Equipment profile of South African Occupational Hygiene Approved Inspection Authorities

Abstract

Title: Equipment profile of South African Occupational Hygiene Approved Inspection Authorities The right to safe and harm-free working environments is provided for by the Bill of Rights, and reinforced by key legislative acts, such as the Mine Health and Safety Act 29 of 1996 and the Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993 (OHS Act). The OHS Act, in particular, mandates employers to maintain workplaces that are free from hazards, ultimately requiring the appointment of occupational hygiene professionals to uphold health and safety standards (SANS 2012:2). Specialised in hazard monitoring, Approved Inspection Authorities (AIAs) are sanctioned by the Chief Inspector to perform certified health and safety assessments. Their authorisation and approval are based on their strict adherence to the national standards set by the South African National Accreditation System. These standards outline the personnel, facilities, and equipment requirements. The extent of an AIA’s regulatory framework, or the different regulated hazards an AIA is allowed to assess, is based on the AIA's knowledge, expertise, and the appropriateness of their equipment. To guide AIAs, the Department of Employment and Labour (DoEL) published a list of equipment that highlights the types of equipment AIAs should use to assess the applicable hazards within their regulatory frameworks (SANS, 2012:5; SANAS, 2012:12). While the DoEL's equipment list outlines the basic equipment AIAs can retain for approval, staying up to date with rapidly advancing technology can be challenging for both new and more experienced AIAs. Equipment proliferation also affects the curricula of educational institutions, which aim to provide students with fit-for-purpose training.This raises an important question: What equipment is currently used by occupational hygiene AIAs, and why is it important?

There are two main reasons why these questions matter. First, AIAs face a dual challenge. While trying to ensure competency, accuracy, and validity in their occupational hygiene operations, AIAs are also required to stay up to date with the latest technological advancements (SANS, 2023:12). Second, occupational hygiene students need to receive training that prepares them for real-world situations, and that is aligned with industry needs (Alanazi & Benlaria, 2023:5).

The selection of equipment available on the market requires AIAs to choose the instruments based on their prioritised needs and the available information about this equipment. But, although manufacturers provide literature, the benefits, and capabilities of their equipment, the information Since the DoEL’s equipment recommendations were last updated in 20121, gathering the necessary information to make informed equipment decisions can be difficult. This can be particularly challenging for new AIAs trying to choose the right equipment.

To address these challenges, a practical solution involved creating an equipment profile of national AIAs. This detailed profile aimed to identify the prevalent equipment and methodologies used by industry professionals. By identifying these prevalences, AIAs can have a reference point for comparison, and educational institutions can tailor their curricula to ensure fit-for-purpose training aligned with industry needs. This initiative aims to streamline the transition of occupational health and hygiene graduates into the workforce and provide clarity for companies, especially startups, seeking guidance on acquiring equipment that is both effective and in line with industry expectations. Employing a mixed methods research approach of sequential exploratory design, registered occupational hygienists — each representing one of the 53 registered Type A AIAs, and whereof only 11 responded to the questionnaire — were invited to an online survey. This survey was created and administered using the Google Forms platform and required AIAs to answer questions pertaining to the equipment and methods they currently employ for hazard monitoring. After doing a data analysis of the number of equipment, the most frequently selected equipment models, and brands, the popularity of instruments was calculated based on the number of times selected as well as the number of units currently used. The calibration frequencies, buying drivers, and hazard evaluation methods were also investigated. The quantitative data was then used to assist with the interpretation of qualitative data. These findings were reported as the representing equipment profile of participating AIAs.

Findings showed the consistent preference participating AIAs had for user-friendly, reliable, and cost-effective monitoring equipment. Highlighting the importance of equipment practicality. Differences in the calibration practices, however, emphasises the need for clear guidelines on the external calibration frequency necessary for all equipment.

While the most prevalent equipment and methods were established, these findings also reinforce how academic curricula can bridge the gap between the current and prospective industry-needs. AIAs need in order to make informed decisions are not as readily available (AIHA, 2017) Educational institutions can update their equipment inventories by incorporating both prevalent, and less popular equipment types while also enhancing students’ technical skills through the adoption of both old and new equipment models. This could prepare students for real-world challenges, encourage work-readiness, and ensure their curricula aligns with industry-needs. While this study had a few limitations, it still provides occupational health and hygiene professionals with a detailed equipment profile of AIAs currently in practice. However, the lack of participation may affect the representativeness of this profile since only 11 of the 53 recruited AIAs participated. The potential biases from self-reported data could also affect the accuracy of these results. Future studies are, therefore, encouraged to combine questionnaires with interviews or direct observations. This mixed-methods approach could help verify self-reported data and enhance its accuracy. While consulting with industry experts during the design process could ensure even more comprehensive data to be collected. Word count: 882