And if they did, you’d smile politely, drink whatever arrived and never go back. (Or you’d stay, because it’s Switzerland and the next restaurant is 40 francs further up the menu. But you’d be grumpy about it.)

Yet that is exactly how an enormous amount of PPE gets bought every single day. Open the catalogue. Sort by price. Pick the cheapest thing that meets the standard. Done. Next.

A good sommelier doesn’t work like that. They ask what you’re eating. Who’s at the table. Whether it’s a Tuesday or an anniversary. How long you’ll be sitting there. Only then do they match a bottle to the moment – because the “best” wine in the world is the wrong wine if it doesn’t fit the meal in front of you.

PPE selection works exactly the same way. Or at least…it should.

The standard tells you less than you think

Here’s the uncomfortable bit.

Two gloves can carry the identical EN 388 rating and perform completely differently on the actual job. One protects beautifully. The other comes off after twenty minutes because the wearer can’t feel a screw thread through it and they’ve got a hundred of them to fit before lunch.

Same certificate on the box. Opposite outcome on the floor.

I know this one personally. I once had to prepare full-face masks for a fit-testing day wearing XL nitrile gloves. My hands are not XL. The language that came out of my mouth that morning is not suitable for a professional magazine (or my mother).

A standard is a floor, not a recommendation. It tells you a product cleared a defined hurdle in a lab. It tells you almost nothing about whether this glove, on this hand, doing this task, for this many hours, will still be on the hand at 3pm.

And that last part is the only part that actually protects anyone.

The spreadsheet can’t see any of this. It sorts by unit price and standard number and quietly hides everything that decides whether the gear gets worn at all. Comfort, dexterity, fit, compatibility, heat – none of it has a column.

So none of it gets bought.

Four questions before you buy anything

If you want to buy PPE like a sommelier instead of a vending machine, the whole game is in the questions you ask before you look at a price.

• What is the real task? Not the job title – the actual movement, grip, exposure and duration. “Warehouse operative” isn’t a task. Handling oily sheet metal with sharp edges for six hours is.
• What else are they wearing? PPE has to work as a system. Glasses fog under a visor. Gloves swim under a sleeve. Earmuffs lose their seal against thick safety-glasses arms. You can buy five perfect items that fail as a set.
• How long is it on for? Two minutes and four hours are genuinely different products. Something you can tolerate for a quick job becomes unbearable – and therefore removed – over a full shift.
• Who is wearing it? Hand size, face shape, the actual human inside the kit. The “average worker” the product was designed around may look nothing like the person you’re handing it to. (Trust me. I have the small hands and the size S full-face mask to prove it.)

The cheapest glove is usually the most expensive

Here’s the part procurement hates to hear.

The cheapest option that gets taken off after twenty minutes is the most expensive PPE you will ever buy. You paid for protection and you bought exposure. Now you’ve got the unit cost, plus the waste, plus the risk, plus – eventually – the second purchase when someone finally admits the first one was never going to work.

A slightly pricier glove that stays on the hand all day isn’t a more expensive glove. It’s the only one that did the job you paid for.

Cost per wear beats cost per unit. Every time. It’s not even close.

None of this means ignoring the budget. A good sommelier recommends brilliant wines at every price point – the skill is the match, not the spend. Same here. There are superb, affordable products for almost every task. You just have to choose them for the meal in front of you, not for the line on the invoice.

Final thought

Next time you’re about to order PPE, don’t just sort the spreadsheet.

Ask the four questions. Pair the product to the task, the system and the person. Then go and watch how much more of it actually stays on.

And if your supplier can’t answer the four questions with you…well. That’s a whole other article. (It’s coming in two weeks.)

P.S. New on PPEQuest: The Briefing. Every Monday, what changed in PPE standards, regulation and products around the world – in plain English, with a Buyer’s take on every story. Perfect homework before your next order. This week: hairdressers finally get their own glove standard, and yes, I’m ridiculously excited about it. Read the Briefing – or sign up below to get it in your inbox every Monday.

The wrong selection. The uncomfortable fit. The certification label that isn't enough. The culture that quietly undermines everything. The body that wasn't consulted. The heat that turns the protection into a hazard.

So this time, let's go the other way.

What does it actually look like when a PPE programme is done well?

Not perfectly. Perfectly doesn't exist. But genuinely, practically well.

First: PPE Is the Last Line, Not the First

A good PPE programme starts with an honest conversation about whether PPE is the right answer at all.

The hierarchy of controls is not just a regulatory requirement. It is a way of thinking about risk that leads to better outcomes. In order:

1. Elimination — remove the hazard entirely

2. Substitution — replace it with something less hazardous

3. Technical measures — enclose, isolate, or extract at the source

4. Organisational measures — change how or when people do the work

5. PPE — protect the person from the residual hazard

PPE should be addressing residual risk — what remains after everything reasonable above it has been done.

If PPE is carrying all the weight because nothing upstream has been addressed, it will fail. Not because the PPE is bad. Because it was never designed to be the entire strategy.

A good PPE programme explicitly documents why PPE is needed and what controls exist above it. If you can't answer that question, the programme has a gap.

The Risk Assessment That Actually Gets Used

Risk assessments are done in many workplaces. But they are not always connected to what actually happens on the floor.

A risk assessment that drives a good PPE programme:

• Identifies the specific hazards for specific tasks (not just "chemical exposure" but which chemical, in which form, at what concentration, via which route)

• Translates those hazards into specific PPE requirements (not just "gloves" but which glove material, which thickness, which cuff length, which EN category)

• Is reviewed when tasks, processes, materials, or conditions change

• Is accessible to the people doing the work, not just filed somewhere

• Is written in language that workers can actually use

The risk assessment is not the programme. It is the foundation the programme is built on.

Selection That Involves the Right People

We have already talked about this in depth, but it belongs in any honest description of a good programme.

Selection involves:

• The safety professional who understands the regulatory and technical requirements

• The supplier who knows the product range

• The workers who know the task

• Trials in real conditions before committing to a purchase

• Compatibility testing for all PPE items worn together

• Explicit consideration of body diversity — different sizes, proportions, and fit requirements

Selection is not a one-time event. It is reviewed when new products become available, when the workforce changes, when tasks change, and when feedback from workers indicates something isn't working.

Training That Explains the Why

PPE training in many workplaces consists of: here is the PPE, this is how you put it on, this is where you store it, sign here.

That is not training. That is information transfer.

Training that actually changes behaviour:

• Explains the hazard. What is the risk without PPE? What happens to the body when exposed? Not in a scary way — in an honest, specific, respectful way.

• Explains the mechanism. Why does this type of PPE protect against this hazard? What does it actually do?

• Demonstrates correct use. Not just the sequence of steps but what correct use looks and feels like, and what incorrect use looks like.

• Addresses the common mistakes. What goes wrong most often? How do you know if the PPE isn't working correctly?

• Includes practice. Especially for PPE with a correct-use technique — respirator donning and fit checking, earplug insertion, glove removal.

• Explains limitations. What this PPE does not protect against. When it needs to be replaced.

And it treats workers as adults who deserve to understand what they are being asked to do and why.

Maintenance, Storage, and Replacement

PPE does not perform like new forever. A good programme has clear answers to:

Storage:

• Where is PPE stored and is that location appropriate? (Away from UV, chemicals, heat, contamination)

• Is storage accessible to workers when they need it?

• Are items individually assigned or communal? (Some items — particularly hearing protection and respiratory protection — should be individual)

Inspection:

• Who checks the condition of PPE and how often?

• What are the specific criteria for "this needs to be replaced"?

• Is the inspection documented?

Replacement:

• Is there a clear replacement policy based on time, use, or condition?

• Do workers know they can request replacement without having to justify it?

• Is replacement tracked so that items don't silently disappear from the system?

Reusable vs disposable:

• If PPE is reusable, is it actually being cleaned and maintained properly?

• If it is disposable, is it being disposed of correctly? (Relevant both for contaminated PPE and for the sustainability conversation)

Culture: The Thing That Makes Everything Else Work or Not

You can have a perfect written programme and still have a PPE problem if the culture doesn't support it.

Culture is not what is written in the policy. It is what is normal, what is tolerated, and what is rewarded every day.

A culture that supports PPE:

• Has leaders who wear PPE when it is required. Every time. Without being asked.

• Addresses non-compliance consistently and without shaming people — starting with curiosity ("what made that difficult?") rather than blame

• Makes it genuinely safe to raise problems. Workers who report that their PPE doesn't fit or doesn't work are treated as contributing to safety, not causing trouble.

• Rewards good practice, not just the absence of incidents

• Treats PPE as part of the work, not an imposition on it

Culture is slow to build and quick to damage. It needs consistent, visible investment from people with authority in the organisation.

The Review Loop

A programme without a review loop is a programme that gradually drifts out of alignment with reality.

Review should include:

• Near-miss reports and incidents involving PPE (or lack of it)

• Feedback from workers on fit, comfort, and usability

• Changes in tasks, processes, materials, or workforce

• New products on the market that might perform better

• Changes in standards and regulatory requirements

• Health surveillance data where relevant

The review is not annual paperwork. It is a genuine question: is this programme still doing what we need it to do?

A Practical Checklist (For Humans, Not Auditors)

If you want to sense-check your own PPE programme, here are the questions that matter:

• Can you explain why each item of PPE is required, in terms of the specific hazard it addresses?

• Were workers involved in selecting the PPE they wear?

• Does the PPE fit the actual people wearing it, across the range of body types in your workforce?

• Has compatibility been tested for all PPE combinations worn simultaneously?

• Do workers understand why the PPE protects them, not just that they have to wear it?

• Is there a clear, accessible replacement process that workers actually use?

• Do supervisors consistently model PPE use?

• When someone raises a problem with PPE, what happens next?

• When did you last review your PPE selection?

If you can answer all of those questions confidently, your programme is in good shape.

If some of them made you uncomfortable, that's useful information.

Final Thought

A good PPE programme is not complicated. But it does require consistent attention, genuine worker involvement, and a willingness to treat comfort and fit as safety issues rather than nice-to-haves.

It requires leaders who set the standard by example, not by memo.

And it requires an honest answer to the most important question in PPE:

Not "is the PPE compliant?" but "is the person actually protected?"

Those two things are not always the same.

That gap is where the work is.

Thank you for reading PPEQuest this far — whether you've been here from the beginning or found your way in somewhere along the way. These articles exist because the gap between PPE compliance and actual protection is one of the most important conversations in workplace safety, and it still doesn't get enough airtime.

If you've found value here, the best way to support PPEQuest is to subscribe to the newsletter – and share this with one colleague who buys or wears PPE.

See you next time.

It gets hot. Workers start removing PPE — or adjusting it, loosening it, leaving parts of it off. Management responds by reminding everyone of the PPE policy. Workers respond by complying just enough to avoid the conversation. The actual hazard exposure quietly increases.

And nobody calls it a heat stress problem. Because officially, the PPE is being worn.

The Hidden Hazard Inside the Protection

PPE is designed to keep hazards out. The trade-off is that it also keeps heat in.

The human body regulates temperature primarily through sweating. Sweat evaporates from skin, carrying heat away from the body. PPE — particularly coveralls, chemical suits, gloves, and respiratory protection — disrupts this process. It traps heat against the body, prevents sweat from evaporating, and significantly increases the metabolic cost of any physical work.

The result is that workers wearing full PPE in warm conditions are doing two jobs simultaneously: the actual task, and thermoregulation against an obstacle.

Core body temperature rising above around 38°C signals heat strain. Above 40°C is a medical emergency. And the progression from "warm" to "in danger" can happen faster than people expect, particularly when the work is physically demanding and the PPE is occlusive.

Heat stress is not discomfort. It is a physiological hazard with real consequences: heat exhaustion, heat stroke, cognitive impairment, and — in severe cases — death.

What Makes PPE Worse in the Heat

Not all PPE creates equal heat burden. Understanding the factors helps with smarter selection and risk management.

Impermeability

Chemical protective suits, particularly those made from impermeable materials like Tychem or coated fabrics, are the worst offenders. They seal the body almost completely from air exchange. The worker inside is essentially in a small greenhouse.

Even lighter, breathable protective clothing adds thermal burden compared to normal workwear — just significantly less than impermeable suits.

Respiratory protection

Full-face respirators and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) add heat load around the face, increase breathing effort, and can cause significant discomfort in warm conditions. This discomfort is one of the primary reasons workers loosen, remove, or fail to achieve a proper seal with respiratory protection during hot periods.

Powered respirators that supply airflow across the face actually help with heat stress more than tight-fitting negative-pressure masks. For long tasks in hot conditions, this is worth considering.

Gloves

Hands are one of the body's key heat dissipation routes. Gloves significantly reduce this. In very hot conditions, this matters more than most people realise.

Layering

Multiple PPE items worn simultaneously — which is normal in many high-hazard environments — compound each other's thermal effects. The result is greater than the sum of the parts.

The Risk Assessment Nobody Does

Heat stress during PPE use is a foreseeable risk. It should be in the risk assessment.

In practice, many risk assessments evaluate the chemical or physical hazard the PPE protects against, but don't evaluate the thermal hazard created by wearing that PPE in the conditions where the work actually happens.

This means the protection solution creates a new hazard that hasn't been formally assessed or controlled.

A risk assessment for PPE use in warm environments should consider:

• The thermal properties of the PPE (breathability, impermeability, coverage)

• The ambient temperature and humidity of the work environment

• The physical intensity of the work

• The duration of exposure

• Individual factors — fitness, acclimatisation, health conditions, medication

• The cumulative effect of multiple PPE items worn simultaneously

Practical Controls That Actually Work

Heat stress with PPE cannot always be eliminated. But it can be significantly reduced with genuine controls, not just reminders to drink water.

Work-rest schedules

Time in hot PPE needs to be actively managed. This means defined work periods and real rest periods — in a cooler location, with PPE removed or at least partially removed, with time to recover core temperature.

The duration of safe work periods depends on the PPE type, the temperature, the physical demand, and the individual. For impermeable suits in warm conditions, safe unprotected work time can be very short.

Acclimatisation

The body adapts to heat over time — typically 7 to 14 days of progressive exposure. Workers who are acclimatised to heat are significantly more resilient to heat stress than those who aren't. At the start of a heat wave or on returning from holiday, acclimatisation is reset.

New workers and returning workers need a managed acclimatisation period. Sending someone into a hot environment in full PPE on day one without acclimatisation is a foreseeable risk.

PPE selection for thermal properties

Where the hazard allows it, choose PPE that minimises thermal burden:

• Breathable protective clothing over impermeable where the hazard permits

• Lighter gloves where grip and dexterity requirements allow

• Cooling accessories integrated with PPE (cooling vests, ice packs in pockets)

• Powered respiratory protection rather than tight-fitting masks for long duration tasks

And regarding chemical suits specifically:

If a worker needs to wear an impermeable chemical suit and is also managing a heavy or difficult menstrual cycle — please build proper break protocols that allow them to exit the suit when needed. Toxic Shock Syndrome is a real risk when workers cannot manage sanitary products because the task doesn't allow them to get in and out of the suit. Protective clothing protocols need to account for this. Full stop.

Pre-cooling and hydration

Arriving at a hot task pre-cooled and well-hydrated extends safe working time. Cold water before work, cooling vests before donning PPE, and active cooling during rest periods all contribute meaningfully.

Hydration during work in PPE requires planning — how does someone wearing a full suit drink water? This is a practical question that needs a practical answer before the shift starts.

Individual Differences Matter

Heat tolerance varies significantly between people and is affected by:

• Physical fitness and cardiovascular health

• Degree of heat acclimatisation

• Age (older workers are generally less heat tolerant)

• Certain medical conditions and medications (including some common ones like antihistamines)

• Pregnancy

• Body composition

• Previous heat illness (which can reduce future heat tolerance)

A one-size-fits-all work-rest schedule applied to a diverse workforce is a starting point, not a complete solution. Supervisors need to be trained to recognise early signs of heat strain: excessive sweating, pale or flushed skin, dizziness, headache, confusion, or cessation of sweating (a danger sign).

And workers need to feel genuinely safe raising the alarm. A culture where admitting you're struggling in the heat is seen as weakness is a culture where people hide symptoms until it becomes an emergency.

Final Thought

When PPE makes a worker unsafe in a different way than the hazard it protects against, that is not a compliance problem.

It is a risk assessment failure.

Heat stress during PPE use is foreseeable, preventable, and serious. It deserves the same formal attention as the chemical or physical hazard the PPE was chosen to control.

Protect against the hazard. And protect against the protection.

Your feet.

Or more specifically — the things we put on them and call "safety footwear."

Could you imagine dancing to Footloose if your feet don't work that well?

Did you know that poorly fitting shoes can dramatically reduce the romantic experience of a foot massage?

What Safety Footwear Is Actually For

Most people think safety boots = toe protection. Steel toecap. Job done.

In reality, safety footwear is a category that covers a wide range of protection types, and the toecap is just one of them.

Under the European standard EN ISO 20345 (and related standards EN ISO 20346 and 20347), safety footwear is classified by what it protects against:

The letter codes on the label tell you a lot:

• SB — basic safety boot: toecap protection only (200 joule impact resistance)

• S1 — SB plus closed heel, antistatic, energy absorption in heel

• S1P — S1 plus penetration resistance (midsole against nails etc.)

• S2 — S1 plus water resistance of upper

• S3 — S2 plus penetration resistance

• S4 / S5 — as above but for polymeric (rubber/PVC) boots

• S6 / S7 — as above with additional waterproofing

Additional marking codes indicate extra protections:

• HRO — heat resistant outsole (contact with hot surfaces)

• WR — water resistant upper

• AN — ankle protection

• M — metatarsal protection (the bones across the top of the foot)

• CR — cut resistance

• ESD — electrostatic dissipation (sensitive electronics environments)

• CI — cold insulation

• HI — heat insulation

A construction worker on a site with nail penetration risk needs S3 as a minimum. A worker in a cold storage environment needs CI-rated footwear. A worker handling molten metal needs metatarsal protection and heat-resistant outsoles.

"Safety boots" is not one thing. Selection matters enormously.

The Toecap Conversation

For years, steel toecaps were the default. Heavy, conductive (cold in winter, uncomfortable in summer), and hard to get through airport security.

Modern alternatives are worth knowing about:

Composite toecaps (fibreglass, carbon fibre, Kevlar, plastic composites) meet the same 200 joule impact requirement as steel, are non-conductive, non-magnetic, lighter, and significantly more comfortable in temperature extremes. For most workplaces, there is no functional reason to default to steel.

Aluminium toecaps are a middle ground — lighter than steel, still conductive, but slimmer profile.

The protection level is not determined by the material of the toecap. It is determined by whether it meets the standard. A composite toecap that passes EN ISO 20345 is as protective as a steel one.

If your workforce is wearing steel toecaps out of habit rather than requirement, it's worth reviewing.

Where Safety Footwear Actually Fails People

Toecaps get all the attention. But in my experience, the real problems with safety footwear are almost never about toecaps.

1. Width and foot shape

Safety footwear is typically available in standard widths. Many people — workers with wide feet, high arches, flat feet, bunions, or previous foot injuries — cannot comfortably wear standard-width safety boots for a full shift.

When footwear doesn't fit the foot, things go wrong. Blisters. Pressure points. Nerve compression. Over time, musculoskeletal problems in the feet, ankles, and knees.

And if it's painful enough, workers change into something that doesn't meet the safety specification. At which point you have zero protection.

2. The knock-on effect up the body

Safety footwear affects more than the feet.

Poorly cushioned, stiff, or badly fitted safety boots increase fatigue. They change gait. They create compensatory loading in the knees, hips, and lower back.

Back pain in workers who stand for most of their shift is frequently connected to footwear. This is a direct occupational health cost that rarely gets traced back to the shoe selection process.

Investing in better-fitted, better-cushioned safety footwear is not a luxury. It is musculoskeletal risk management.

3. Fit for women

Safety footwear was designed for male foot anatomy. Women's feet are not simply smaller men's feet — they have a different forefoot-to-heel ratio, different arch structure, and different toe box proportions.

A "women's size" in many safety boot ranges means a smaller version of the men's last. Not a redesigned product for a female foot.

For many female workers, properly fitting safety footwear that doesn't cause pain by lunchtime remains genuinely difficult to find. This is a design and procurement problem, not a personal one.

4. Sole degradation and replacement timing

Safety footwear loses performance over time. Outsoles wear down, losing slip resistance. Midsole cushioning compresses and stops absorbing shock. Toecaps remain intact long after the rest of the boot has degraded significantly.

Workers will often keep wearing boots that are no longer performing because they're broken in and comfortable. And employers don't always have a clear replacement policy.

Slip resistance degrades silently. Cushioning fails gradually. These are not visible failures. They require proactive replacement policies, not "replace when they fall apart."

Slip Resistance: The Underrated Spec

Slipping is one of the most common causes of workplace injuries. And slip resistance of footwear is one of the most frequently ignored specifications at point of purchase.

Under EN ISO 20345, slip resistance is tested on specific surfaces with specific contaminants (ceramic tile with glycerol; steel with sodium lauryl sulphate). The SRA, SRB, or SRC rating tells you which surfaces and conditions the sole performs on:

• SRA: ceramic tile with dilute glycerol

• SRB: steel with sodium lauryl sulphate

• SRC: both (the highest rating)

For most workplaces, SRC is what you want to see.

But also: a boot rated SRC when new will not be SRC when the sole has worn down significantly. Slip resistance and replacement schedules are linked.

Final Thought

Safety footwear is one of the most personal, body-specific, and persistently underestimated pieces of PPE in the workplace.

It carries the entire person. It affects everything above it. And when it fails — through poor fit, wrong specification, or degraded performance — the consequences range from chronic pain to serious injury.

Choose it carefully. Fit it properly. Replace it on time.

And please — ask the people wearing it how it actually feels at the end of a full shift. Not at 9am. At the end of the day.

That's when you get the truth.

And yes — suncream matters. We have already talked about that. But UV radiation at work is a much bigger and more complex topic than what you put on your skin before starting a shift.

Because UV doesn't only come from the sun. And it doesn't only affect skin.

Two Very Different Sources of UV

UV radiation in occupational settings comes from two distinct sources, and they require completely different protective approaches.

Natural UV — solar radiation

This is what outdoor workers are exposed to. Construction workers, agricultural workers, road crews, groundskeepers, lifeguards, and many others spend significant portions of their working day in direct or diffuse sunlight.

Critically, solar UV is not only a summer problem. UV intensity is highest between 10am and 4pm. Cloud cover reduces but does not eliminate UV exposure. Reflective surfaces — water, snow, concrete, sand, glass — can significantly increase exposure by bouncing radiation upward and sideways. A roofer in March on a clear day is receiving meaningful UV exposure.

Artificial UV — occupational sources

This is the category that genuinely surprises people.

Many industrial and technical processes produce ultraviolet radiation as a by-product or as a primary output. These include:

• Welding arcs — produce intense UV, visible light, and infrared simultaneously. Arc eye (photokeratitis) is a painful and unfortunately common injury. Bystanders as well as welders are at risk.

• UV curing lamps — used in printing, coating, adhesives, and dental applications

• Germicidal UV lamps — used for disinfection in healthcare, food production, water treatment

• Plasma cutting

• Certain laboratory equipment

• Black lights used in quality inspection

Workers near these sources may not be the ones directly operating the equipment. The maintenance technician walking past the UV curing station. The cleaner entering a room after UV disinfection. The colleague two metres from the welding bay.

UV exposure is not always obvious. It is not always accompanied by heat. And it does not require direct line-of-sight in all cases.

What UV Actually Does to the Body

UV radiation exists in three bands: UVA (315–400nm), UVB (280–315nm), and UVC (100–280nm).

Natural solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface is mostly UVA with some UVB — UVC is almost entirely absorbed by the atmosphere. Artificial sources can produce all three, including UVC, which is both highly effective for disinfection and highly damaging to biological tissue.

Effects on skin:

• Acute: erythema (sunburn), even from short intense exposures

• Chronic: premature ageing of skin, actinic keratoses, and significantly increased risk of skin cancers — including melanoma, which is one of the most serious cancers in terms of metastatic risk

• Outdoor workers have substantially elevated lifetime UV exposure compared to indoor workers, and the occupational contribution to skin cancer risk is a significant and under-recognised public health issue

Effects on eyes:

• Acute: photokeratitis (arc eye or snow blindness) — painful inflammation of the cornea that can temporarily impair vision. Symptoms often appear hours after exposure.

• Chronic: cataracts, macular degeneration, and pterygium — a growth on the white of the eye that can affect vision

• Unlike skin damage, eye damage from UV is cumulative and the eye has no effective natural defence against UV — squinting reduces but does not eliminate exposure

PPE for UV: It's More Than Suncream

Protecting workers from UV requires thinking in layers — literally.

Protective clothing

Not all clothing is created equal when it comes to UV protection. The relevant measure is UPF (Ultraviolet Protection Factor) — the fabric equivalent of SPF for skin.

Loose weave, wet fabric, and lighter colours all reduce UV protection. A white cotton t-shirt in average condition has a UPF of around 5–10. A properly rated UPF 50+ garment blocks over 98% of UV.

For outdoor workers with prolonged exposure, workwear with a certified UPF rating is protective clothing — not a lifestyle product. Long sleeves and collar coverage matter. For artificial UV sources, specific arc-flash and welding-rated garments provide protection not available from regular workwear.

Eye protection

This is where it gets detailed and important.

For solar UV, standard clear safety spectacles do not automatically provide UV protection. Check the lens specification. EN ISO 16321 (the new eye protection standard) includes updated UV filter categories and marking requirements. Lenses should be marked to indicate their UV transmission — look for UV 400 protection (blocking UV up to 400nm) for outdoor work.

For welding, the protection requirements are far more stringent. Welding shields and goggles are rated by shade number — the higher the shade, the less light (including UV and IR) that passes through. The correct shade depends on the welding process and current level. Using the wrong shade is not a minor issue: arc flash at the wrong protection level causes serious eye injury.

For UV curing and disinfection applications, standard eye protection is not sufficient. Polycarbonate lenses block most UV but the level of protection depends on the lens specification and the intensity of the source. Always check the specific requirements for the UV source in question.

Barriers and engineering controls

As always: PPE is the last resort, not the first. UV welding curtains to protect bystanders. Physical barriers around UV curing equipment. Interlocks that prevent access during germicidal lamp operation. Scheduling outdoor work around peak UV hours where possible.

PPE fills the gap that engineering controls cannot close.

The Invisible Hazard Problem

UV is invisible. You cannot feel it in the way you feel heat. By the time you notice the damage — the gritty, painful eyes, the burned skin, the slow progression of chronic effects — the exposure has already happened.

This is exactly the kind of hazard where the psychology of risk perception works against workers. If you can't perceive it happening, it is very hard to consistently behave as if it is a real threat.

This is why education matters as much as PPE. Workers who understand that the UV curing lamp is causing real, cumulative damage to their eyes every time they look near it without protection — even briefly — make different decisions than workers who have been told "don't look at it."

Explain the mechanism. Make the invisible visible. The behaviour follows.

Final Thought

Suncream is part of the UV protection story. An important part.

But outdoor workers also need UPF-rated clothing and UV-filtering eye protection. Workers near welding, UV curing, and disinfection equipment need task-specific PPE that many workplaces haven't properly assessed.

And all of them need to understand why — because UV damage is cumulative, invisible, and mostly irreversible.

Protect the skin. Protect the eyes. And don't assume that because nobody is complaining, nobody is being harmed.

The people who will wear it eight hours a day?

Usually consulted at the very end. If at all.

And then everyone acts surprised when it doesn't get worn.

The Question We Keep Asking Wrong

The conversation in many workplaces goes like this:

"Who is responsible for PPE selection?"

And the answer is usually a job title. The HSE manager. The department head. The purchasing team.

But that question misses the point entirely.

The better question is: who has the information needed to select PPE that actually works?

And the honest answer is: nobody has all of it alone.

The safety manager understands the regulatory requirements and the risk assessment.

The supplier knows the technical specifications and the product range.

But the worker knows something neither of them can access from a desk: what the task actually feels like to do, for eight hours, in the real conditions of that specific workplace.

That knowledge is irreplaceable. And we systematically leave it out of the process.

What Workers Know That Nobody Else Does

When I talk about involving workers in PPE selection, I sometimes get pushback. The concern is usually something like: "They'll just choose whatever's most comfortable and ignore the protection level."

This assumption is both inaccurate and a bit insulting.

In my experience, workers are not trying to avoid protection. They are trying to do their jobs. And they have extremely precise knowledge about why certain PPE makes that harder:

• The gloves are too thick to feel the material they're working with

• The safety glasses fog up within five minutes of starting the task

• The respirator doesn't sit properly when they look downward

• The hearing protection makes it impossible to hear the machine changing speed

• The safety shoes cause knee pain by midday, so they swap them out

None of this information is in the product datasheet. None of it shows up in a risk assessment. All of it directly affects whether the PPE provides actual protection or just theoretical protection.

Workers are the experts in their own work. Treating them as the problem, rather than a critical source of information, is how you end up with expensive PPE that lives in a drawer.

The Trial Period Nobody Does Properly

Most PPE selections skip the trial phase entirely, or treat it as a formality.

"We ordered three pairs of glasses, gave them to three people for a week, nobody complained, so we ordered 200."

A real trial means:

• Testing the product across the full range of tasks it will be used for

• Testing it across different body types, face shapes, hand sizes, and working positions

• Actively collecting feedback — not just waiting for complaints

• Testing it in the actual environmental conditions (heat, humidity, dust, chemical exposure)

• Testing compatibility with other PPE being worn at the same time

A respirator that works fine in a cool, dry office feels completely different in a warm, humid production environment. A glove that performs well for one task becomes a liability for another.

The trial isn't a box to tick. It is the most valuable information you will collect in the entire selection process.

Compatibility: The Thing Everyone Forgets

PPE is not selected in isolation. In most workplaces, workers wear multiple items at the same time. And the combination can create problems that none of the individual items would cause alone.

Safety glasses and a half-face respirator. Hearing protection and a hard hat. Chemical gloves and a protective suit. Safety glasses and prescription glasses.

Each combination needs to be tested in practice. Does the respirator break the seal of the glasses? Do the earmuffs fit under the hard hat brim? Do the chemical suit sleeves seal properly against the glove cuffs?

And — back to a familiar theme — does the combination work for different body shapes and face geometries, not just the "standard" worker?

Compatibility testing is not optional. It is part of selection.

What Good Involvement Actually Looks Like

I am not suggesting that workers make the final decision on PPE without input from anyone else. The regulatory requirements, the risk assessment, and the technical performance criteria all have to be met.

But involvement should be genuine, not performative.

In practice, this means:

• Explaining the hazard before asking for feedback. Workers who understand what they are being protected from make better evaluations.

• Making trials structured. Give people specific questions to answer, not just "did you like it?"

• Listening to the negative feedback. The worker who says it doesn't work is giving you the most useful information in the room.

• Closing the loop. Tell workers what was decided and why. If their feedback changed the selection, say so. If it didn't, explain why not.

The goal is not consensus. It is informed decision-making that uses all the available knowledge. Including the knowledge that only comes from wearing the thing.

When the Selection Goes Wrong

PPE that was selected without adequate worker involvement tends to fail in one of a few predictable ways:

• It doesn't fit a significant proportion of the people who have to wear it

• It is technically correct for the hazard but incompatible with the actual task

• It is worn incorrectly because nobody explained how it works

• It gets modified, loosened, or removed because it is genuinely not fit for purpose

None of these are attitude problems. They are selection problems.

And the solution isn't more rules. It's going back and doing the selection properly.

Final Thought

So who gets to choose the PPE?

Everyone who has relevant knowledge. Which includes the people who will wear it.

Not as a box-ticking consultation. As a genuine part of getting it right.

Because PPE that nobody wears doesn't protect anybody. And PPE that nobody was asked about is often PPE that nobody wears.

Not because eyes aren't important. Obviously they are.

But because safety glasses are small, cheap-looking, easy to misplace, and — let's be honest — often chosen by whoever did the last office supply order rather than anyone who actually thought about the task.

So here's a deep dive into eye protection. What it actually does, why selection matters far more than people think, and what is about to change with the standard.

Eyes Are Remarkably Easy to Damage and Impossible to Replace

Around the world, hundreds of thousands of eye injuries happen in workplaces every year. A significant proportion of them are preventable with the correct eye protection.

The hazards that can affect eyes at work include:

• Mechanical impact — flying particles, fragments, dust, sparks

• Chemical splash — liquids, aerosols, vapours

• Radiation — UV, infrared, intense visible light, lasers, welding arcs

• Biological hazards — in healthcare and laboratory settings

• Dust — fine particles that irritate or damage the cornea

Different hazards require fundamentally different types of protection. This is where many workplaces fall down immediately.

Spectacles vs Goggles vs Face Shields: They Are Not Interchangeable

Let's clear this up once and for all.

Safety spectacles (glasses with side shields) protect against direct and low-energy lateral impact. They are not sealed against the face. Liquids, fine dust, and vapours can still get in from the sides, top, and bottom. For splash risk: not enough.

Safety goggles fit close to the face and form a seal. Direct ventilation goggles protect against impact but allow some airflow — useful for comfort but not for chemical vapours. Indirect ventilation goggles block splash and fine particles more effectively. For chemical work or fine dust: this is your starting point.

Face shields protect the whole face but are almost always used over other eye protection, not instead of it. They are not primary eye protection on their own.

A worker who is grinding metal can use safety spectacles.

A worker handling corrosive liquids cannot.

Both are wearing "safety glasses." Only one is actually protected.

The Lens Matters More Than the Frame

Most people choose safety eyewear by frame. Is it comfortable? Does it look okay? Does it fit over prescription glasses?

All valid questions. But the lens is where the actual protection lives.

Optical class determines visual quality. Class 1 lenses offer the clearest, most accurate vision — essential for precision work, driving, or anyone who needs sharp sight. Class 2 lenses have slightly more distortion and should not be used for tasks requiring fine visual acuity or driving.

Lens coatings affect real-world performance significantly:

• Anti-scratch (K) coating extends product life

• Anti-fog (N) coating is not a luxury — fogged lenses get removed

• UV protection varies and matters more than people realise (more on this in a future article)

Tinted lenses exist for solar glare, infrared and UV filtering, each with specific transmission ratings for specific conditions. A lens tinted for outdoor use will reduce visibility dangerously in a dark environment.

Mismatching lens to task is not a minor issue. It directly affects both protection and the likelihood that the product gets worn at all.

The Standard Is Changing — And You Need to Know About It

For over 20 years, the benchmark for occupational eye protection in Europe was EN 166:2001. Same standard. No updates. Since 2001.

That changed on 11 November 2025.

From that date, EN 166 no longer provides presumption of conformity for new certifications. The new standard — EN ISO 16321-1:2022 — takes over.

Here is what that actually means in plain language:

What changes for manufacturers and certification:

• New products must be tested and certified to EN ISO 16321-1 from November 2025

• Products already certified under EN 166 before that date can remain on the market until their certificate expires (maximum five years from issue date, so some will be valid until 2029)

• Both standard markings will coexist in the market for several years during transition

What actually changed in the standard itself:

• Bigger, heavier impact test projectile. The basic impact test now uses a heavier steel ball (~66g vs ~43g previously). Products have to be more resilient to blunt impacts.

• Tighter light transmission requirements. Standard clear lenses must now allow at least 80% light transmission (previously around 74%). Better vision clarity is now the minimum.

• New protection zones. The standard introduces clearer categories for how much of the face and orbital area is actually covered at different protection levels.

• More rigorous thermal testing. Eyewear must now withstand heat for 120 minutes without deforming, up from 60 minutes previously.

• Gap limits. Openings in frames cannot exceed 1.5mm, tested with a rigid rod — preventing particles from sneaking through gaps in the frame structure.

• Better headform diversity. Six headform sizes are now used in testing, covering around 95% of the world's population. Previously only two sizes were used. (IS PPE BECOMING MORE INCLUSIVE?)

• New field of view test method. The previous method was fairly subjective. The new Stoll Apertometer (fancy ;-)) approach measures from far more reference points and produces more reliable results.

What does this mean for workplaces right now?

If you are currently procuring safety eyewear:

• Check whether products you are ordering are certified to EN 166 or EN ISO 16321-1

• EN 166 products already in stock and in use remain compliant until their certificates expire

• New purchases from compliant suppliers will increasingly carry EN ISO 16321-1 marking

• When requesting quotes, ask suppliers which standard the product is certified to

This is not a reason to panic or throw out your current stock. It is a reason to be informed and to start paying attention to the transition.

The Fit Problem (Again)

New standard or old, the fundamental challenge with eye protection (and PPE in general) remains the same: fit.

Safety glasses that sit too far from the face leave a gap where particles can enter. Glasses that press on the nose or temples get pushed down, loosened, or removed. Glasses that fog up because they seal poorly or are too close to the face get taken off within minutes.

The new EN ISO 16321 standard's expanded headform range is a step in the right direction. But a product tested on six headforms still needs to be trialled on actual people in actual workplaces before it becomes the standard issue for everyone.

Involve workers in selection. Trial products before committing. And ask the people doing the work whether what they've been given actually stays on their face.

Final Thought

Eye protection is probably the most underestimated category in PPE.

It is inexpensive, simple-looking, and easy to dismiss as a box-ticking exercise.

But eyes are irreplaceable. Damage is often permanent. And most eye injuries at work happen to people who were wearing the wrong type of protection, or protection that didn't fit, or protection they'd already taken off.

Grab the right ones. Check the lens. Check the fit. And when the standard changes this November — notice.

It usually goes something like this:

"I hate gloves"

And every time I hear it, I take a very deep breath while I try to fight back the tears...

But there is another sentence I also hear and that is:

"It has the CE marking on it so it must be ok right?"

Because CE marking — or any other certification marking — is not a guarantee that someone is protected. It is a guarantee that a product was tested under controlled conditions and met the minimum requirements of a standard at that specific moment in time.

That is not nothing. But it is also very far from everything.

What a Certification Mark Actually Means

Let's start with what standards and certification actually do, because this genuinely matters.

When a piece of PPE is certified — whether that's a CE mark in Europe, UKCA in the UK, or ANSI in the United States — it means the product was submitted to a third-party testing body, tested against a defined set of requirements, and passed.

Those requirements cover things like:

• Impact resistance

• Optical quality (for eye protection)

• Chemical resistance (for gloves and protective clothing)

• Attenuation (for hearing protection)

• Filter efficiency (for respiratory protection)

The testing is rigorous. The standards are developed by technical committees with real expertise. The process matters.

But here is what the label does not tell you:

• Whether the product fits the person wearing it

• Whether it is the right type of protection for the actual hazard

• Whether it has been stored, maintained, or used correctly

• Whether it is compatible with the other PPE being worn at the same time

• Whether the person wearing it has been trained to use it properly

The label tells you the product passed a test.

It says nothing about what happens next.

The Gap Between the Lab and the Shop Floor

I’ve walked through many a production site in my day and I do see a lot of amazing PPE. However I see a lot of amazing and certified PPE being worn incorrectly.

A top of the line full face mask being worn by a man with a full beard. Gorgeous ear plugs sticking out of the ears.

Super stylish safety prescription glasses but with the side shields removed.

This is the gap that doesn't appear in any audit.

On paper: compliant.

In reality: exposed.

The certification got the product to the workplace. Everything else — selection, fit, training, culture — determines whether it actually protects anyone.

Standards Are a Floor, Not a Ceiling

Another thing worth understanding: a standard sets the minimum acceptable performance.

Passing a standard means a product is not below the threshold. It does not mean it is the best option for your workplace, your task, or your workers' bodies.

Two products can both be certified to the same standard and perform very differently in the real world. One might fog up within ten minutes. One might feel so uncomfortable that it gets removed by lunchtime. One might seal perfectly on a specific face geometry and leave gaps on another.

Both passed the standard.

Only one protects.

The Marking Codes No One Explains

While we're here — have you ever looked at the markings on a piece of safety eyewear and had absolutely no idea what the string of letters and numbers means?

You are not alone. Most workers haven't been told. Many procurement teams haven't either.

A marking like 1 B 3 4 K N on a pair of safety glasses communicates a lot:

• The optical class of the lens

• The protection zone covered

• Whether the frame and lenses have been tested for robustness

• Whether the lens has anti-scratch coating

• Whether it has anti-fog coating

Each character tells you something specific about what this product was tested for and what it offers.

If no one explains those codes to the person wearing the product, all that information is useless. They are just numbers on a frame.

This is always the big AHA moment when I do safety trainings - learning how to read and understand your PPE. Getting workers to actually LOOK at their PPE before they put it on.

So What Should We Do With All This?

I am not saying certification is meaningless. The opposite, actually.

Certification is the foundation. It confirms a baseline of performance and gives us a common language for talking about protection.

But it is the beginning of the conversation, not the end.

The rest of the work is:

• Selecting the right certified product for the right hazard and the right person

• Fit-testing where required (and honestly, where it isn't required but should be)

• Training workers on what the markings mean and how to use the product correctly

• Maintaining the equipment so it continues to perform as tested

• Replacing it when it no longer does

A certification mark on a piece of PPE is like a sell-by date on food.

It tells you the product was good under the right conditions.

It doesn't automatically make it safe on your plate, for your situation, on this day.

Final Thought

The next time someone says "it's certified, so we're covered" — push back.

Not aggressively. Just curiously.

Certified for what? Fitted to whom? Stored how? Replaced when?

Because the label is the start of protection.

The people wearing it — and the systems around them — are what make it real.

But there’s one thing we can learn from them:

Hazards don’t discriminate.

They aren’t ageist, sexist, racist or sizeist. They don’t care who is exposed. They don’t check body shape, gender or identity before causing harm.

A chemical doesn’t choose its target. Gravity doesn’t care who falls. Dust doesn’t decide whose lungs it enters.

And yet, when it comes to protecting people from those very hazards, we often design equipment around just one specific body type.

If hazards don’t discriminate, protection shouldn’t either.

Beyond “Unisex”: Why PPE Must Fit Real Bodies

Last week was International Women’s Day.

And yes — this article once again talks about PPE and women.

Not as criticism nor as blame.

But as biology.

Because when we talk about safety, we are talking about bodies. And - you may be surprised to hear this because AI is trying to tell us otherwise - bodies are not all built the same.

For a long time, personal protective equipment has been designed around what was considered the “average worker.” Historically, that average worker was male. The measurements used to design respirators, gloves, harnesses and protective clothing often came from male populations.

That doesn’t make anyone wrong.

It just means the starting point was narrow.

And female bodies are not simply smaller versions of male bodies.

They are built differently.

Our Bodies Are Structured Differently

From puberty onward, hormones shape how our bodies develop.

Estrogen and testosterone influence bone growth, muscle distribution and fat placement.

On average, we women tend to have:

• Narrower shoulders

• A wider pelvis

• Shorter torsos

• Different rib cage shapes

• Smaller hands and feet with different proportions

• Breasts - which can be a huge pain in the backside!!

This is not about strength or ability. It’s simply anatomy.

And this doesn’t apply only to cisgender women and men.

Trans people who take hormone therapy often experience changes in muscle mass and fat distribution. A trans woman may develop softer facial contours and different fat patterns. A trans man may gain muscle mass and upper body strength. Skeletal structure developed during puberty may remain, but soft tissue and proportions can shift.

Non-binary people may not identify with gendered PPE lines at all — and their bodies, like everyone’s, may not match traditional design categories.

The point isn’t labels.

The point is that human bodies are diverse and PPE is all about anatomy.

It needs to sit in the right place, seal in the right place and distribute pressure in the right place.

When body structure changes, fit changes.

Respirators: When Millimeters Matter

Respirators only protect if they seal properly against the face. That seal depends on very small details — jaw width, chin length, cheekbone shape and the overall proportions of the face.

On average, women tend to have narrower jaws, shorter chin-to-nose distances and different facial contours compared to the male reference models historically used in respirator design.

If a mask is shaped for a broader or longer face, simply tightening the straps won’t solve the problem. It may even create pressure points while still leaving small gaps where contaminated air can enter.

In many workplaces, fit-testing programmes show a clear pattern: certain models fit women less reliably when only standard versions are available.

At my last fit test, for example, I needed a size S full-face mask with a slightly longer shape to achieve a proper seal. A standard model would not have worked for me.

This isn’t about using equipment incorrectly. It’s about whether the equipment was designed to match the face wearing it.

In respiratory protection, a few millimetres can make the difference between long-term exposure and long-term health.

Gloves: Dexterity Is Safety

Hands are another example. Women’s hands are often narrower, with different finger-to-palm proportions.

If gloves are too wide or too long in the fingers, grip becomes less precise. Hands get tired faster. Fine tasks become more difficult.

Once when I was doing fit testing and I had to prepare the full face masks while wearing XL nitril gloves…I was using language which my mother would not have approved of.

And sometimes, workers remove their gloves because they simply don’t feel right, comfortable or they just can’t do the work!

That’s when risk increases.

Offering a smaller size helps but only if the proportions are right. Fit is not just about making something shorter. It’s about making it match the shape of the hand.

Harnesses: Where the Forces Travel

Fall protection harnesses are designed to distribute forces safely across the body if a fall occurs.

But once again…women’s bodies are shaped differently. (Do you see a pattern in this article?)

The relationship between shoulders, chest and hips is not the same as in most male reference models used in design.

And this applies across gender diversity. A trans woman with broader shoulders but softer tissue distribution may experience strap placement differently. A trans man may have increased upper-body muscle mass but retain different hip proportions.

This can mean that chest straps sit too high, too low or directly across breast tissue. Leg straps may angle differently because of a wider pelvis. The harness may feel like it pulls in certain areas or does not sit naturally against the torso.

Even if the harness technically “fits,” it may not feel stable or comfortable throughout a full workday.

And when equipment feels wrong, people adjust it. They loosen it. They shift it. They try to make it work.

In fall protection, small adjustments can change how forces travel through the body and when a 50 - 70 kg person falls from height, there is a lot of force travelling through the body.

That is why comfort is not a luxury in safety equipment. It is part of protection.

The Body Changes During the Month (Let’s get bloody serious here)

There is another layer that we almost never discuss in PPE design: the menstrual cycle.

Many women move through roughly four phases each month — menstrual, follicular, ovulatory and luteal. These phases are driven by hormonal fluctuations, mainly estrogen and progesterone.

And hormones don’t just influence mood and make us rage…

They influence the body and the shape because female bodies are different to male bodies! (OMG RIGHT? Who would have thought)

Across a cycle, women may experience:

• Fluid retention

• Breast tissue sensitivity or swelling

• Changes in abdominal bloating

• Slight shifts in body temperature

• Changes in ligament laxity

• Variations in perceived exertion and fatigue

• Food cravings such as salty snacks and sugar which may lead to her eating a whole pizza followed by a tub of ice cream…while crying while watching “Pride and Prejudice” for the 1000th time.

In the luteal phase (this is the week before our Bloody Aunt Flo comes to visit) especially, it is common to retain water. Waist circumference can temporarily increase. Breast tissue can become more sensitive. Some women experience noticeable bloating. I do…a lot.

These are normal, healthy changes.

But in practical terms, they can mean:

A harness feels tighter across the chest than it did two weeks ago and causes a lot of pain.

Protective trousers press more at the waist.

A chemical suit feels hotter and harder to tolerate.

And speaking of chemical suits. If your female worker is going through a particularly heavy and uncomfortable period (which tends to happen as women head towards perimenopause) - please ensure that you adapt your workplace protocols to allow her to be able to get out of the chemical suit more often. Toxic Shock Syndrome is real and cups and tampons need to be changed regularly!

Research in physiology shows that body temperature does increase slightly during part of the cycle. Hormonal changes can also influence fluid retention. These shifts are small — but PPE works in small margins.

If equipment already fits at the edge of comfort, those normal monthly changes can push it into discomfort.

And discomfort can affect compliance, mood and productivity.

This doesn’t mean we need completely different PPE every week. It means we should recognise that bodies are not static. They change — even within the same person.

My scale will range from 65 kg to 68 kg throughout the month. 69 kg after the pizza and ice cream.

Adjustability, flexibility and thoughtful design matter.

This Isn’t Political. It’s Practical.

Designing PPE to fit different bodies is not about division. It’s about realism.

Equal protection does not mean giving everyone identical equipment.

It means giving everyone equipment that fits.

When PPE fits properly, people move naturally. They feel confident. They keep it on. And that’s when it truly protects.

Because PPE that doesn’t fit doesn’t protect. It also annoys a LOT of people.

And protection should work for every body on site because hazards really don’t care who they kill.

It’s often talked about as a compromise. As if you have to choose between being protected and being comfortable. One or the other. Never both.

And that idea has stuck around far longer than it should have.

Because in real workplaces, PPE that isn’t comfortable doesn’t magically become protective just because it meets a standard.

If it pinches, rubs, overheats, restricts movement or simply feels wrong, people will adjust it. Loosen it. Wear it halfway. Take it off “just for a moment”.

Not because they’re careless, but because their body is constantly negotiating with the task in front of them.

That’s where the problem starts.

Why PPE gets labelled as “uncomfortable”

When someone says PPE is uncomfortable, it’s rarely a complaint about safety itself. It’s usually about fit, suitability or practicality. Gloves that are too stiff for fine work. Respirators that don’t sit properly on the face. Safety shoes that technically protect the foot but leave the rest of the body paying the price by the end of the day.

Workers aren’t saying:

• “I hate being safe”

• “I enjoy risk” (Although some could be saying that…)

What they actually mean is:

• It doesn’t fit properly

• It’s not suited to the task

• It’s too heavy / too hot / too rigid

• Who the f…. chose this for me?

That’s not a comfort problem.

That’s a selection problem.

PPE only does its job when it’s worn properly and consistently. Protection that exists only in theory looks great on paper, but it doesn’t stop exposure on the shop floor. The moment PPE becomes something people have to “put up with”, its protective value quietly erodes.

PPE only works when it is:

• worn

• worn correctly

• worn consistently

If PPE causes pain, pressure points, heat stress, restricted movement or fatigue, what happens?

• Gloves come off “just for a minute”

• Earplugs are half-inserted

• Respirators are loosened

• Safety shoes get swapped for something “lighter”

On paper: protected.

In reality: exposed.

Comfort is often dismissed as a luxury, or worse, as a personal preference that doesn’t belong in a risk assessment. But comfort directly affects behaviour.

Comfort is often treated as a nice extra:

“This model is more comfortable, but the other one is cheaper.”

That logic misses the point.

Comfort directly influences:

• wearing time

• acceptance

• correct use

• long-term health

A glove that fits properly improves dexterity.

A well-designed respirator reduces leakage.

Lightweight safety shoes reduce fatigue and back strain.

That’s not indulgence.

That’s risk reduction.

What’s interesting is that modern PPE has largely solved the supposed trade-off. Materials are lighter, designs are more ergonomic, and products are far more task-specific than they used to be. When PPE still feels uncomfortable today, it’s usually because it was chosen without really considering the work being done or the people doing it.

The real question was never “comfort or protection?” It was always whether the PPE actually fits the task, the risk and the person.

If someone tells you their PPE is uncomfortable, that’s not resistance. It’s feedback.

Listen to it! And talk back!

Because discomfort is often the first warning sign that protection isn’t working as intended.

And in PPE, intended protection isn’t enough.

Effective protection is what matters.

Last week was International Tinnitus Week, a good reminder that hearing damage is not some abstract future problem – it’s happening right now, in everyday workplaces. Even I’ve got it. And it sucks so much.

And yet, despite decades of research, standards, and very clear guidance, the same myths about hearing protection keep popping up. Let’s finally put a few of them to rest.

Myth 1: “I’m used to the noise – it doesn’t bother me anymore”

This one is particularly dangerous.

Not being bothered by noise does not mean it isn’t damaging your hearing. Quite the opposite: your brain simply stops reacting to the stimulus. Your ears, however, are still taking the hit.

(It’s like when you go into someone’s car and it has a really bad smell and they’re obviously used to it and it makes you want to vomit…).

Noise-induced hearing loss is gradual, cumulative, and irreversible. You don’t feel it happening – until it’s too late. And when it’s too late…it’s actually too late. You can’t undo the damage.

Myth 2: “Earplugs are uncomfortable, so they don’t really work”

Earplugs that are uncomfortable are often worn incorrectly or are simply the wrong type or size.

If I can see your earplugs from across the room, you’re probably not protected. Foam plugs need to be rolled, inserted deeply, and held in place until they expand. Many people skip half of that process.

Comfort comes from:

• The right product

• Correct insertion

• Proper training

Not from suffering in silence.

I have very small ear canals so it’s difficult for me to wear ear plugs.

Other ear protection (fitted ear plugs, ear muffs) could also be a lot more comfortable.

Myth 3: “I only work in noise for short periods – that’s fine”

Hearing damage depends on noise level and duration. A very loud noise for a short time can be just as harmful as moderate noise over a longer period.

Impact noise, sudden peaks, and intermittent exposure are often underestimated. “Just a few minutes” can still be enough to cause permanent damage.

Working in 110 dB for just 10 seconds is enough to cause permanent damage to your ears.

Myth 4: “Earmuffs protect better than earplugs”

Not automatically.

Both earplugs and earmuffs can offer excellent protection if they are suitable and worn correctly. Earmuffs lose effectiveness with:

• Glasses with thick frames

• Long hair or beards breaking the seal

• Poor fit or worn cushions

More protection on paper does not equal more protection in real life.

Myth 5: “If I wear hearing protection, I can’t hear warnings or colleagues”

To be fair. Yeah this is true. Some ear protection can over protect you and thus cause you to miss information.

Modern hearing protection is designed to balance protection and communication. There are solutions with:

• Level-dependent attenuation

• Communication systems

• Filters that reduce harmful noise but allow speech

Removing hearing protection to “hear better” often means choosing short-term convenience over long-term hearing health. Not the best choice to make - even if Steve’s story about his dog was really entertaining.

Myth 6: “Tinnitus is just annoying – you can live with it”

Many people do live with tinnitus. That doesn’t mean they should have to.

Tinnitus can seriously affect:

• Sleep

• Concentration

• Mental health

• Quality of life

And once it’s there, it often never goes away. Prevention is still the most effective measure we have.

There is research also on how tinnitus could also be a cause of suicide in people.

Final thought

Hearing protection is not about rules for the sake of rules. It’s about protecting something you cannot repair or replace.

If your hearing protection is visible, uncomfortable, misunderstood, or skipped “just this once” – it’s probably time to rethink how it’s selected, worn, and explained.

Your future self will thank you for it.

In reality, PPE resistance is rarely about the equipment itself.

It’s about how the human brain works.

That’s right - we’re gonna seem really smart right now!

1. Risk becomes invisible with routine

Humans are excellent at adapting — which is great for survival, but not always for safety.

When someone performs the same task for years without an accident, the brain quietly adjusts the risk assessment:

• “Nothing has happened so far”

• “I know what I’m doing”

• “This job isn’t actually that dangerous”

This process is known as risk normalisation.

The hazard hasn’t disappeared — only the perception of it has. As a result, PPE starts to feel unnecessary or exaggerated.

2. PPE can feel like a threat to competence

For many experienced workers, PPE sends an unspoken message:

“You need protection because you might make a mistake.”

That message can clash with professional identity:

• “I’m skilled”

• “I’m careful”

• “I’ve done this job for years”

• "Who do they think I am?"

In these cases, PPE isn’t seen as support —

it’s seen as a challenge to competence or pride. And our egos HATE being challenged!

This is why resistance often comes from the most experienced people in a team.

3. Comfort and control outweigh abstract risk

PPE changes how the body feels:

• heat

• pressure

• restricted movement

• reduced visibility or dexterity

Psychologically, this means a loss of comfort and control.

The brain prioritises immediate discomfort over abstract future risk.

That’s not carelessness — it’s human biology.

4. “I’ll just do it quickly” thinking

One of the most dangerous thoughts in occupational safety is:

“It’ll only take a second.”

Time pressure encourages short-term thinking. And when it comes to it...we humans can be extremely lazy when we want to be.

Low-probability, high-consequence risks are discounted — even by people who know better.

In that moment, PPE becomes optional, despite training or procedures.

5. Social norms override written rules

People don’t primarily follow procedures.

They follow what they see others do. (Monkey see...monkey do...monkey eat banana)

If:

• colleagues skip PPE

• supervisors look the other way

• shortcuts are tolerated

• then PPE resistance becomes normalised.

No rulebook can compete with observed behaviour.

So how do we reduce PPE resistance?

Not by shouting louder.

Not by adding more rules.

And not by blaming workers.

Effective approaches focus on human behaviour, not just compliance:

• explaining the why, not only the what

• involving workers in PPE selection and trials

• taking comfort and usability seriously

• ensuring supervisors consistently act as role models

• openly discussing routine blindness and overconfidence

This is where Behaviour-Based Safety (BBS) training can play an important role.

BBS training doesn’t start with rules or sanctions.

It starts with self-reflection.

Instead of asking “Why don’t people follow procedures?”, BBS asks:

• What was I thinking in that moment?

• Which shortcut felt logical at the time?

• What belief or habit influenced my decision?

This approach is particularly effective for PPE use, because resistance is often driven by:

• routine blindness

• overconfidence

• time pressure

• social influence

• the need to feel competent

BBS training helps people recognise these patterns in themselves, rather than pointing fingers at others.

In practice, this can:

• make PPE decisions more conscious

• reduce automatic shortcuts

• create a shared language around behaviour and risk

• support supervisors in addressing unsafe acts without blame

When combined with good PPE selection, practical training, and consistent leadership behaviour, BBS training helps tackle PPE resistance at its root — human decision-making.

Final thought

PPE resistance is not a discipline problem.

It’s a human problem.

And once we accept that, we can start addressing it properly — with understanding, involvement, and the right tools.

“The gloves were rubbish.”

“That mask doesn’t work.”

“Those glasses fog up, so no one wears it.”

But after more than a decade in the PPE world, I can say this with confidence:

When PPE fails, it’s rarely because the product itself is bad.

Now don’t get me wrong - there is a LOT of crap out in the PPE world and props to the British Safety Industry Federation (BSIF) for helping check up on non compliant PPE.

Much more often, PPE fails because of everything around it.

1. PPE is treated as an object – not a system

PPE is still too often seen as a simple item you buy, hand out, and tick off on a checklist. Done.

But PPE is a system, not a standalone solution.

It includes:

• risk assessment

• correct selection

• compatibility with other PPE

• training and instruction

• fit and comfort

• maintenance and replacement

• and, crucially, human behaviour

If one of these elements is missing, even the best PPE in the world won’t protect anyone.

And don’t forget that PPE is the last step before the hazard.

2. Wrong PPE for the real task

On paper, everything looks fine.

In reality?

• Gloves are too thick for fine work. Trust me I KNOW HOW ANNOYING THIS IS!!!!!

• Prescription glasses don’t work well under overglasses.

• Respirators are uncomfortable or poorly fitted

• Protective clothing is too hot for the task duration

So people adapt. They modify. They remove.

Ask yourself why there are so many topless men working on construction sites.

Not because they don’t care about safety – but because the PPE doesn’t match the work.

When PPE makes the job harder, people will find ways around it. Every time. We are creatures of comfort.

3. No one explained why..

One of the biggest gaps I see is this:

People are told what to wear, but not why.

And people don’t like being told what to do (unless you’re a certain type of person but we don’t discuss that in this blog).

Without understanding the hazard:

• PPE feels arbitrary

• rules feel exaggerated. That bloody safety officer has no idea about our work!

• shortcuts feel harmless

If someone doesn’t understand what they’re being protected from, PPE quickly becomes “optional” in their mind – especially under time pressure.

4. Comfort and fit are underestimated

Discomfort is not a “minor issue”.

It’s one of the main reasons PPE is removed, adjusted incorrectly, or avoided altogether.

Poor fit leads to:

• reduced protection

• constant readjustment

• frustration

• and eventually non-compliance

This is especially critical for:

• respiratory protection

• gloves

• hearing protection

If PPE doesn’t fit the person, it will fail – even if it meets every standard on paper.

5. Culture beats compliance

You can have:

• perfect PPE

• perfect rules

• perfect documentation

And still have people not wearing it.

Why?

Because culture always wins.

If:

• supervisors don’t wear PPE

• shortcuts are silently accepted

• production is rewarded over safety

Then PPE becomes symbolic instead of protective.

People don’t do what’s written in procedures.

They do what they see every day.

So what actually makes PPE work?

PPE works when:

• it’s selected based on real tasks, not assumptions

• users are involved in trials and feedback. Ask them about their work. They are the expert of their own field and their own body!

• training explains hazards, not just rules

• fit, comfort and compatibility are taken seriously

• leaders visibly set the standard. (If you’re a parent and you don’t wear a helmet while wearing your bike but you expect your child to wear one…think of it that way)

In short:

PPE works when people are part of the solution – not the problem.

Final thought

The next time PPE “fails”, don’t start by blaming the product.

Start by asking:

• Was it the right PPE for the task?

• Did people understand the risk?

• Did it fit properly?

• Was it realistic to wear it all day?

• What behaviour does the workplace actually reward?

Because PPE isn’t just equipment.

It’s behaviour, culture, and understanding

Thanks for reading!

Most of the time, the problem starts much earlier: in the buying process.

From guessing instead of assessing to buying cheap instead of smart — choosing PPE is often treated like ordering stationery.

But PPE isn’t a box to tick. It’s a promise of protection.

In this article we'll look at the 10 most common mistakes when selecting PPE — and how to get it right.

If you’ve ever had a glove that didn’t protect, a mask that didn’t fit, or a helmet that didn’t stay on — this one’s for you.

1. Buying Cheap Instead of Smart

The classic: “We just need something that meets the standard.”

I remember one purchaser saying to me "When a purchaser starts a new job, their first call of action is to make immediate savings - to prove that they're doing their job right. The easiest place to save money is on PPE - especially gloves"

The cheapest gloves or shoes might look fine, until they fail, don’t fit, or make workers avoid them.

Better approach:

Think total cost of ownership. PPE that lasts longer, fits better, and gets worn properly nearly always costs less in the end.

2. Guessing Instead of Assessing

Too often, PPE is chosen by sight, not by science.

Someone sees what another company uses and copies it — no hazard assessment, no data, just “that should do.”

Better approach:

Start with the risk assessment. Choose PPE that protects against your hazards, not your neighbour’s.

3. Ignoring Fit and Comfort

If it doesn’t fit, it won’t protect.

A leaking respirator or fogged-up glasses aren’t small details — they’re safety gaps. They're an accident or an occupational illness just waiting to happen.

Better approach:

Offer multiple sizes and models. Do fit testing for respirators. Let people try before you buy. This will also enhance compliance in the end!

4. Mixing Incompatible Gear

Earmuffs that don’t seal under helmets, gloves that don’t fit under sleeves — it’s not user error, it’s poor planning.

Better approach:

Test combinations before rollout. PPE must work as a system, not a set of separate parts. This is also specified in the EU Regulation!

5. Misunderstanding Standards

A CE mark doesn’t automatically mean the product suits your risks.

People often confuse EN, ANSI, and other standards — or assume they’re interchangeable.

Better approach:

Know which standards apply to your hazards. Verify certificates and suppliers.

6. Using “One-Size-Fits-All” PPE

General-purpose gloves for chemical work?

Basic glasses for welding?

That’s like using a raincoat for firefighting — technically protection, but not the right kind and will eventually burn your a...bottom.

Better approach:

Match PPE to the task, not the job title.

7. Forgetting Maintenance and Replacement

Old, cracked, or expired PPE doesn’t protect.

And yes — filters, visors and helmets have a shelf life.

Better approach:

Set clear inspection and replacement routines. Train workers to recognise when PPE has reached its limit.

8. Skipping Training

Even the best PPE fails if used incorrectly.

Earplugs hanging around the neck or masks worn upside down are real-world examples, not jokes.

Better approach:

Make training continuous. Refresh it regularly and include why it matters.

9. Choosing Style Over Safety

Hi-viz orange might match your logo, but that doesn’t make it flame-retardant.

Better approach:

Start with protection, then look at design. Good-looking PPE is great — as long as it’s still safe.

10. Not Asking the People Who Wear It

PPE chosen from an office desk often fails on the shop floor. In the famous words of Gretchen Wieners from Mean Girls - "You wouldn't buy a skirt before asking your friends first if it looks good on you"

Better approach:

Involve end users. Trial different options, collect feedback, and listen. Test the products in the work area!

Comfort = compliance.

Final Thought

Choosing PPE isn’t about ticking a compliance box — it’s about keeping people safe and confident at work.

Done right, it prevents injuries, builds trust, and saves money.

Done wrong, it becomes expensive clutter.

Next time someone says, “We’ve always used this,” ask:

“Is it still the right protection for today’s risks?”

👷‍♀️ PPE is the last line of defence. Before reaching for it, control what you can through safer materials, better processes, and solid training.

Number 1: Autumn. When the nights get darker and cooler (and all the wasps slowly disappear), I can start enjoying warm, filling autumn foods, cozy socks and the Great British Bake Off.

Number 2: When I make a mistake that sensitises me and, at the same time, provides a teachable lesson.

Luckily for me, both things happened this week — and in this post I want to talk to you about protecting your hands in the kitchen!

So what happened?

I bought my first butternut squash of the season. I was super excited. I put it on my counter and started to peel it. A few minutes later, my fingers began to feel uncomfortably tight, as though they were coated with some kind of residue. I tried to wash it off, but it didn’t go away.

I then noticed that the skin on my right hand had become extremely dry and slightly tinted. It looked like contact dermatitis.

A quick internet search revealed that I had just suffered from “Squash Hands” — an uncommon contact dermatitis reaction caused by handling unpeeled Cucurbita moschata (aka butternut squash).

From now on, I know that whenever I prepare butternut squash, I should wear gloves to protect my hands.

And I promise you - I do wear gloves in the kitchen!

But what gloves should you use?

In Europe we have the legislation (EC) 1935/2004, which ensures that anything touching food (packaging, containers, or gloves) does not transfer harmful chemicals, change the taste, or affect the quality of your meal.

If a product complies with this legislation, you will see the glass and fork symbol on the packaging.

However, not all glove materials are suitable for all types of food.

Latex gloves

These are comfortable, stretchy, and offer great dexterity. However, they can sometimes cause allergic reactions.

• They don’t perform well with acidic foods: acids can weaken natural rubber, making it brittle, and increase the migration of substances (like accelerators or proteins) into food.

• Not suitable for oily or fatty foods: oils can penetrate latex, causing swelling, loss of strength, and making them easier to puncture.

Vinyl gloves

These are generally cheaper and less elastic than latex, meaning that during use microcracks may appear, allowing acids or fats to seep through.

• Never use with fatty or oily foods.

• They often contain plasticisers (chemicals that turn hard plastic into soft and bendy plastic). When in contact with oils and fats, plasticisers can dissolve out of the glove which then causes a compliance issue under Regulation (EC) 1935/2004.

Check the box carefully: vinyl gloves may carry the fork-and-glass symbol but often with an additional note such as “not suitable for fatty foods.”

Nitrile gloves

These are generally a bit more expensive and less flexible than latex, but overall the best choice for preparing food.

• Highly resistant and suitable for all types of foods.

• Latex-free, so safe for people with latex sensitivities!

Again, look for the fork-and-glass symbol — but with nitrile, both you and your food are in safe hands.

Final tip

While gloves can help protect your skin, don’t forget proper hand hygiene. Always wash your hands before preparing food — and again afterwards.

Feel free to use this little overview when choosing your gloves for the kitchen!

Maybe that’s because of a childhood trauma: Cue sad music

when I was 11 years old, I was forced to go on a week-long “outdoor adventure” trip with my class. The program included abseiling, trapeze, climbing — basically anything that could send me plummeting. And yes, all of it while strapped into a safety harness, supposedly to stop me from falling to my death.

Back then (and honestly, still today), I was far more interested in staying at home, reading a book, or playing video games.

But whether you love heights or hate them, fall protection is one of the most critical safety topics in the workplace. In the UK alone, during 2023/24, 50 workers lost their lives after falling from height. That’s 50 too many.

To make the subject easier to grasp, let’s break it down into something simple: the ABCDEFGH of fall protection.

A – Anchorage

Every fall protection system starts with a secure anchor point. It must be able to withstand the forces of a fall — not just “something solid nearby.”

🚫 Bad anchor points include scaffolding rails, ladders, pipes, ductwork, shelving, or vehicle parts. These might look strong but are not designed to take the shock of a fall.

✅ Always use certified anchors (EN 795), structural steel, or approved roof posts.

Rule of thumb: If you wouldn’t be comfortable hanging a car from it, don’t clip yourself to it.

B – Body Support

This is your harness. A properly fitted full-body harness spreads fall forces across the body and connects you to the rest of the system.

A good harness is not something to go cheap on — look for high-quality materials and a design that distributes weight equally. It has to be the right fit.

Ill-fitting harnesses are uncomfortable and, for men in particular, a sudden force in the wrong place can be painful and even life-changing. (Let's just say that having kids is maybe no longer in your future)

Always inspect and adjust before use and ensure that it's is visually checked by a qualified professional once a year.

C – Connectors

Connectors link your harness to the anchor point. Lanyards, carabiners, lifelines — they all fall into this category. Always ensure connectors are rated for fall protection, are free of damage, and properly locked in place.

One key concept is the Fall Factor. This is the ratio of the distance you fall compared to the length of your lanyard:

• Fall Factor 0: Anchor point is above you, and you’re always kept tight — minimal fall distance and lowest force.

• Fall Factor 1: Anchor point is at shoulder or chest level. You fall about the length of your lanyard.

• Fall Factor 2: Anchor point is at foot level or below. You can fall twice the length of your lanyard before it catches — the most dangerous scenario, with huge impact forces.

Always aim to keep your anchor point above you, and your lanyard as short as practical. The higher the anchor point, the safer the system.

D – Descent/Rescue

It’s not enough to stop a fall — you also need a plan to get the worker down safely. Suspension trauma can set in within minutes if someone is left hanging in a harness.

Workers should be trained in how to react after a fall, and trauma straps on harnesses can buy precious time by relieving pressure on the legs. Still, rescue must be fast: rescuers generally have 10–15 minutes before serious medical consequences set in.

Rescue procedures (and equipment) must be in place before work begins.

E – Education

Fall protection equipment is only as effective as the person using it. Training workers on correct use, limitations, inspection, and rescue procedures is essential. Education also means refreshing knowledge regularly, not just once every five years.

In Switzerland for example you are not allowed to use Fall Protection unless you have been specifically trained

And because safety doesn’t stop at E…

• F – Fall Protection for Tools It’s not just people who fall. Dropped tools can be deadly. Use tool lanyards and tethering systems to prevent injuries below.

• G – Gear Up Always check your PPE before starting work. Harnesses, helmets, connectors — if one part is missing or damaged, the system fails.

• H – Head Protection If you’re working at height, a helmet isn’t optional. Falling objects, slips, or impacts can be fatal without it. Look for helmets certified under EN 12492 (helmets for mountaineers/work at height) — commonly used in fall protection, with chin straps to keep them secure.

Takeaway: Fall protection isn’t just about equipment — it’s a full system of planning, training, and rescue. If even one part of the chain is weak, lives are at risk.

Last week, I spent the week in Edinburgh performing at the Fringe Festival (a dream come true, but wow, it was exhausting). Getting people into the show, keeping them engaged, and making them laugh takes a huge amount of energy. The feedback was positive, though, and I’m even tempted to do it again next year.

In one of my crowd work moments, I even mentioned health and safety — and that got me thinking: delivering a PPE training isn’t all that different from doing stand-up comedy.

You’re “on stage” (whether that’s behind a mic or in front of a flipchart), you need to hold the audience’s attention, and your success depends entirely on how well your message lands.

So here are the main ways a comedy set and a PPE instruction are surprisingly similar.

1. Win the crowd early

Comedy: The first 30 seconds matter. A weak opener and you risk losing the audience — then you have to work twice as hard to win them back.

PPE Training: Those first few minutes set the tone. If you start with, “Let’s look at regulation 2016…,” you’ll lose them instantly.

Tip: Start with a relatable story (I often mention my dad’s 45 years in construction) or an eye-opening fact — “In 2025 there have already been XXX workplace accidents.” Keep it light to break the ice.

2. You’re fighting distractions

Comedy: Glasses clinking, people whispering, phones going off. The trick? Acknowledge it — show the audience you’re aware of the moment and agonise in it together!

PPE Training: You’ll see people checking their phones or having side chats. Don’t ignore it — ask if the discussion could be shared so everyone benefits.

3. Reading the room

Comedy: A joke that kills in one room can bomb in another. A Switzerland joke in front of an all-UK crowd? Forget it.

PPE Training: Know your audience’s background, experience, and language skills. Keep it at the right level. If they’re glazing over, take a break — even 10 minutes of fresh air can reset the energy.

4. Timing is crucial

Comedy: The pause before a punchline can make all the difference.

PPE Training: Pauses add weight. I’ll often say: “In 2022, 250 people died from workplace illness or injury… That means 250 families lost a loved one.” The pause makes it land.

5. Hecklers exist

Comedy: At my first Fringe show, three people walked out. One man argued with everything I said, so I told him, “This show’s probably not for you.” He agreed and left.

PPE Training: The heckles sound different: “That’s over the top,” “That’ll never happen,” or my favourite, “We’ve never had an accident before.”

Response: Explain that one incident is all it takes to change a life — or that they’ve simply been lucky so far.

6. You’re not just performing — you’re persuading

Comedy: You’re convincing strangers to laugh at you.

PPE Training: You’re convincing people to care about safety and wear PPE, even if they think they already know it or don’t want to.

7. Every performance is a learning experience

Comedy: You tweak material, test new bits, and adjust your set for a better show.

PPE Training: After each session, review what worked and what didn’t. The more you refine your approach, the better your future trainings will be.

Whether it’s getting a laugh in Edinburgh or getting someone to fit their respirator correctly, both are live performances. You need preparation, flexibility, and the ability to connect. And in both, your mission is to make sure the message sticks whether it’s a punchline or the fact that AX filters expire after one shift.

Good luck! and bring the house down (not literally though).

And now it seems that my love of gadgets can be combined with my love of PPE judging by the trends of "smart PPE".

In June, it was announced that the "world’s first smart safety shoes" would be released in Autumn 2025.

These innovative shoes will monitor the wearer's movement patterns and send out an alert if any abnormal situation occurs – for example, a fall. This opens up exciting new possibilities for real-time injury detection, especially in high-risk environments like construction, logistics, or heavy industry.

This relatively new form of personal protective equipment uses modern technology built directly into safety gear, making it smarter, more responsive, and more user-friendly – all in the name of occupational safety.

What is Smart PPE?

Smart PPE refers to protective gear equipped with technology that monitors safety data in real time, offers protection, and even communicates. From helmets to jackets to safety shoes – these items use sensors and smart features to help workers stay safe and comply with all standards.

RFID in Smart PPE

RFID, or Radio-Frequency Identification, is a technology that allows objects to be identified and tracked wirelessly. Small electronic tags are attached to objects, and a reader recognizes them via radio waves. When an RFID tag comes within range, it transmits a unique ID – allowing the system to instantly identify and track the object.

In the context of Smart PPE, this means RFID tags can be integrated into helmets, gloves, or safety vests to:

• track location

• monitor usage

• check maintenance status

This ensures that the right equipment is not only present but also ready for use – and all of this without the need for constant manual checks.

Advantages, Challenges & Legal Considerations

Smart PPE brings many advantages but also raises challenges and legal questions. Here are the key points:

1. Data Privacy

• Issue: Smart PPE often collects data about workers – e.g., location, health data, and activity. Some employees may feel uncomfortable being constantly monitored.

• Legal Implication: Data protection laws (like the GDPR in Europe) govern how personal data can be processed. Employers must ensure that only necessary data is collected and that employees give their consent.

2. Reliability & Data Security

• Issue: Smart PPE depends on technology and connectivity, which can fail. In remote areas, connectivity may be poor, affecting the functionality of safety systems.

• Legal Implication: If an employee relies on Smart PPE and it fails, there could be legal consequences. Employers should ensure equipment is properly maintained and emergency plans are in place.

3. Cost & Accessibility

• Issue: Smart PPE is often more expensive than traditional equipment, which can be a hurdle for smaller companies. Ongoing costs for updates and maintenance must also be considered.

• Legal Implication: Currently, there’s no legal requirement to use Smart PPE – but that could change. If it becomes mandatory, companies may need to invest or rely on government support.

4. Acceptance & Training Needs

• Issue: Some employees are skeptical about using new tech – due to privacy concerns or because it requires extra training.

• Legal Implication: Employers should invest in training so workers can use Smart PPE safely. Many countries legally require proper training when using PPE.

5. Certifications & Standards

• Issue: Smart PPE is evolving faster than existing safety standards. It’s not always clear whether smart features meet current regulations.

• Legal Implication: Employers must ensure that any Smart PPE complies with current standards and is approved by relevant authorities. This can complicate implementation, as some Smart PPE products may not be certified in certain regions.

Conclusion

I’m truly excited about how Smart PPE is transforming workplace safety and offering a future where hazards can be detected and prevented in real time.

The innovations clearly demonstrate how these tools can make a real difference on construction sites and other high-risk environments.

At the same time, issues like:

• data protection

• system reliability

• legal compliance

must be carefully managed.

If companies keep these aspects in mind, they can implement Smart PPE in ways that respect employee rights while strengthening safety culture.

I’m looking forward to seeing how this technology continues to develop – and hopeful that it will help make workplaces:

• safer

• better connected

• better protected

Source to article about "World's First Safety Shoes" found on HSI https://www.healthandsafetyinternational.com/article/1920707/smart-safety-shoes-step-future-workplace-sos?bulletin=hsi-ppe-briefing&utm_medium=EMAIL&utm_campaign=eNews%20Bulletin&utm_source=20250605&utm_content=HSI%20PPE%20Briefing%20(12)::www_healthandsafetyintern_3&email_hash=

Preparing a full-face mask for fit testing is a finicky task that requires dexterity, so when I had to wear extra-large gloves while trying to get a tube through a hole, I became stressed and angry and started muttering phrases not suitable for polite conversation.

Luckily, this wasn’t a dangerous situation. I was wearing the gloves for hygiene reasons, and there was no risk of injury due to this ill-fitting PPE. However, in other workplaces, this could look very different. That is why I welcome OSHA’s new standard regarding PPE.

In December 2024, OSHA revised its construction PPE standard, which now states:

PPE must properly fit the worker.

Not should. Not ideally. Must.

Why Is This Necessary?

If PPE does not fit the worker, it can become a hazard or even create new hazards:

• Loose gloves being caught in machinery

• Fall protection harnesses that are too big and slip off before a fall

• Safety goggles that leave gaps, allowing debris to enter the eye

• Trousers that are too long, creating a tripping hazard

Yet despite these risks, many workers, especially women or smaller-bodied individuals, are still given “standard-sized” gear that doesn’t fit at all.

(Quick shoutout to a podcast episode I did recently with Amy Roosa where we discuss this in detail)

Real People, Real Consequences

In OSHA’s documentation, there are stories from dozens of workers.

One woman described how her oversized gloves got caught in a pulley while working on an AC unit, which resulted in a sprained wrist, torn ligaments, fractured fingers, and nerve damage.

Another employee stated that they often had to buy their own gloves because their employer claimed there weren’t any gloves small enough available for them.

I’ve heard similar stories here in Europe too. One worker had to wear shoes that were too small because they couldn’t find a suitable size 49 (UK size 14 / US size 15).

And the risk is clear: when PPE is uncomfortable or doesn’t fit, it won’t be worn.

Not Just Safety – Also Inclusion

This isn’t just about safety. It’s about belonging. When a company doesn’t bother to stock equipment that fits your body, the message is clear: “You weren’t expected to be here.”

That’s what many tradeswomen have been saying for years. And while there has been progress (credit to the manufacturers who do offer inclusive sizing), this rule sends a clear signal to the industry: “Do better.”

The EU Already Has This — Sort Of

For us in Europe, this might sound familiar. The EU PPE Regulation 2016/425 requires manufacturers to make PPE that can be adjusted to fit the user — see Annex II, 1.3.1.

PPE must be designed and manufactured in such a way as to facilitate its correct positioning on the user and to remain in place for the foreseeable period of use, bearing in mind ambient factors, the actions to be carried out, and the postures to be adopted. For this purpose, it must be possible to adapt the PPE to fit the morphology of the user by all appropriate means, such as adequate adjustment and attachment systems or the provision of an adequate range of sizes.

However, the obligation sits with the manufacturer, not the employer.

In contrast, the U.S. rule explicitly makes it the employer’s duty to ensure that PPE fits the worker who wears it.

That’s a significant step forward and one worth watching as a global precedent.

So What Now?

If you’re in safety or procurement, here’s what this means:

• Review your sizing options. If “small” is the smallest glove size on offer, you’re probably excluding people. Are your safety shoes available from EU size 35 (UK 2) to EU size 50 (UK 15)?

• Listen to feedback. If someone says the PPE doesn’t fit, listen to them. It’s not a fashion complaint.

• Audit your inventory. Do you stock harnesses, goggles, boots, and clothing that fit a range of sizes? Or are you still relying on one-size-fits-none?

• Get your suppliers involved. Many already offer better sizing, you might just not be ordering it.

A Call to Action

The new U.S. rule is a good step. But it’s still just a start. Making PPE that fits, and making sure everyone has access to it isn’t just an administrative task. It’s a human one.

If we want more people in the trades, especially women and younger workers, we need to make sure their basic safety needs are met. That includes being able to move, breathe, and work in PPE that doesn’t endanger them.

Because PPE that doesn’t fit isn’t PPE.

Sources

https://www.osha.gov/news/newsreleases/osha-national-news-release/20241211

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0425#:~:text=,the%20PPE%20or%20the%20user

Let me take you back in time—about 30-something years ago—when a little girl, already awake at 5am (I’ve always been a morning person), was sitting in front of the VCR, reading the instructions for use.

(PS - if you don't know what a VCR is...don't tell me. You'll make me sad)

I used to enjoy reading those booklets—especially the troubleshooting sections. What could go wrong, and how could it be fixed? I was also fascinated by the different languages. Chinese and Japanese always stood out to me.

Fast forward to today, and not much has changed. In this post, I want to explain why a user instruction manual should be treated with care, never discarded, and ideally read from beginning to end.

Every PPE Product Must Include a User Manual

Every item of PPE sold in the EU must include a user manual. This requirement is part of the EU PPE Regulation (EU) 2016/425, which states:

"Manufacturers shall ensure that the PPE is accompanied by the instructions and information set out in point 1.4 of Annex II in a language which can be easily understood by consumers and other end-users, as determined by the Member State concerned. Such instructions and information, as well as any labelling, shall be clear, understandable, intelligible and legible."

The manual must be provided in a language understood by the user—a manual written only in Japanese, for example, would not fulfil this requirement in a German-speaking country.

It must also be clear, easy to understand, and legible. A handwritten manual or poor-quality copy would not meet this standard.

What Should the Manual Contain?

According to the same regulation, the user manual must include important information about the PPE. For example:

• How to take care of the equipment:

• Proper storage

• Correct use

• Cleaning instructions

• Maintenance and repair guidance

It also needs to explain:

• What the PPE protects against, and what it does not

• Which accessories or spare parts are permitted

• What the markings and symbols on the PPE mean

• The expected service life or replacement interval

This information is essential. If PPE is not maintained properly or is cleaned with the wrong products, its protective performance can be reduced. This can put the user at risk.

Cleaning agents or tools mentioned in the manual are tested for compatibility. Using other products may damage the PPE.

That is why, when a worker asks, “How do I clean this?”, the safest and most responsible answer is: “Please refer to the user instructions.”

Why Reading the Manual Matters

Having the manual is a start. But reading and applying it is just as important.

Not following the instructions may increase the risk of injury and, in some cases, lead to legal consequences.

Take this real example from a helmet manual:

Inspection and care of the helmet: The helmet is a complete system consisting of shell and harness. The helmet’s useful life is affected by many factors including the cold, heat, chemicals, sunlight and misuse. The helmet should be examined daily for obvious signs of cracking, brittleness or damage to either helmet or harness... Useful life: Under normal circumstances the helmet has a maximum life of 5 years from date of manufacture. Under no circumstances must a component other than a NAME OF MANUFACTURER component be used on a helmet.

Key takeaways:

• Cleaning with aggressive chemicals may damage the helmet.

• A daily inspection is part of proper use.

• Only original manufacturer components may be used—other brands may compromise the protective function.

This matters because PPE is tested under specific conditions. If the equipment is used or maintained in a different way, then we are heading into untested territory!!

Legal Responsibility

Employees also have responsibilities under health and safety regulations.

In the UK’s Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, it states:

"Every employee must take reasonable care for the health and safety of themselves and of other persons who may be affected by their acts or omissions at work."

In Switzerland, the law is similarly clear:

"The employee must follow the employer’s instructions regarding occupational safety and observe generally accepted safety rules. In particular, they must use personal protective equipment and must not impair the effectiveness of safety devices."

Not using PPE as intended—including ignoring the manual—can result in disciplinary or legal consequences, especially if it leads to an accident.

Where Can I Find the User Manual?

According to the European Safety Federation’s guide “PPE Manufacturer’s Instructions and Information – Good Practice”:

"The manufacturer’s instructions and information shall accompany each individual PPE, or at least the smallest commercial packaging (including bulk packaging)... and shall remain available for the foreseeable lifetime of the PPE and for at least 10 years after placing it on the market."

They also note:

"Instructions should be easy to read, both in print and on screen – font size, contrast, and layout all affect readability."

If a user requests a user manual, they should receive it within one month and free of charge. For digital versions, the information should be available at all times for download.

Final Thoughts

Throwing away the user manual can put your health at risk.

Take it seriously. Read it. Keep it somewhere safe. Refer to it when you’re unsure. Whether you’re a safety officer or an individual user—understanding the manual is part of protecting yourself and others.

So perhaps take a little inspiration from a five-year-old girl who once read VCR instructions at sunrise—and give that PPE manual a chance.

Thanks for reading.

Sources:

Regulation (EU) 2016/425 on personal protective equipment (PPE) (EU law detailing PPE requirements, including documentation and categories). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0425#:~:text=,the%20PPE%20or%20the%20user

Good Practice Guide: https://ppe-rfu.eu/storage/app/media/docs/NB%20PPE-2024-19v01%20Good%20practice%20for%20digital%20instructions%20for%20use%20by%20manufacturer%20-%20v.1%20-%20appendix%20included%2003222024.pdf