage in a practice we call the “High Cost of Being Average”. That involves looking at their injury frequency and severity rates and if they are in line with the national aggregate rates published by several organizations, and they have not gone up since the last time PPE was purchased, they use that as justification for a rebuy of what they are using. That can be a very costly decision.

Statistics show that Lost Time Injuries occur at the rate of about 4(rounded) per 100 full time employees. The full cost (direct and indirect) of a lost time injury is approaching $50,000. So the “average” company experiences $200,000 of injury expense for each 100 employees they have. That cost comes right off of the bottom line. But as long as the companies injury experience is no worse than the “average”, buying decision makers think they are doing OK and should keep on doing what they have been doing.

This is where sellers of PPE can and should make a difference. It is their responsibility to inform and educate prospects and customers that all PPE is not alike; there are significant differences in design, quality and performance among brands; and the choice criteria for selecting a brand should involve much more than just the purchase price. The biggest problem a PPE sales person has is not their competition; it is customer inertia, customer satisfaction with the status quo. The 78% of customers who opt for a “rebuy” is proof of that.

To overcome the inertia, a sales person must show that they offer something different, and the differences are of value in terms of IMPROVING injury frequency, severity, and cost, rather than just settling for being average. It is the sales person who must introduce the “clean slate” process and walk a customer through it.

In a rebuy situation, purchasing often acts as a gatekeeper to keep sales people from the buying decision maker and influencers throughout the organization. But starting with a clean slate, it is important for the sales person to get to, educate and inform everyone within the organization who is affected by a PPE buying decision. It begins with the responsible safety official who they must show that their product performs better than what is being used and is more appropriate for the hazards of the job. It moves to production officials who must be made aware that the products being evaluated will not hinder production or be so uncomfortable they lead to time away from the job. It includes Human Resources who must be convinced that the training required by OSHA is available. And it concludes with the wearer who must be made to feel comfortable, protected and productive while wearing the equipment.

Moving through that process will develop new and better choice criteria which will result in a much better PPE buying decision that complies with the OSHA Guidelines. In addition, it eliminates the buying decision as a “human error or system failure” that might have contributed to the cost of an injury.

IMPROVING THE PPE BUYING DECISION PROCESS CAN HELP REDUCE INJURIES AND INJURY COSTS

Each year industry spends almost $4 billion dollars on personal protective equipment yet it still experiences injuries at a cost of about $127 billion dollars. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics more than 60% of those injured were wearing PPE which shows that simply wearing some type of PPE on the job is no guarantee a worker won't be injured.

What is wrong with this picture? Why are employers spending 4 billion dollars a year on PPE that turns out to be ineffective against the hazards of the work place or so uncomfortable workers refuse to wear it?  A noted safety consultant believes that accidents and injuries are caused by two things:

1. Human error.

2. Management system defect.

When an injury occurs, the behavior of the injured worker is investigated to see if an error was made. Frequently, safety management systems are examined for defects but the focus is usually on a defect in safety enforcement. Seldom, if ever, is the PPE buying decision examined to determine why ineffective or inappropriate PPE was purchased and supplied to the workforce.

When we talk about the buying decision we are not talking about a decision to place a purchase order. We are referring to the decision to provide specific products to protect against the hazards of a particular job. At the root of the PPE buying decision problem is the widely held belief that PPE is a commodity and a regulatory expense that should be minimized. With that mind set there is little incentive to spend any time, effort or money to try to make a better buying decision.

But the truth of the matter is there are significant performance differences based on PPE design, material, and workmanship. For any particular job environment and hazards there is a specific style, brand and model of protective device that is more effective and more appropriate than any other. Safety officials and PPE buying decision makers have a responsibility to determine what that is.

Unfortunately, when faced with the problems of a downsized staff, budget restrictions and a whole host of seemingly more pressing problems, safety officials often opt for a straight rebuy of whatever PPE is being used with little or no thought about seeing if there is something better available. Or, they look for something similar at a lower price in a misguided attempt to comply with cost reduction initiatives by trying to lower the purchase price of PPE instead of the costs of injuries, downtime, insurance premiums and OSHA violations. Both of these options increase the risk of injury to their workforce.

OSHA acknowledged that there was a buying decision problem when they revised the PPE regulation in 1994. The revised rule still requires an employer to provide PPE whenever necessary to mitigate the risk of an injury on the job. But for the first time, based on the BLS findings, it called for a structured buying decision process in the general requirements section of 2 9 CFR 1910.132  in a sub paragraph called "hazard assessment and selection". Appendix B of the revised regulation provides guidelines for the buying decision process. OSHA estimates that 90% of injuries can be eliminated if the PPE guidelines are followed. A link to the OSHA buying decision guidelines is below:

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B-NtMFfeWweVZDgyZmQ1MGUtOWMzOS00NDkzLWFkNzAtNzA4Mjg4ZTZlZTYz&hl=en&authkey=CLfT8qEB


Appendix B clearly demonstrates that OSHA does not consider PPE a commodity that should be purchased on price. In fact it says "select the protective equipment which ensures a level of protection greater than the minimum required to protect employees from the hazards" A small percentage of employer's use the PPE selection guidelines to upgrade their programs and the results are striking.  But the vast majority of employers are either not aware of the assessment and selection provisions of the standard or choose to ignore them. We suggest that is a "mangement system error" that is as responsible for injuries as anything an employee does and should be investigated with the same vigor.

Appendix B, of the OSHA PPE rule also asks safety officials to use "common sense and expertise" when selecting PPE. While most safety officials have plenty of common sense, there is an alarming lack of PPE expertise even at larger companies with well-staffed safety departments. Lacking the in depth knowledge to make a proper determination of exactly what PPE should be used and why, safety officials continue to buy and supply the wrong PPE for the wrong reasons. That is where distributor and PPE manufacturer Sales Professionals can help by raising their level of knowledge to the point where they can make the quality of buying decision OSHA envisions and their employees deserve. Instead of "pushing sales", help customers make a better buying decision and sales will follow.


An improved PPE buying decision can reduce injury frequency by increasing the likelihood that the most effective and appropriate PPE is selected for the job. It can also help reduce cost by mitigating injury severity. Top quality PPE, carefully selected and properly used can contribute to cost reduction on a scale with any other cost reduction program.

COLD WEATHER REQUIRES SPECIALIZED PPE

Although it is still warm in many parts of the country, now is the time to start thinking about and planning for the hazards of cold weather and the PPE needed to protect from them.


Outdoor workers are exposed to the hazards of cold weather. Prolonged exposure can result in serious health problems such as frostbite and hypothermia. The cold is also a leading cause of downtime and lost productivity



There is no exact temperature where the environment becomes hazardous. It does not have to be below freezing for frostbite or hypothermia to occur. A variety of factors, including wind, dampness and cold water, contribute to unbearable cold conditions.


Hypothermia occurs when the body looses heat faster than it is produced and body temperature drops below 95 degrees Fahrenheit. The first sign is pronounced shivering, followed by feeling tired and drowsy. Irritability and confusion can set-in along with a loss of coordination. If untreated, hypothermia may progress to slurred speech, irrational behavior, unconsciousness and ultimately heart failure. If any of these symptoms are observed, seek professional medical attention immediately. In the meantime, move the person to a warm dry area; remove any wet clothing; wrap in blankets; provide a warm, sweet-tasting beverage (no alcohol or caffeine); and gently move arms and legs to restimulate circulation.


A primary cause of hypothermia is wind chill. The combination of low temperature and wind velocity carries heat away from the body more quickly. For example, when the air temperature is 40 (F) degrees and the wind velocity is 35 mph, it is equivalent to a still air temperature of 11 (F). Wind chill is usually expressed in the form of an index. (For a wind chill index chart, visit the National weather service at www.nws.noaa.gov/om/windchill/index.shtml.


Frostbite is the freezing of deep skin tissue layers that leads to whitening, hardening and numbing of exposed skin. It usually affects the fingers, hands, toes, feet, ears and nose. If symptoms of frostbite are present, seek professional medical attention. Move the person to a warm dry area. Loosen or remove tight clothing that might restrict blood flow. Place the person in lukewarm (not warm or hot) water for 25 to 40 minutes to gradually warm affected tissue. Cover the area with dry, sterile gauze or bandages. Do not massage the area because it may cause greater injury.


There are also hidden cold symptoms such as disorientation, carelessness, slowed reaction time, reduced energy and difficulty concentrating that increase the risk of an accident. People who take certain types of medication and those with chronic illnesses such as diabetes, hypertension or cardiovascular disease face increased risk from the cold.


There is no specific standard for protection from cold working environments. OSHA recommends engineering controls and safe working practices and requires the provision of appropriate PPE whenever employees are exposed to hazardous cold working conditions.


Engineering controls begin with trying to shield the work area from windy conditions. The site should contain a source of heat such as air jets or radiant heaters and there should be a heated shelter where employees can take breaks to warm-up. Equipment handles should be covered with thermal insulating materials.


Safe work practices include allowing a period of adjustment by scheduling small interval exposure until workers become acclimated. Try to schedule work for the warmest time of the day if possible. Allow employees to set their own work pace to avoid fatigue or exhaustion. Never allow a worker to work alone so that someone can call for help if needed.


Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for cold environments begins with layered clothing. The concept of layering came from skiing and mountain climbing clothing technology. But the Safety and Medical officials working on the Alaska pipeline more than two decades ago developed the practical application of the concept.


Cold weather layering is based on the use of three layers. The first (inner) layer should be cotton or synthetic weave to wick perspiration away from the body. The second (middle) layer should be wool or synthetic fabric to absorb sweat and retain as much body heat as possible. The third (outer) layer should be something like Gore-Tex or nylon to shield the wind and allow some ventilation. Workers do not have to wear all of the layers all of the time but they should have them handy in case the temperature fluctuates. The goal is to keep warm enough to be safe but cool enough so you do not perspire excessively.

 



Extended Winter Liner Sherpa lined

To protect from frostbite, as much exposed skin as possible must be covered. Good insulated gloves and boots, ear covers and facemasks are the PPE of choice for that purpose. Because about 40% of the bodies heat can be lost through the head, insulated hats are vital. When hard hats must be worn, quality winter liners should be worn under them. The liners should extend enough to cover the neck and the sides of the face.




Neck Warmer with heating channel

PPE technological advances in cold weather gear resulted in a new level of protection that combines protective clothing with a heat source for exposed workers. Heated winter liners, vests, head/ear bands, and neck warmers are now available from leading providers of PPE. The protective clothing contains heating "channels” or “pockets” that accommodate heat packs that produce warming of 130(F) degrees to 140(F) degrees for up to 8 hours and beyond.




Hot Hands Brand Heating Packet

The warming is produced by soft, lightweight packets that contain a mixture of non-chemical ingredients that, when exposed to the air, oxidizes to generate heat. The packets come in various sizes and can be used in standard clothing, gloves and boots in addition to the PPE specifically designed to use them. Having a personal source of heat allows workers to stay on the job longer and produce more. Heat packets can easily be stored in a toolbox, or glove compartment of a truck or car.


Workers must be trained to recognize hazardous cold conditions. They must be made aware and continually reminded of cold weather safe working conditions and the PPE needed to protect them. With the right training, good engineering controls, specific safe work practices and top quality, state-of-the-art PPE, out door, cold weather work sites can be safe and productive. For more in-depth information of the hazards of cold temperature extremes and the PPE to protect from it click on the link below.

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B-NtMFfeWweVMzcwMDkzYmMtMTI1Yy00NGU0LWIzZWYtNDIzZjVjNTQ3MTBh&authkey=CJjAyZIB&hl=en

AUTO DARKENING FILTER LENS (ADF)

Today, there are two types of filter lenses: passive and auto darkening. Space does not allow a full scale analysis of auto darkening filter lenses (ADF) in a blog format but we will detail the main points. A welder needs to do some prep and positioning work before welding, and some weld cleaning after the weld. With a passive filter lens, he needs to push his welding helmet up into a rest position so he can see to perform those tasks.

 The Bureau of Labor Statistics disclosed that 67% of welding and cutting injuries are face and eye injuries. Most of those injuries occurred when welders had their helmets in an up position between welds and were injured by others welding, chipping or grinding in the area. OSHA estimates that up to 90% of those injuries could be eliminated if welders wore their helmets in the down, protective position all shift long. The only way that is possible is with the use of an ADF.

An ADF uses complex electronics and LCD’s to automatically adjust the filter shade to the various stages in the welding process. When the lens is not activated, it usually is a shade 3 or 4 which are relatively easy to see through, similar to sunglasses. A welder can see to do his prep work and position his MIG gun, TIG torch or stick electrode.

 When an arc is struck, light sensors mounted near the lens detect it and simultaneously darken the filter lens to its welding shade 10, 11, 12 or 13 in a fraction of a second. When the arc is extinguished, the lens automatically reverts to its shade 3 or 4 inactive shade so the welder can see to clean the weld without having to lift his helmet. Protection from ultra-violet radiation (UV) and infrared radiation (IR) is continuous, whether the ADF is in the light or the dark state.

Because an ADF equipped helmet always stays in its protective position, another safety related benefit is the fact that it does not have to be “nodded down” before each weld. That eliminates a leading cause of repetitive motion injuries to the neck and back of welders. That not only reduces the cost of injuries, it also contributes to lowering workers comp premiums and costs.

When face and eye injuries and the strains, sprains and muscle fatigue caused by the repetitive nodding motion are eliminated, the quality of work life is enhanced and moral improves as welders enjoy rising expectations that welding does not have to result in daily aches and pains.

Beyond an ADF helmets basic protective function is its contribution to productivity. It is well documented that a reasonably comfortable, well protected welder will stay on the job longer, concentrate better, and produce more welds with fewer rejects, rework and delays. When an ADF is selected carefully, and used properly in an appropriate application, productivity gains from 30% to 50% are common.

But how do you carefully select an ADF welding helmet? The Fibre-Metal Products Company introduced ADF’s to the domestic market more than 20 years ago when it partnered with Hornell Speedglass of Sweden, the founder and pioneer of the ADF, to incorporate its highly successful European ADF technology in lenses specifically designed for Fibre-Metal brand helmets. Today there are many competitors with a bewildering array of models and price points. Because most of them could not improve on the original technology, they sought market entry with faster “switching speeds”, gadgets and gimmicks and lower selling prices.

As with any other PPE, do your homework in the selection process. Look at different brands and different technologies. Ask lots of questions. Most importantly, ask for samples or “loaners” to try on your job under your working conditions. Many of the inferior brands cite impress performance statistics achieved in a test lab. But they don’t hold up in a harsh welding environment. When evaluating an ADF equipped welding helmet there are some things to consider. There are 3 basic performance characteristics that determine the performance quality of an ADF lens. Anything else is superfluous:


1. Optical quality


2. Switching speed


3. Electronic reliability

Many suppliers have tried to establish switching speed, the amount of time it takes the lens to switch from its light to dark shade, as the most important performance characteristic because that is all they have to offer. The reality is most, if not all ADF’s that meet current standards, switch many times faster than International Standards require. Moreover ADF’s switch too fast for the human eye to see. If you watched 3 brands switch from light to dark you could not tell which one switched faster. And switching from light to dark occurs before welding begins, so what real affect could it have on a welders performance?

You must always consider switching speed in conjunction with switching reliability. The electronic packages utilized to maximize switching speed make those types of ADF’s very unstable. It is important for the lens to switch to its dark shade only in response to a welding arc. Top quality ADF’s use an “intelligent” technology that allows the lens to ignore other light sources and only recognize a welding arc. The high switching speed technology is so sensitive, it results in “nervous” or “trigger happy” lenses that often react to over-head lights, sunlight, other welder’s arcs and switch at inappropriate times.
.
Optical quality is by far the most important performance characteristic for an ADF lens. A welder must look through his ADF all day long. The optical quality determines his ability to see his work clearly in all stages of the welding process. The top quality brands of ADF’s have superior optical quality that is easy to see while testing a lens. Just as the inferior technology, built for switching speed, is unstable, it also has numerous optical quality problems.

Almost all of the brands that focus on high switching speed technology suffer from “flickering” and “fluttering”. Flickering looks like wavy lines similar to interference in a TV or bad tracking in your VCR. Fluttering is continual and unpredictable switching back and forth from light to dark. Both conditions are very distracting to a welder and result in downtime to try to remedy the condition. These flaws are very obvious during on the job evaluations.

Other optical flaws present in nearly all inferior ADF technologies are mottling (measles like spots when first turned on); tracers (impressions of sparks); shadows (like ghosts on a TV). They cause a great deal of annoyance, discomfort and downtime for a welder. Again these flaws will be very obvious during testing and evaluation. In fact, one ADF supplier provided an instruction that if when you turned the lens on it had a mottled appearance, turn it off and wait a half hour. Built in downtime.

All brands of ADF’s have an optical flaw, called angle dependency, in varying degrees. It usually manifests as light spots in the corners of the lens when viewed from an angle. Recently the Fibre-Metal by Honeywell brand of ADF has introduced an upgraded technology that virtually eliminates the problem with angle dependency no matter the viewing angle.

Only consider ADF helmet brands that come from the factory fully assembled. You do not want to have to spend the time or assume the responsibility for proper assembly. ADF’s are either battery or solar powered. The solar powered lenses draw their energy from the arc. Both power sources work fine but the advantage of the solar powered lenses is that you do not have to replace batteries. ADF’s come in a fixed lens shade, or with the ability to select one of multiple shades. If a welder is a production welder, who uses the same process to weld the same materials, a fixed shade is the proper choice. But if a welder works on various materials, using different processes in the course of his work, the ability to change lens shades without having to change lenses is a huge productivity gain and a selectable shade model is the right one.

Only consider ADF equipped helmets that have all controls inside of the helmet. Many of the low price, low technology brands mount some of the functional controls on the outside of the helmet where they are exposed to harmful sparks and spatter. It only takes a small amount of spatter in a control to render the ADF useless.

The number of light sensors is something that is frequently debated. The notion that “more is better” is a myth. The reality is the number of sensors is electronic technology dependant. If the technology is such that all it needs is one sensor to function, that is fine. If the technology is such that it needs 4 sensors to function, that is fine also. On the job performance is what is important. Not the number of light sensors.

There is value in simplicity. Look for a simple, but functional ADF design with user friendly controls. A light sensitivity control is necessary to adjust for the sensitivity to other sources of light in the work area and a dark to light delay control is useful for some materials and high amperage applications where the weld puddle is still very bright after the welding arc has ceased and for situations where the filter sensors may be temporarily blocked from seeing the welding arc.



Beyond that, additional features are superfluous, a drain on the electronics package and something else to break down. Make sure any ADF’s you consider will be able to function across a wide range of welding applications and processes and can detect low amp TIG arcs. Be leery of any application limitations such as “cannot be used for overhead welding”

A problem with ADF’s is that many are installed in cheap, inferior welding helmets to try to keep the purchase price down. They use things like attractive graphics to mask tissue thin shells made from ordinary materials. But the function of an ADF requires a high quality, robust helmet made from a high performance material. Because an ADF equipped helmet stays in the down position longer, buying decision makers must consider a number of factors. The welding helmet must be sturdy enough to withstand the extra burden put upon it by increased exposure to heat, sparks and spatter for an extended period of time.

The headgear must be capable of anchoring, balancing, and stabilizing the added weight of the ADF in the front of the helmet. The headgears overhead band and position stop adjustments must allow a welder to properly align the ADF with his field of vision to minimize awkward or uncomfortable working positions in order to see through the lens.

Because the helmet remains down longer, smoke and fumes can accumulate within the shell. The helmet design should allow sufficient air circulation to move them out of the welders face. If the air circulation is not sufficient or hazardous fumes are present, the helmet must comfortably accommodate a respirator with appropriate filter. OSHA requires that a welder wear protective spectacles at all times. The helmet design must not interfere with the use of primary eye protection.

 

The two ADF manufacturers with the highest quality ADF technology are Balder and 3M SPEEDGLASS. Between them they are responsible for most technical advances in ADF design and performance. But because they are primarily lens manufacturers, their welding helmets leave a lot to be desired. However, both produce ADF lenses for top quality Fibre-Metal by Honeywell brand helmets. And that combination of ADF and helmet quality and performance is the one all other ADF equipped welding helmets are compared with and measured by.


So when someone tries to sell you an ADF equipped helmet based on low selling price, high switching speed and graphics, tell them you are more interested in optical quality, electronics reliability and improved productivity.

Look at everything that is available. Use the information in this post as your guide. Try any ADF equipped helmet you are considering on your job, under your working conditions. Compare brands. If you can find a better helmet than the ones we ranked as tops, buy it. An ADF equipped welding helmet is a significant investment. But the ROI in terms of lower injury and insurance costs, increased productivity, enhanced quality of welder work life and improved profitability is real and immediate. In most situations, a company pays off the initial investment in a matter of weeks while the value of the benefits goes on throughout the service life of the helmet.

______________________________________________________

Make sure any ADF and helmet considered meets current ANSI or appropriate International standards. Selection should be made by or in consultation with a designated Safety official and welding supervisor. Read and follow all instructions and heed all warnings that come with the ADF helmet. Failure to do so could result in serious injury.