Safety

Select Appropriate
Chemical Protective Clothing
Michael H. Ziskin
Field Safety Corp.

From gloves, goggles, and safety shoes, to total

encapsulating ensembles, protective clothing
provides a barrier to chemical exposure. Follow
these guidelines to determine the most-effective
protection for your work environment and task.

kin exposure to chemicals in the workplace is a significant health and safety issue. According to a U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) survey of 3 million
nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses that occurred
in 2011, more than 33,000 involved skin exposure. (This
compares to about 18,000 that involved a respiratory
condition.) Such a finding indicates the importance of
safeguards such as chemical protective clothing (CPC) to
minimize or eliminate skin hazards.
Chemical protective clothing (Figure 1) can be an effective barrier when it is applied appropriately within the hierarchy of controls and strategies in place to protect workers
from hazards. This hierarchy typically begins with engineered controls (e.g., ventilation, enclosures, remote handling
of hazardous chemicals), followed by administrative controls
(e.g., limiting contact by procedure), and finally the selection
and use of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE)
as the last line of defense. Since the use of a personal protection barrier is the last line of defense, a failure of the barrier
will result in chemical exposure to the skin.

Beyond OSHA standards

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) standards provide general guidance on protecting
workers from skin exposure, but do not specify the type of
clothing that must be used. However, OSHA does require
facilities that handle hazardous chemicals to conduct
process hazard analyses before issuing personal protective equipment, including chemical protective clothing.
While fairly general, this requirement does provide the
employer with specific enough directions to prepare written
26

www.aiche.org/cep September 2013 CEP

assessments, using job hazard analysis (JHA) or job safety

analysis (JSA) approaches, to determine and document
the relative risks associated with performing specific
work tasks where protective clothing is required, as well
as to determine the training required to use PPE within
the employees defined role. Figure 2 is a sample hazard
assessment form.

Eye Protection

Ear Protection

Respirators

Aprons

Gloves
Foot Protection

p Figure 1. PPE includes a variety of devices and garments, such as face

shields, safety glasses, earplugs, and respirators.

Copyright 2013 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)

CPC basics
The types of CPC range from basic work clothes
(aprons, jackets, pants, boots, gloves, hoods) to total
encapsulating chemical-protective ensembles, with a wide
variety of options in between (Figure 1). The most basic
characteristic of CPC is the type of resistance it provides
gas/vapor resistance or splash/particulate resistance.
Gas/vapor-resistant clothing is generally configured to
provide head-to-toe coverage, e.g., the so-called moon
suits that have special seams and zippers to prevent chemicals from leaking into them. These suits include a face
shield as an integral part of the ensemble, and are generally
used when the results of skin contact could be irreversible
and fatal to the user (e.g., response to a chemical-release
emergency or to an act of terrorism involving chemical
weapons).
Splash/particulate-protective clothing provides a lesser
degree of protection and is used when the results of skin
contact are not as severe. For example, this type of clothing
is worn by employees performing routine work tasks or
responding to emergencies involving chemicals that would,
in either case, result in limited exposure or consequences to
the skin.
CPC can be either reusable or disposable. Reusable
CPC provides the same protection for the second use as it

does when it is used for the first time. If the CPC cannot meet this criterion, it is considered disposable. Thus,
performance, not cost, determines whether CPC is reusable. All CPC is vulnerable to chemical attack, environmental conditions, and physical abuse. The true useable
life of CPC is difficult to predict, so in many situations it is
simply better to err on the conservative side and replace the
CPC before any evidence of impending failure appears.
Materials and quality of construction also influence the
performance of CPC as a barrier to chemicals. Materials
used for protective garments include natural rubber, neoprene, nitrile, polyethylene, chlorinated polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), PVC-coated materials, polyurethane,
butyl polymers, treated woven fabrics, and several others.
These materials can be supported on cotton, nylon, polyester,
and other substrates. The most appropriate clothing material will depend on the chemicals present, the temperature
of the chemical and the work environment, the task to be
accomplished, and the total time the CPC may be exposed
to the chemical. Ideally, the chosen material should resist
permeation, degradation, and penetration. Most manufacturers literature provides charts indicating the resistance that
various clothing materials have to permeation, subsequent
breakthrough, or degradation by certain chemicals. However, no single material can protect against all chemicals

Employer/Department:
Job Title:
Location(s) of Job Duties:
Body Parts
Activities/Tasks

Potential Hazards

Hazard Key
1. Chemical

PPE
Required

Affected

Body Part Key

PPE Key

9. Compression/
Crush

a. Head

g. Arm(s)

A. Hard Hat

2. Skin/Eyes

b. Face

B. Chemical Goggles

3. Inhalation

10. Particulate/Dust

c. Eye(s)

h. Hand(s)/
Fingers(s)

4. Light/Radiation

11. Thermal Burns

d. Ear(s)

i. Leg(s)

D. Face Shield

5. Temperature
Extremes

12. Slip/Fall/
Surfaces

e. Respiratory
System

j. Feet/Toe(s)

E. Ear Plugs

k. Entire Body

13. Fall Protection

F. Ear Muffs

6. Impact/Falling
Objects

f. Trunk/Torso

l. Other:

G. Body Harness

7. Penetration
Hazard

15. Noise

8. Cuts/Abrasions

17. Other:

14. Vehicular Traffic

C. Safety Glasses

H. Gloves (list type)

I. Shoes/Boots
(list type)
J. Respirator
(list type)
K. High-Visibility
Vest
L. Fall Protection
M. Other:
N. Other:

16. Electric Shock

Author:
Signature:
Date:

p Figure 2. A job hazard analysis documents the relative risks associated with performing specific work tasks where protective clothing is required.

Copyright 2013 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)

CEP September 2013 www.aiche.org/cep

27

Safety

and combinations of chemicals, and few currently available

materials are effective as barriers to any prolonged, high
level of chemical exposure beyond 60 minutes.
Furthermore, the chemical resistance of a particular
type of clothing material can vary significantly from product to product. And for certain chemicals or combinations
of chemicals, there may be no commercially available CPC
material that will provide more than an hours worth of
protection following contact.
Since OSHA provides only limited guidance on CPC
selection, other organizations have developed standards
(Tables 14). ANSI/ISEA 103-2010 is the main standard
related to nonemergency CPC applications. This standard
applies to many disciplines, including chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturing, bulk chemical transfer and handling,
hazardous-waste remediation, waste collection and recycling, paint spraying, tank cleaning, and general manufacturing, maintenance, and clean-up (among others). Three
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards
relate to CPC for hazardous-materials response: NFPA 1991,
which deals with vapor-protective suits; NFPA 1992, which
covers liquid splash-protective suits; and NFPA 1994, which
deals with ensembles for chemical, biological, radiological,
and nuclear (CBRN) terrorism events.
The design and construction of CPC impacts its performance. For example:
Stitched seams may be easily penetrated by chemicals
if they are not overlaid with tape or sealed with a coating.
Lot-to-lot variations do occur, and may have a significant effect on the barrier effectiveness of the CPC.
Pinholes may exist in elastomeric or plastic products
due to material deficiencies, or to poor quality control in
the formulation or in the manufacturing processes.
Thickness may vary at different points on the clothing.
Garment closures differ significantly from one manufacturer to another, as well as within one manufacturers
product line.

Getting Started with CPC

anagement should establish a CPC program as

part of the organizations PPE strategy. The CPC
program should comply with Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) regulations and incorporate
best management practices (BMPs) that relate to the
work activities and expectations for worker performance.
Organizations such as the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI), the International Safety Equipment
Association (ISEA), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) have developed BMPs that can provide
guidance on performance requirements, selection, care,
and maintenance of CPC.

28

www.aiche.org/cep September 2013 CEP

CPC for the eyes and face

Eye and face injuries are typically caused by the following hazards, separately or combined:
chemically contaminated flying objects, such as silica
dust, metal filings, or grindings
splashes of toxic or corrosive chemicals, hot liquids,
or molten metals
fumes, gases, or mists from toxic or corrosive chemicals
radiant energy and/or intense heat
lasers.
Table 1. OSHAs primary PPE standards are in
Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
Purpose
PPE (General)

Requirements

29 CFR 1910.132 and

1926.95

Requires a hazard assessment,

assignment of appropriate PPE, and
employee training

Eye and Face

Protection

Employer must ensure use of

appropriate eye and face protection

29 CFR 1910.133,
1917.91, 1918.101,
and 1926.102

Incorporates ANSI Z87.1-1989 by

reference

Respiratory
Protection

Requires the proper selection, fit

testing, and use of respirators, as well
as employee training

29 CFR 1910.134 and

1926.103
Head Protection
29 CFR 1910.135,
1917.93, 1918.103,
and 1926.100
Foot Protection
29 CFR 1910.136,
1915.156, 1917.94,
1918.104, and 1926.96
Hand Protection
29 CFR 1910.138
Hazardous Waste
Operations and
Emergency Response
29 CFR 1910.120
and 1926.65

Incorporates NIOSH 42 CFR Parts

11 and 84, and DOT 49 CFR Part 180
Requires employer to ensure use of
appropriate head protection
Incorporates ANSI Z89.1-1986,
ANSI Z89.1-1997, ANSI Z89.1-2003,
and ANSI Z89.1-2009 by reference
Requires employer to ensure use of
appropriate foot protection
Incorporates ASTM F-2412-2005
and ASTM F-2413-2005 by reference
Requires employer to ensure use of
appropriate hand protection
Requires employer to ensure that its
site-specific safety and health plan
addresses PPE for each task and
operation to be conducted at the site
Requires employer to assign PPE
based on an on-site evaluation
Paragraph (c) (5) lists detailed
criteria for assignment and use of PPE

Occupational
Exposure to Toxic
and Hazardous
Substances

Requires employer to ensure that

employees exposures to listed
substances are below specified limits

29 CFR
1910.10001050
and 1926.11011152

Copyright 2013 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)

 Typical eye and face CPC includes safety glasses,

safety goggles, and face shields. Sometimes, several forms
of protection must be combined to provide the appropriate protection. It is important to remember that many eye
and face protective devices are not tested for chemical
resistance. Reference 1 provides more information on the
selection of the right eye protection.
Safety glasses, which are typically equipped with side
shields, protect the eyes from flying objects and large particulates. It is important to note that safety glasses do not
provide protection against chemical vapors or splashes.
Safety goggles protect the eyes from dust, chemical
splashes, flying objects, and sparks from any direction.
Some goggles have a cup over each eye, whereas others
have a frame that extends over both eyes.
Face shields protect the face and neck from splashes,
heat, glare, and flying objects. They usually have detachable windows made of plastic, wire mesh, or a plastic-wire
mesh combination and can be attached to a hard hat. In
potentially explosive environments, nonsparking shields
must be used.

CPC for the feet

Foot guards, toe caps, metatarsal guards, safety shoes,
boots, or other types of foot protection are needed to protect
a workers feet from injury due to falling or rolling objects,
sharp objects, molten metal, hot surfaces, contaminated
materials, wet slippery surfaces, and the like. Several
OSHA standards govern and aid in the selection of protective footwear.
Boots are available in several heights ranging from hip
length to as short as 8 in. high.
Table 2. ANSI and ISEA standards for protective clothing.
ANSI/ISEA 103-2010

American National Standard for the

Classification and Performance Requirements for Chemical Protective Clothing

ANSI Z87.1-2003

Occupational and Educational Eye and

Face Protection

ANSI/ISEA 105-2011

American National Standard for Hand

Protection Selection Criteria

Table 3. NFPA standards for protective clothing.

NFPA 1991

Standard on Vapor-Protective
Ensembles for Hazardous Materials
Emergencies, 2005

NFPA 1992

Standard on Liquid Splash-Protective

Ensembles and Clothing for Hazardous
Materials Emergencies, 2012

NFPA 1994

Standard on Protective Ensembles

for First Responders to Chemical,
Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear
(CBRN) Terrorism Incidents, 2012

Copyright 2013 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)

Boots to protect feet from contact with chemicals are

made of a few different polymers, since the heel and sole
require a high degree of abrasion resistance. The most
common materials in chemically resistant boots include
butyl rubber, nitrile, neoprene rubber, and PVC.
Boots constructed with some steel sections (e.g., toes,
shanks, and insoles) protect the feet from compression,
crushing, or puncture by falling, moving, or other contact
with sharp objects. Safety shoes and boots may also be
constructed with fiberglass toes, as a substitute for steel toes
in workplaces involving unprotected electrical sources.
Disposable shoes or boot covers are also available
and made from a variety of materials (e.g., nonwoven and
elastomeric materials). These are worn for work tasks of
limited duration, in which the shoes or covers will not be
reused and where the working surface will not physically
damage the protective footwear.
Article continues on next page
Table 4. ASTM standards for protective clothing.
F1052-09

Pressure Testing Vapor-Protective Ensembles

F1342-05

Protective Clothing Material Resistance to Puncture

F1939-08

Radiant Protective Performance of Flame-Resistant

Clothing Materials

F1407-12

Resistance of Chemical-Protective Clothing

Materials to Liquid Permeation
Permeation Cup Method

F903-10

Resistance of Protective Clothing Materials to

Penetration by Liquids

F739-12

Resistance of Protective Clothing Materials to

Permeation of Liquids and Gases through Protective
Clothing Materials under Conditions of Continuous
Contact

F1383-12

Standard Test Method for Permeation of Liquids and

Gases through Protective Clothing Materials under
Conditions of Intermittent Contact

F1154-11

Standard Practices for Qualitatively Evaluating the

Comfort, Fit, Function, and Durability of Protective
Ensembles and Ensemble Components

F1296-08

Standard Guide for Evaluating Chemical Protective

Clothing

F1194-99

Standard Guide for Documenting the Results of

Chemical Permeation Testing of Materials Used in
Protective Clothing

F1449-08

Standard Guide for Industrial Laundering of Flame-,

Thermal-, and Arc-Resistant Clothing

F1001-12

Standard Guide for Selection of Chemicals to

Evaluate Protective Clothing Materials

F1494-03

Standard Terminology Relating to Protective Clothing

F2412-11

Standard Test Methods for Foot Protection

F2413-11

Standard Specification for Performance Requirements for Protective (Safety) Toe-Cap Footwear

CEP September 2013 www.aiche.org/cep

29

Safety

CPC for the hands

Hazards to the hands may be presented by chemicals,
sharp objects, hot surfaces, moving parts of machines or
tools, heavy equipment, etc. Gloves can be used to protect hands from burns, cuts, electrical shock, amputation,
and absorption of chemicals. Gloves may be integral to,
attached to, or separate from other protective clothing.
Over-gloves are sometimes worn to provide supplemental
protection to the wearer and to protect more-expensive
chemical-protective gloves worn underneath from abrasion,
tears, and contamination. Where contamination is a concern, disposable gloves are often layered over other inner
gloves to reduce the need to decontaminate the inner gloves.
Many glove materials provide chemical protection,
such as PVC, nitrile, butyl rubber, neoprene, and natural rubber. Breakthrough time and permeation rate are
important parameters for choosing gloves for chemical
protection. Other important factors to consider are comfort, dexterity, glove thickness, the glove interface with the
chemical protective clothing, available sizes, duration of
use, and frequency and degree of exposure.
Workers in the healthcare industry, research laboratories, food service establishments, and other industries
commonly use latex gloves. Environmental professionals
and emergency response personnel also often use latex
gloves when chemical gloves are required. While latex
gloves have proven to be effective as chemical barriers, for
example, in preventing the transmission of many infectious
diseases to healthcare providers, in some people, exposure
to latex may cause allergic reactions that result in skin
rashes, sinus symptoms, asthma, and shock. The National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends that employers adopt policies to protect workers
from latex exposure in the workplace (2).
CPC selection
The potential hazards associated with modern technology and with the increasing use of new biological and
chemical reagents require a proactive approach to the
anticipation, recognition, evaluation, and control of health
hazards, as well as physical stresses in the workplace. Each
employee and his or her supervisors must be diligent in
recognizing hazards associated with the activities of a job.
This requires a review of the health and physical hazards
inherent in the tasks or operations to be conducted.
Employers must evaluate the hazards associated with
each procedure and process to determine where exposures
exist or may occur; evaluate actual exposures through air
sampling and analysis or other techniques as necessary;
conduct medical monitoring of employees exposed to hazardous materials as necessary; and control hazards through
substitution or elimination of materials, modification of
30

www.aiche.org/cep September 2013 CEP

equipment, addition of ventilation, use of personal protective equipment, or administrative changes.

Hazard assessment. For each workplace, employers
are required to perform a hazard assessment to determine
whether hazards requiring the use of PPE are present or are
likely to arise. This assessment usually involves a walkthrough survey of the job area to identify sources of hazards
in the following categories: impact, penetration, compression, chemicals, heat, harmful dust, light radiation, and falling objects. The hazard assessment should be documented
in writing, and a reassessment of the hazards should be
performed as necessary. The flowchart in Figure 3 summarizes the PPE hazard assessment process.
CPC selection factors. Several factors must be considered when choosing chemical protective clothing,
including:
health implications of a chemical exposure
type of work
conditions under which the work will be done
body coverage needed
simultaneous hazards.
Simultaneous hazards may be present under certain
conditions. For instance, a confined-space entry may subject the CPC to abrasion, cuts, tears, heat, or cold conditions, in addition to chemical exposure. The selection of
Define Task

Determine Hazards

Gather Information
(Hazards, PPE)
Compare Hazards to
PPE Capabilities

Select PPE

Communicate Hazards and

Required PPE
Identify Hazards Related to
Wearing PPE

Reassess Hazards

p Figure 3. A hazard assessment to determine the need for PPE involves

these eight steps.
Copyright 2013 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)

PPE for such situations may be more complicated. The

selected PPE needs to protect not only against each individual hazard, but if synergistic effects exist, also against
the combination of those simultaneous hazards.

Levels of protection
The components of PPE may be assembled into a
protective ensemble that not only protects the worker from
site-specific hazards but also minimizes the hazards and
drawbacks of the PPE ensemble itself. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has defined four levels of
protection (A, B, C, and D) that are distinguished by:
whether respiratory protection is required and if so the
type of respirator (air purifying vs. atmosphere supplying)
the consequences of skin exposure (the extent of the
body exposed and the severity of such exposure).
Level A protection is required where there is the greatest potential for exposure to hazards and the highest level of
skin, respiratory, and eye protection is needed. Level A PPE
includes respiratory protection with a positive-pressure, fullfacepiece self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), or a
positive-pressure supplied-air respirator with escape-SCBA;
a totally encapsulated chemical-and-vapor-protective suit;
inner and outer chemical-resistant gloves; and disposable
protective suits, gloves, and boots.
Level B protection includes the highest level of respiratory protection but a lower level of skin protection. For
example, at most abandoned outdoor hazardous-waste
sites, ambient atmospheric vapor or gas levels are not high
enough to warrant Level A protection, and Level B is often
adequate. Level B includes: respiratory protection with
a positive-pressure, full-facepiece SCBA, or a positive-

Level A

Level B

pTotally
Figure
4. Levels A (left) and B (right) represent
the highest levels of
encapsulated vapor-tight
Totally encapsulated suit that
protection.
Images courtesy
of Ansell
Protective
suit with full-facepiece
SCBA
or
doesSolutions.
not have to be vapor-tight,
and same level of respiratory
protection as Level A
Copyright 2013 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)

pressure supplied-air respirator with escape-SCBA; inner

and outer chemical-resistant gloves; face shields; hooded
chemical-resistant clothing, coveralls, and outer chemicalresistant boots.
Level C protection is appropriate where the concentration
and type of airborne substances are known and the criteria
for using air-purifying respirators are met. Typical Level C
equipment includes full-facepiece air-purifying respirators,
inner and outer chemical-resistant gloves, hard hats, escape
masks, and disposable chemical-resistant outer boots.
Level D protection may be sufficient when no contaminants are present or work operations preclude splashes,
immersion, or the potential for unexpected inhalation or
contact with hazardous chemicals. Level D protective equipment may include gloves, coveralls, safety glasses, face
shields, and chemical-resistant steel-toe boots or shoes.
Figures 4 and 5 illustrate these levels of protection.
Note that these levels do not dictate the specific ensemble
components. The components must be specified based on a
site-specific risk assessment.
Typically, the EPA levels of protection are used as a
starting point to create a CPC ensemble. Each ensemble
is then tailored to a specific situation in order to provide
the appropriate level of protection. As more information
about the specific operation or site becomes available, the
overall level of protection and CPC selected are validated to
ensure that proper and effective selections were made. The
required level of protection may then need to be upgraded
or downgraded based on the new information. For example,
CPC requirements might need to be upgraded if additional
hazards are identified or suspected, if a task is changed in
a way that increases an employees exposure or potential
exposure to hazardous materials, or at the request of an
individual wearing the equipment. Reasons to downgrade

p Figure 5. Level C PPE consists of a full-body chemical-protective suit

and a powered air-purifying respirator. Image courtesy of Field Safety Corp.

supplied-air respirator

CEP September 2013 www.aiche.org/cep

31

Safety

CPC include new information indicating that the situation is

less hazardous than was originally thought, and changes in
work conditions or tasks that reduce the hazard.
ANSI levels. The ANSI/ISEA 103-2010 standard on the
classification and performance requirements for CPC provides a testing protocol and methodology based on garment
category and performance level. (These levels differ from
the EPA levels discussed earlier.) Six garment categories are
defined, from gas-tight protective garments to full-body or
partial CPC and limited spray-tight CPC. Each category is
defined by an expected chemical-exposure scenario and the
test requirements of various material swatches (e.g., garment
material) and finished garment items (e.g., a coverall). Each
category includes multiple performance levels.
This standard categorizes CPC based on chemical exposure conditions and the required performance of CPC. These
categories are based on several exposure factors, such as:
Is this an emergency or nonemergency use?
Will the employee be exposed to dangerous levels of
gaseous or vapor hazards?
Will the employee be exposed to dangerous levels of a
liquid hazard? Does the liquid produce vapor at a hazardous concentration?
Will the employee be exposed to dangerous levels of a
particulate hazard? Is the particulate radioactive or biologic
in nature?

Factors affecting CPC performance

CPC performance is affected by many factors, including
the physical conditions of the work environment, ergonomics and human factors, the types of CPC selected, etc.
Adverse physical environments such as extreme temperatures, in addition to causing heat or cold stress to the CPC
user, can also degrade the performance of the CPC itself and
expose the worker to hazards unexpectedly. For example,
many elastomeric materials, such as nitrile, PVC, polyvinyl
acetate (PVA), butyl rubber, and neoprene, will crack, puncture, and deteriorate more readily in extremely cold or hot
environments than at room temperature. Workers should be
made aware of the limitations of their assigned CPC, and use
the equipment only under the conditions and for the tasks for
which it was originally selected.

ation has been performed, and the date(s) of the hazard

assessment. It is best to document the entire PPE selection
process, including PPE selection criteria, the PPE selected
and the employee to whom it is assigned (including personnel and type of task), and the PPE training performed
(including the type and date of training).
Decontamination. Decontamination of CPC is the
process of removing, isolating, or reducing contaminants
that are known or suspected to be present on the protective
clothing. Decontamination can be employed to:
protect the wearer from becoming exposed to the
contaminants of concern
minimize the effect contaminants may have on CPC
and avoid cross-contamination
prepare the CPC for return to service.
Effective decontamination of CPC is crucial for reusable CPC as well as disposable items. Users must be able
to safely remove either type of contaminated clothing without running the risk of becoming contaminated themselves.
Reference 3 provides guidance on CPC decontamination, including waste labeling, packaging, treatment, and
manifesting. All decontamination waste, including disposable PPE and the wash/rinse water, should be disposed of
in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations.
Maintenance. Maintenance tailored to the type of workplace and the type of hazards should be an integral part of
the overall CPC program. The manufacturers instructions
for inspection, cleaning, and maintenance of CPC need to
be followed to ensure that the CPC continues to function
properly. A worker wearing a defective device may incorrectly assume that protection is being provided when it is
not. Wearing poorly maintained or malfunctioning CPC
may be even more dangerous than not using it at all.
Medical monitoring. Medical monitoring of CPC users
may be required by OSHA or recommended by a medical
expert after an incident involving chemical exposure. OSHA
(and other organizations such as state health departments)
may also require medical monitoring of certain employees
for a variety of reasons, including those who use a respirator,
work with certain chemicals (e.g., asbestos, lead, cadmium,
hexavalent chromium), or perform hazardous-waste operations or emergency response.

Post-selection considerations
Validation. Once the PPE is selected, the selection
process should be validated. This involves fitting the CPC
to the specific employee, and training him or her on the
proper use and limitations of the CPC.
Documentation. OSHA requires employers to provide
written certification that the workplace hazard assessment
has been performed. The certification must identify the
workplace evaluated, the person certifying that the evalu-

CPC best practices

The following best practices are recommended to
reduce adverse effects.
Select the lightest-weight ensembles and respiratory devices that adequately protect the worker. This will
minimize the physiological demands placed on the worker
associated with carrying the weight of this equipment. The
CPC should be the correct size to fit the user.
When possible, select protective clothing made of

32

www.aiche.org/cep September 2013 CEP

Copyright 2013 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)

a material that allows for the evaporation of water vapor

while also protecting the skin from the contaminant.
When CPC is used during intensive work, reduce the
work intensity by adjusting work/rest schedules, using
automated procedures and/or mechanical assistance where
possible, and changing the way the work is performed
(e.g., finding easier methods of accomplishing the task).
Educate workers about the symptoms of heat illness and
ways to prevent it, and schedule fluid-replacement breaks.
Reduce heat or cold stress by scheduling work accordingly and implementing engineering controls such as personal cooling systems, fans, or other forms of ventilation.

Closing thoughts
A written CPC plan should complement the PPE program as well as other safety programs. These plans typically
include: a risk assessment methodology for CPC selection;
an evaluation of other control options to protect the worker;
CPC selection criteria and procedures; CPC performance
criteria; user training requirements; CPC storage, maintenance, and decontamination requirements; and auditing or
program re-evaluation procedures. By implementing formal
written programs, the chance for error is reduced, worker
Michael H. Ziskin is the founder and president of Field Safety Corp., a
risk-management consulting firm that provides services to industry and
government (Phone: 203-483-6003; Email: mziskin@fieldsafety.com).
Prior to starting the company, he worked in the chemical, pharmaceutical, steel, power generation, and environmental remediation/
response industries. He has served as a member of a regional hazardous materials response team, and has been appointed to American
Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) and NFPA committees involved
with PPE, CPC, and disaster preparedness and emergency response.
He is a member of AIChE, a principal on the NFPA Technical Committee
on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment, past
chairman of the AIHA Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment
Committee, a member of the AIHA Incident Preparedness and
Response Working Group, and a Fellow of the Institute of Hazardous
Materials Management. Since 1991, he has served as an instructor
at the Univ. of New Haven teaching courses in hazardous-materials
management and counterterrorism. He is a lead instructor for the
OSHA Training Institute and Education Center at Keene State College
in New England. Ziskin is a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager
(CHMM), a Certified Hazard Control Manager (CHCM), and a Certified
Business Continuity Professional (CBCP). He received his BA from the
Southampton College, Long Island Univ. in environmental design, and
is completing his MS in environmental engineering at Polytechnic
Institute of New York Univ.

Literature Cited
1. Elston, H. L., Determine the Right Eye Protection, Chem. Eng.
Progress, 107 (9), pp. 4548 (Sept. 2011).
2. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
Preventing Allergic Reactions to Latex in the Workplace, Publication No. DHHS (NIOSH) 97-135, NIOSH, Washington, DC
(June 1997).
3. Gao P., et al., Guideline for the Decontamination of Chemical
Protective Clothing and Equipment, AIHA Guideline 6-2005,
American Industrial Hygiene Association, Fairfax, VA (2005).

Copyright 2013 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)

protection is increased, and a companywide, consistent

approach for the selection and use of CPC is established.
The CPC program should be reviewed at least annually.
Management and employees alike should be diligent
about ensuring that corporate CPC programs meet their
goals. The person responsible for administering the program must have the appropriate technical and professional
background. Someone in management, however, should be
responsible for the companys CPC program, as well as the
necessary management support and appropriate staff with
CEP
expertise in CPC use and maintenance.

Additional Resources
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH
Respirator Decision Logic, NIOSH 87108, NIOSH,
Washington, DC (1987).
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Occupational Safety and Health Guidance Manual for Hazardous
Waste Site Activities, NIOSH 85115, NIOSH, Washington,
DC (1985).
Perkins, J. L., Decontamination of Protective Clothing,
Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 6 (1),
pp. 2935 (1991).
Perkins, J. L., et al., Residual Spilled Solvents in Butyl Protective Clothing and Usefulness of Decontamination Procedures,
Applied Industrial Hygiene, 2 (5), pp. 179182 (1987).
Schlattler, C. N., Decontamination of Protective Clothing,
Chapter 8 in Johnson, J. S., and K. Anderson, eds., Chemical
Protective Clothing, AIHA Press, Fairfax, VA (1990).
Schlattler, C. N., Effects of Water Rinsing on Subsequent Permeation of Rubber Chemical Protective Gloves, in Mansdorf,
S. Z., et al., eds., Performance of Protective Clothing, ASTM,
West Conshohocken, PA (1998).
Schwope, A. D., et al., Guidelines for the Selection of Chemical
Protective Clothing, 3rd ed., American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, OH (1987).
Smith, I. D., and K. E. Burke, Decontamination of Protective Suit
Materials, in Perkins, J. L., and J. O. Stull, eds., Performance of
Protective Clothing, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA (1996).
U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Occupational Safety and Health Standards, 29 CFR 1910 (2013).
U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Safety and
Health Regulations for Construction, 29 CFR 1926 (2013).
Ziskin, M., et al., Decontamination of Chemical Protective Clothing, in Anna, D., ed., Chemical Protective Clothing, AIHA
Press, Fairfax, VA (2003).
Ziskin, M., and D. Han, Personal Protective Equipment, in Cox,
D. B., ed., Hazardous Materials Desk Reference, 2nd ed.,
McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing, Columbus, OH (2005).
Ziskin, M., Personal Protective Equipment Programs for Unknown
Encounters at Unknown Incidents, presented at the American
Industrial Hygiene Conference and Exposition, Toronto, Canada
(June 511, 1999).
Ziskin, M., et al., Risk-Based Assessment for the Selection of
Personal Protective Equipment, presented at the American
Industrial Hygiene Conference and Exposition, Atlanta, GA
(May 915, 1998).

CEP September 2013 www.aiche.org/cep

33