Despite the rise and implementation of automated systems throughout the country’s manufacturing industry, many jobs must still be carried out onsite and in person. Whilst PPE should only be considered if there is no safer alternative process, there are many instances where it must be worn.

PPE has always presented a challenge to employers, especially those who are responsible for a large work force working across several differing applications. In particular, it has proved a challenge to:

•  Guarantee immediate employee access to the right equipment

•  Check that employees proceed to wear the right equipment

•  Ensure that only the designated volume of equipment is taken. 

Whilst it is difficult to guarantee 100% employee engagement, it is still the employer’s responsibility to take every possible step to improve PPE access and record staff compliance. If an employee does injure themself at work, then their company will come under intense scrutiny to determine whether the incident could have been avoided.

Old ways

Traditionally, PPE stores comprise a counter and a store person; employees collect their safety equipment as and when they need it. Although straightforward, this system does have flaws. 

It is often cheaper to have one centralised storeroom and operator. Depending on the size of the site, the storeroom could be located out of the way for some workers, limiting the likelihood of them regularly checking in and either replenishing or updating equipment. 

PPE is not a ‘one size fits all’ solution as many specific applications will require their own range of specialist equipment to keep employees working in the safest environment possible. For example Kevlar gloves may be required by one employee and their safety could be endangered if they accidentally pick up or are given the wrong pair by a storesperson. 

In large factories it can be difficult to monitor the quantity of equipment an employee either has direct (unauthorised) access to, or uses on a regular basis. PPE can prove to be a financial burden on a company if employees replenish equipment which may have been lost, left at home or in the canteen, because it may appear easier to just go and get a new one. The problem is compounded if a poor or – worse still – if no auditing system is in place.

Future of PPE

An alternative to the traditional PPE storeroom is the use of specific PPE vending machines. These are available with different access control methods, including employee clock-in cards, dedicated swipe cards or key fobs. Advanced machines can be biometrically controlled through thumbprints or even a retinal scan. The ability to tailor an individual’s access ensures they can only withdraw PPE which is suitable to their job.

Similarly, electronic access offers a traceable record of how often employees collect their PPE, making it easy to monitor if anyone is using too much equipment or not updating their PPE as regularly as they should.

Vending machines can be placed by a factory’s entrance, so every employee will walk past them on their way to work, giving no reason – or excuse – for correct PPE not to be used. What’s more, the controlled climate conditions within vending machines ensure more delicate items, such as replacement respiration filters, are stored in a safe environment and avoid the risk of contamination or degradation.

Items which may cost more to replace can be programmed to only dispense when authorised by specific personnel. This can keep costs down as it means equipment is only replaced for genuine reasons such as wear and tear, rather than because it may have been left behind in another location. 

Whilst PPE should only be used as a last resort, if no safer process can be under taken, it is an integral part of working in the manufacturing industry. Using vending machines for PPE distribution neatly solves many of the faults encountered when using more traditional methods. It not only offers tailored access to the right products for specific applications, but can provide a detailed log of who took equipment and when. This can prevent excess equipment being used, reducing overall PPE costs and, in the case of injuries, provides evidence as to whether or not those involved had access to the right information.