The grainy truth about occupational asthma

By Pamela Brown

- Last updated on GMT

Brown: 'The most effective way to reduce the risk is to eliminate the source of exposure'
Brown: 'The most effective way to reduce the risk is to eliminate the source of exposure'
Vice-chair of the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health’s Food and Drink Industries Group Pamela Brown discusses the dangers of occupational asthma and the steps manufacturers can take to mitigate the risks it poses.

Every year in the UK alone, chest physicians see an estimated 200–300 new cases of occupational asthma, as reported by the UK’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE), and this figure has remained largely unchanged for ten years.

The HSE, citing the 2017 Labour Force Survey, also points to 18,000 new UK cases of self-reported ‘breathing or lung problems’ caused or made worse by work every year. 

Danger to lung health

One of the causes is flour dust – finely ground particles of cereals or pulses, including contaminants – which, if handled badly, can be extremely dangerous to lung health. It is one of the most cited causes of occupational asthma by chest physicians, second only to isocyanates.

The health effects of inhaling flour dust depend on the airborne concentration of flour and length of exposure to it, with symptoms sometimes not evident for up to 30 years.

Activities that create high concentrations of airborne flour dust in bakeries include: loading flour and other ingredients into mixers; dusting flour onto baking surfaces; dry-sweeping flour dust from shelving or the floor; and disposing of empty flour bags.

Source of exposure

The most effective way to reduce the risk is to eliminate the source of exposure. If that’s impossible, other risk controls include fully automated bulk ingredient handling systems from silos, automatic dosing from bulk or tote bags, or local exhaust ventilation.

Personal protective equipment such as masks are essential, with some operators preferring air-fed masks, as the integrated protection offers respiratory, head, face and eye coverage.

Simple changes to the way ingredients are handled can also have dramatic effects. Using a conical sieve instead of a round sieve, for example, can reduce respiratory sensitisers by up to 38%.

Related news

Show more

Related suppliers

Follow us

Featured Jobs

View more

Webinars

PRODUCTS & SERVICES