An assessment of employees perception

of the potential health effects related to

welding and fabrication activities in Qatar.
By
John George Nixon.
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirements of the award of
Master of Science
In
Occupational Health and Safety
Management

Loughborough University
Practical Project: Module Code:
13BSP547/1
Word count: 19,986

Date:08/06/2015
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

To my nearest and dearest for all your support and encouragement.

i
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY

I declare that this dissertation is the result of my own work and that all
resources are duly acknowledged in the references.

ii
ABBREVIATIONS

Al: Aluminium.
CG: Controlled Group.
Cr: Chromium.
C/S: Confined Space
EU: European Union.
EAV: Exposure Action Value.
ELV: Exposure Limit Value.
HAS: High Alloy Steel.
HAV: Hand Arm Vibration.
HCr: Hexavalent Chromium.
HSE: Health and Safety Executive.
HS&E: Health Safety and Environment.
HTV: Hand Transmitted Vibration.
IARC: International Agency for Research on Cancer.
IOSH: Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.
JSM: Job Start Meeting.
LEV: Local Exhaust Ventilation.
LFS: Labour Force Survey.
MFF: Metal Fume Fever.
MgO: Magnesium oxide.
MIG: Gas Metal Arc Welding.
MMA: Manual Metal Arc.
MS: Mild Steel.
Mn: Manganese.
N2: Nitrogen.
n: Number.
Ni: Nickel.
Oxy-Fuel: Oxyacetylene welding.

iii
PDQ39: The Parkinson's disease Questionnaire 39.
PPE: Personal Protective Equipment.
Qa: Qatar.
RF: Respiratory Function.
RM: Respiratory Morbidity.
RS: Respiratory Symptoms.
RSI: Repetitive Strain Injury.
SMAW: Shielded metal arc welding.
SS: Stainless Steel.
TBT: Tool box talks.
TCr: Total Chromium.
TIG: Gas Tungsten arc welding.
UPDRS: Unified Parkinson's disease Rating Scale.
UK: United Kingdom.
USA: United States of America.
UVR: Ultraviolet Radiation.
UVA: Ultraviolet Radiation A.
UVB: Ultraviolet Radiation B.
UVC: Ultraviolet Radiation C.
VWF: Vibration White Finger.
WAH: Work at Height.
WRLLD: Work Related Lower Limb Disorders.
WMSDs: Work Related Musculoskeletal Disorders.
WRULD: Work Related Upper Limb Disorders.
ZnO: Zinc oxide.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1

2. LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................ 2
2.1 Welding Techniques ............................................................................. 2
2.2 Risk Perception-influencing factors ....................................................... 3
2.2.1 Risk perception-behaviour ............................................................. 4
2.2.2 Safety Performance-Influencing factors ......................................... 6
2.3 Potential causes of health effects of welding ........................................ 7
2.4 Health effects of welding processes...................................................... 8
2.4.1 Respiratory .................................................................................... 8
2.4.1.1 Pulmonary function ............................................................................... 8
2.4.1.2 Siderosis ............................................................................................. 10
2.4.1.3 Occupational Asthma .......................................................................... 10
2.4.2 Cancer ..........................................................................................11
2.4.2.1 Lung cancer from iron fumes and stainless steel fumes ...................... 11
2.5 Fumes, Gasses and Organic vapours..................................................12
2.5.1 Fumes ...........................................................................................12
2.5.2 Gases ...........................................................................................14
2.5.3 Organic vapours ...........................................................................15
2.6 Physical Hazards .................................................................................16
2.6.1 Electrical .......................................................................................16
2.6.2 Heat ..............................................................................................16
2.6.2.1 Heat stress.......................................................................................... 17
2.6.3 Noise ............................................................................................18
2.6.4 Vibration .......................................................................................19
2.6.5 Biological ......................................................................................20
2.6.5.1 Metallic fume....................................................................................... 20
2.6.5.2 Physiological ....................................................................................... 21
2.6.6 Occupational accidents .................................................................23

3. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES .......................................................................24

3.1 The aim of the study ............................................................................24
3.2 Objectives of the study.........................................................................24
3.3 Hypothesis ...........................................................................................24

v
4. METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION ........................................25
4.1 Experiment design ...............................................................................25
4.2 Ethics ...................................................................................................25
4.3 Pilot study ............................................................................................26
4.4 Design and methods ............................................................................27
4.5 Questionnaire submission ....................................................................28

5. ANALYSIS AND DATA ...........................................................................29

5.1 Data Analysis .......................................................................................29

6. DISCUSSION ..........................................................................................55
6.1 Demographic .......................................................................................55
6.2 Education and Training ........................................................................56
6.3 Welding Experience .............................................................................57
6.4 Health conditions .................................................................................58
6.5 Occupational accidents ........................................................................62
6.6 Personal Protective Equipment ............................................................64
6.7 Risk factors ..........................................................................................67
6.7.1 Hazards ........................................................................................67
6.7.1.1 Chemical ............................................................................................. 67
6.7.1.2 Physical .............................................................................................. 68
6.7.1.3 Mechanical.......................................................................................... 68
6.7.1.4 Electrical ............................................................................................. 69
6.7.1.5 Ergonomics ......................................................................................... 69
6.7.1.6 Psychological ...................................................................................... 70
6.7.2 Environment..................................................................................71
6.7.2.1 Natural. ............................................................................................... 71
6.8 Possible health effects .........................................................................72
6.9 Causes of accidents.............................................................................73
6.9.1 Personal factors ............................................................................73
6.9.2 Job factors. ...................................................................................74

7. CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................74

8. RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................................................................77

vi
LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1. SOURCES AND HEALTH EFFECTS OF WELDING FUMES ...........................13

TABLE 2. SOURCE AND HEALTH EFFECT OF W ELDING GASES ...............................15

TABLE 3. SOURCE AND HEALTH EFFECT OF ORGANIC VAPOURS AS A RESULT OF

WELDING..........................................................................................................15

TABLE 4. DEATHS IN THE UK CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY (2013/2014) ...................23

TABLE 5. SUFFERED HEALTH-STATISTICAL DATA .................................................37

TABLE 6. OCCUPATIONAL ACCIDENTSSTATISTICAL DATA ....................................39

TABLE 7. PPE REQUIRED STATISTICAL DATA ..................................................41

TABLE 8. HAZARDS AND RISK PERCEPTION STATISTICAL DATA. ..........................45

TABLE 9. HEALTH EFFECTS STATISTICAL DATA ................................................49

TABLE 10. PERSONAL FACTORS STATISTICAL DATA .........................................52

TABLE 11. JOB FACTORS STATISTICAL DATA ...................................................53

vii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Company participation, cross tabulation ........................................ 30

Figure 2. Participant percentage age comparisons cross tabulation ............. 30

Figure 3. Job title percentages cross tabulation ............................................ 31

Figure 4. Nationality percentages cross tabulation ........................................ 32

Figure 5. Comparison of educational achievement ....................................... 32

Figure 6. Welding training by employer cross companys tabulation,

(numbers) ...................................................................................................... 33

Figure 7. Welding training by welding school, (percentage & numbers) ....... 33

Figure 8. Carbon Steel welding cross tabulation, (percentage & numbers) ... 34

Figure 9. Stainless Steel welding cross tabulation, (percentage & numbers) 34

Figure 10. Inconel cross tabulation, (percentage & numbers)...35

Figure 11. Welding experience in years cross tabulation, (numbers) ............ 35

Figure 12. Pre-employment medicals cross tabulation, (percentage &

numbers) ....................................................................................................... 36

Figure 13a. Suffered health conditions due to welding, (agree) .................... 38

Figure 13b. Suffered health conditions due to welding, (not sure %)............. 38

Figure 13c. Suffered health conditions due to welding, (disagree %) ............ 39

Figure 14. Involved in an occupational accident, (agree %) .......................... 40

Figure 15a. Perceived PPE requirement during welding, (agree %).............. 42

Figure 15b. Perceived PPE requirement during welding, (agree,

greater %) ...................................................................................................... 43

Figure 15c. Perceived PPE requirement during welding, (not sure %) .......... 43

Figure 15d. Perceived PPE requirement during welding, (not sure,

greater %) ...................................................................................................... 44

Figure 16. PPE actually worn, (agree %) ....................................................... 44

Figure 17a to 17h. Risk factors, perception of participants, (agree %)...46-49

Figure 18a. Potential health effects of welding, (agree %)............................. 50

Figure 18b. Potential health effects of welding, (agree greater %) ................ 51

viii
Figure 18c. Potential health effects of welding, (disagree %) ........................ 51

Figure 18d. Potential health effects of welding, (not sure %) ......................... 51

Figure 19. Main causes of accidents-Personal factors, (agree %)................. 53

Figure 20. Main causes of accidents-Job factors, (agree %) ......................... 54

ix
ABSTRACT

The objectives of this study were to identify the risk perception levels of Qatar
based workers relating to potential acute and chronic health effects of welding
activities, and compare it against the risk perception level of UK based
workers. Additionally to determine if Qatar based workers are knowledgeable
of the correct PPE to be worn during exposure to the welding activity.

The comparison was made based on the answers to a survey delivered to

both Qatar and UK participants, which included questions related to
demographics, any suffered health conditions, involvement in occupational
accidents, PPE requirements, hazards associated with welding, perception of
possible health effects, main causes of accidents resulting from job factors
and personal factors.

An Independent T-test and cross tabulation analysis of the two groups was
carried out, which revealed that the UK group had a greater risk perception in
five out of the seven of the categories, significant statistical differences were
recorded in the categories of, experienced health conditions, involvement in
occupational accidents, associated hazards, possible health effects, and job
factor causation of accidents.

The study also identified that basic initial health assessments are not being
implemented to newly recruited Qatar workers, therefore missing the
opportunity to gather base line health levels.

Qatar workers appear to be generally unaware of potential chronic health

effects from the welding activities and have a lower risk perception in other
critical areas such as hazard identification.

x
1. INTRODUCTION

Improving safety performance usually entails measures to reduce risk e.g. by

removal, engineering controls etc. Furthermore, an individual's personal risk
perception and subjective assessments of their work environment and working
conditions should also be considered, as a workers decision may be
influenced by factors such as cultural background, knowledge, quantification,
evaluation and dissatisfaction of their work task or conditions; therefore these
factors are important in determining an employee's personal behaviour
(Rundmo,1996).

This study aims to identify the level of knowledge and perception of health
risks of Qatar based migrant workers involved in or exposed to welding
activities, in regard to their potential acute and chronic health effects and will
include management, supervisors and blue collar workers.

The motivation for this research developed from a personal observation of

workers in the middle east (Qatar 2011) involved in the metal fabrication
processes also known as "black trades", and their risk perception of potential
acute and chronic health effects associated with welding and fabrication
activities.

In the Middle East, the level of understanding of the consequences of acute

and chronic health effects due to welding activities seems not to be of a good
standard, and not foreseen by either the employer or the worker. Several
onsite discussions carried out with welding workgroups identified that general
understanding is related mainly to the potential short-term effects (arc eye, ray
burn, hand injuries) etc. This was confirmed during discussions with other
Health, Safety and Environment (HS&E) managers employed on other
projects.

Information of hazards, risks and short term health effects of welding are
discussed through a process of tool box talks (TBT) or job start meetings
(JSM) delivered by supervisors and HS&E personnel to the workers prior to
start of the daily work activity, these discussions assist to identify the

1
immediate HS&E controls required for the activity, but fail to consider the
potential long term health effects.

Personal observations and discussions with workers have identified that

workers recruited from Asian countries are generally poorly educated and
from countries where medical services are not necessarily informed or
prepared to deal with long-term health effects of occupational illnesses
associated with "black trades". Therefore, improvement of risk perception and
delivery of detailed information to personnel and companies could improve the
correct understanding of potential long term health effects associated with
welding processes, which in turn may improve the level of compliance with
safety controls required to minimize both the potential acute and chronic
health risks of the workforce employed in the engineering and construction
industries in Qatar.

For many of the blue collar workers employed in Qatar this is their first
experience travelling outside their native country and working in construction
or the oil and gas industry. Many of the workers are employed as "skilled
tradesmen" e.g. welders/fabricators without possessing the correct skill set,
due to lack of the required practical training and specific technical education in
their home countries. This also is observed at managerial and supervisory
levels, therefore potentially compounding not only the individuals lack of risk
perception and the knowledge of ill health effects of welding but also
throughout their organisation, potentially resulting in inadequate HS&E and
occupational health procedures being formulated and implemented.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW.

2.1 WELDING TECHNIQUES

Welding is a technique for the joining of various types of metal, achieved via
the combination of the application of large amounts of heat through the use of
an electrode or flame, in conjunction with producing artificial atmospheric
conditions in which the molten metal created by the welding process can react
with the parent metal to form a strong joint with no impurities in the weld (Cary
and Helzer, 2004). Although there are many different welding processes, the

2
most commonly used in the Middle East due to the nature of projects and
scope of work, i.e. civil construction, heavy industries, shipping, or oil and gas
projects are as follows:

Shielded metal arc welding (SMAW). Known as "stick welding, a

consumable electrode, which is compatible with the parent material to be
welded is coated in a flux which when melted releases a shielding gas to
protect the molten metal from normal atmospheric conditions and also
provides a slag protective layer to the weld (Cary and Helzer, 2004).

Oxyacetylene welding (Oxy-Fuel). Oxy-fuel welding involves the use of a

pure Oxygen and Acetylene gasses mixed and ignited via a torch to heat two
pieces of metal to their molten temperature, producing a shared pool of molten
metal. The shared pool is then joined by the introduction a filler wire which is
compatible with the parent metal (HSE, 1997).

Gas Tungsten arc welding (TIG). The T.I.G welding process involves the
use of a non-consumable tungsten electrode which provides the arc and heat
to produce the weld pool, the weld pool is shielded by the use of inert gasses,
argon or helium and a compatible bare wire filler material is applied manually
to produce the weld (Weman, 2003).

Gas metal arc welding (MIG). M.I.G. welding processes can either be
automatic or semi-automatic, involving a continuous feed of consumable
compatible wire that acts as both the electrode and filler material the weld is
shielded by inert, gasses argon or helium to prevent contamination from the
atmosphere (Miller Electric Co, 2014).

These four main welding processes will be considered during the research of
workers risk perception of health effects of welding.

2.2 RISK PERCEPTION-INFLUENCING FACTORS

Making the correct risk based decisions is critical in ensuring successful

incident free construction projects. Alexopoulos et al (2009) stated that
decision makers perceive risks differently in relation to the varying situations
coupled with the additional factors of experience, levels of education, culture

3
and personal beliefs. These factors can be instrumental in causing varying
subjective perceptions of risk and potentially incorrect decision-making. Teo
and Loosemore (2001) claim attitude is based on an individuals personal
beliefs, consequential knowledge, and positive or negative evaluation of a
behaviour.

These factors will be important in aiding identification of levels of knowledge,

training, work experience, evaluation of perception of risk and any potential
decision making in regard to the work activities of Middle East based welders,
especially as the workforce are assembled from many different nationalities
and cultures. Worker safety behaviour and use of any required safety
equipment could be based on their perception of what is a safe or an unsafe
situation; therefore if workers have a low risk perception this could possibly
increase their exposure to an incident. This factor was identified in a research
project of construction workers fall accidents (Huang and Hinze, 2003), which
observed that workers poor perception of hazards were responsible for
approx. 33% of all fall accidents. Toole (2002) also identified that root causes
of construction accidents included the non-use of correct personal protective
equipment (PPE), lack of training, poor attitudes of management, supervision,
and poor enforcement of safety standards.

2.2.1 Risk perception-behaviour

Its a reasonable assumption that risk perception of workers will influence their
behaviour when making a decision on a behavioural action to take in regard to
the risk involved of a work activity. There have been many studies of human
perception of risk that identify personal perceptions such as, exposure to the
chance of incurring personal injury or loss (Hertz and Thomas, 1983), the
existence of threats to a persons life or health (Fischhoff et al, 1981).
Wagenaar (1990) stated that personal risk taking behaviour has been
identified as a leading cause of accidents. It is well documented via incident
investigation reports throughout all industries that much causation of accidents
is attributed to a workers underestimation or non-identification of the hazard or
potential level of risk.

4
Research into risk perception has produced theories which identify personal
perception or acceptance of risk. The zero risk theory (Ntanen and
Summala, 1974; 1976) states that individuals seek situations where there is
no risk; the main influencing factors of this theory are motivation, perceptual
and experimental. The Homeostasis theory (Wilde, 1982) suggests that
safety measures will not reduce risk and that cost control measures should
replace risk control measures. This theory ascertains that an individuals
behaviour in potentially risky situations is determined by a desire for cost
minimization.

A cross sectional study (Shaikh and Bhojani, 1991) of occupational injuries

and perception of hazards among 36 uneducated, untrained roadside welders
in Karachi Pakistan was undertaken to ascertain the level of understanding of
risk and any injuries incurred. Questions were asked in regard to hazard
perception, injuries incurred in a three months period and use of safety
precautions. Results showed that 12 of the 36 welders did not have any
perception of risk involving welding, therefore potentially affecting their
behaviour, believing that there was no actual hazard or risk from welding. The
remainder relied on past personal experiences and general communication in
their perception of risk. Injuries reported in the 3-month period averaged at 3
injuries per worker per month, mainly eye (37%), face (16%) and burns to the
body (47%); additionally 56% of the workers did not use basic PPE and none
of the workers understood or felt the requirement for enforcement of safety
regulations.

Although this study was of a small scale, it emphasises the similarities and
problems faced in the Middle East when recruiting Asian workers. The
workers who are recruited as welders in Qatar often have little or no education
or formal training, therefore importing to Qatar their cultural perception of risk,
behaviours and potentially unsafe working practices. This recruitment policy
poses additional problems to employers and HS&E professionals who have to
address the varying cultural differences and risk perceptions.

Personal observations identified that many Qatar companies fail to recognise

the importance of identifying levels of risk perception among its workers,

5
therefore they produce basic training programmes and employee inductions
which highlight the specific work activities, associated hazards and risks,
without understanding the level of perception of risk the worker can equate to
the specific activity. This may lead to workers not fully understanding the risks
to his personal well-being and increasing the potential for an accident to
happen. Companies would be advised to investigate the development and
use of training programmes that identify workers risk perception and
implement specific training programmes as a method of hazard identification
and risk prevention.

2.2.2 Safety Performance-Influencing factors

Impaired safety performance during welding tasks (Hinze and Gambatese,

2003), could be affected by several factors such as, lack of basic or specific
training, safety inspections, safety enforcement, presence of HS&E advisors,
alcohol and drug testing, membership of trade unions, and the turnover rate of
a work force. The turnover rate of workers is especially relevant to the Middle
East as most work construction sites rely on a transient workforce, this
reduces the opportunity to implement long term training requirements and
behavioural safety programmes due to the length of construction contract and
timescale of their employment on that contract. Sawacha (1999) carried out a
study of factors affecting construction site safety performance, which covered
historical, psychological, technical, procedural, organizational and
environmental issues. Findings identified that factors associated with a
worker being involved in an accident included age and experience, with
workers aged between 16 to 20 years being at the greatest risk (historical).
The payment of hazard or risk money and bonuses (economical), neglecting
of personal safety (psychological), lack of training in the use of plant and
equipment (technical), lack of knowledge and training in use of PPE
(procedural), lack of management visibility (organizational), and working
conditions (environmental) were all contributory to safety performance.
Acceptable pace of work and production targets are also recognised as key
safety performance factors in keeping a balance between outputs and
nurturing a positive safety culture (ACSNI, 1993).

6
An important factor in Qatar is that construction work forces on mega projects
can reach manpower levels of between 35,000 to 80,000 per work site, which
can greatly hamper an employer in introducing correct training packages or
behavioural safety programmes of the required standard, due to stakeholders
pressure to complete the contract within the required timescale and difficulties
in recruitment of specialist personnel with the appropriate level of expertise in
the fields of safety training or behavioural safety programmes.

2.3 POTENTIAL CAUSES OF HEALTH EFFECTS OF WELDING

Welding activities carry an inherent risk of exposure to physical, chemical,

physiological and biological factors. Estimated number of workers performing
welding activities worldwide is 5 million (Antonini et al, 2007). Among these
workers there may be differing levels of risk perception, this could be
attributed to a lack of formal training (apprenticeship), technical qualifications
or a persons cultural background depending of their nationality; for example
companies operating in countries such as the United Kingdom (UK), European
Union (EU) and the United States of America (USA), are required by laws and
regulations to notify employees of all possible health effects of their activities
and have a duty to reduce the risks of their activities.

Western companies also implement integrated HS&E management systems

and occupational health surveillance programmes, either through the
employer (major companies) or local medical facilities, (e.g. UKs National
Health Service, private medical arrangements); whereas Asian workers
recruited to work in Qatar have generally not been exposed to this level of
systematic HS&E and occupational surveillance. Generally on arrival in
Qatar, the new employee is subject to a basic medical that consists of a blood
test (diabetes, HIV) and chest x-ray (lung abnormalities). On passing this
basic medical the worker is then deemed fit for work, and usually no follow up
medical screening takes place.

The welding processes produces complex metal fumes, gasses and organic
vapours depending on the materials to be welded, chemical coatings applied
to the materials and the welding process being used. Exposures include

7
(chemical), inhalation of welding fumes which are of a complex mixture due to
the different metals consumed in the welding process, (physical), heat, noise
ionizing radiation, (biological), bacteria, virus and (physiological) posture,
repetitive strain injury etc. Additionally workers are also exposed to many
potential hazards that can result in occupational accidents such as fall from
heights, explosion, hand injuries etc. (Cesar-Vaz et al, 2012).

2.4 HEALTH EFFECTS OF WELDING PROCESSES

The threat to a welders health comes from many sources; not only from the
actual welding process itself, but also other exposures which include the
inhalation of chemical welding fumes, gasses and organic vapours. Several
chronic health conditions have been attributed with association to welding
including respiratory diseases and some cancers.

The following health conditions were reviewed to highlight to the reader the
potential serious chronic health consequences associated with exposure to
welding processes.

2.4.1 Respiratory

2.4.1.1 Pulmonary function

A major health hazard to welders is inhalation of fumes and pollutants, which

may have detrimental effect on the respiratory tract and can result in
decreased pulmonary function. To assess decreased lung function a
measurement of the lungs is achieved by the use of spirometric testing, this
measures lung volume capacity (maximum air inhaled) over a given time and
flow rates achieved during exhaling. Many studies of pulmonary function
among welders or persons exposed to welding activities have been
completed. Studies by Stepniewski et al (2003) and Fidan et al (2005)
identified decreasing pulmonary function among welders, and an increase in
symptoms such as bronchitis, coughing, shortness of breath and sputum
production.

Studies carried out in Asian countries of the respiratory health effects of

welding have revealed an increased risk of incurring respiratory illness.

8
A study of prevalence of respiratory morbidity (RM) among 126 welders from
68 different welding sites in unorganised sector of Baroda city in India (Jani
and Mazumdar, 2004) revealed a high prevalence of RM among welders
equalling a total of 44% of 126 welders involved in the study. This study also
revealed that welders were not wearing correct PPE due to various reasons
e.g. non-availability of PPE or the inconvenience caused to the welder by
wearing PPE. The PPE factor could be an indicator of a low HS&E culture
and poor perception of the possible health effects associated with welding.

Jayawardana and Abeysena (2009) carried out a study of the respiratory

health of welders in a container yard in Sri Lanka to determine respiratory
symptoms (RS) and respiratory function (RF) of 41 welders in comparison to a
controlled group (CG) of 41 male office support workers who had no past
history of exposure to dusts or welding fumes. The study involved
questionnaires to determine RS and the use of an electronic spirometer to
determine RF. The conclusion of the study was that the welders had a
significantly higher prevalence of chronic bronchitis with non-impairment of
lung function than the CG, totalling 11 welders compared to 3 from the CG.

A study involving an interview administered questionnaire and spirometric

examination (Bhumika et al, 2012) of RM among 276 welders and 276
comparable non-welders in a Goa shipyard revealed the prevalence of RM
was greater among welders (32%) than non-welders (21%) and that RM was
also related to duration of employment, increasing age, smoking and sporadic
PPE compliance.

A Labour Force Survey (LFS) carried out by the UK Health and Safety
Executive (HSE) in 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12 asked people who reported
having breathing or lung problems caused or worsened by their work, to
identify what it was about their work that was contributing to their illness. Of
the 129 000 individuals currently with these conditions among those who had
ever worked, the following factor was identified as causing or making their ill-
health worse, 10% of people identified airborne particulates inhaled while they
were involved in (black trades) welding, soldering and cutting of materials
(HSE, 2014).

9
2.4.1.2 Siderosis

Siderosis, also known as welders lung is an occupational disease of the

lung caused by the inhalation and accumulation in the lungs of ferric oxide
particles (iron dusts), the condition was assumed to be benign, but now
mortality studies among iron workers and welders, associate working with iron
to respiratory disease, lung cancer and possible death (Billings and Howard,
1993), (Patel et al, 2009).

There are many studies that confirm the link between welding exposure and
Siderosis. Doherty et al (2004) presented cases of three welders, aged 40,
37, and 61 years, (two of which were brothers) who worked in the same
workplace, each having over 20 years of individual welding experience.
Results showed that all three had iron laden macrophages in lung tissue and
high levels of ferritin concentrations in their blood. This case study concluded
that siderosis and other abnormalities could also be due to other chemicals of
welding fumes, in addition to the iron content. Patel et al (2009) identified an
association between welding and siderosis in a case study of 2 welders, this
revealed both welders had pulmonary siderosis and elevated liver enzyme
levels. Casjens et al (2014) analysed 192 welders from a German study who
were not wearing respirators. The study entailed measuring welding fume and
analysing the fume for its iron content. Conclusions of this study found
positive associations of respirable iron on ferritin (protein) and higher iron
levels in the welders than comparison to the general public male population.

2.4.1.3 Occupational Asthma

Occupational Asthma is a narrowing of the airways associated with exposure

to synthetic chemicals or biological agents used in the workplace (Torn et al,
1999), and has been reported by workers exposed to manual metal arc (MMA)
welding of stainless steel, (Keskinen et al, 1980). In a study of adult-onset of
asthma and occupational exposure (Torn et al, 1999) performed a nested
case study which involved a random population sample of two groups, of (1)
physician diagnosed asthma sufferers and (2) people reporting asthma
conditions but who had not been diagnosed by a physician. The results
revealed that exposure to welding fumes were associated with an increased

10
odds ratio for physician diagnosed asthma. Hannu et al (2005) case studied
two male welders aged 46 and 34, the first case welder suffered from severe
breathing and shortness of breath (dyspnoea) while welding SMO metal (a
high alloy austenitic stainless steel). Case 2 welder had also experienced
dyspnoea while welding stainless steel; the study concluded that stainless
steel fume produced from MMA welding should be considered as a new cause
of occupational asthma.

2.4.2 Cancer

2.4.2.1 Lung cancer from iron fumes and stainless steel fumes

Iron fumes

Siew et al, (2008) states that iron fume and dust exposure during welding
could increase the risk of lung cancer. A study of Finnish men who
participated in the 1970 national census, was compared to the Finish cancer
registry for lung cancer cases (n=30,137). Occupations identified in the
census were converted to estimate cumulative exposure to iron welding
fumes. Conclusions indicated that as the cumulative exposure to welding
fumes increased, the relative risk of lung cancer also increased.

Stainless steel fumes

A study of 5 past research cases identified in scientific literature (Sjgren et al,

1994) between 1984 and 1993 of welders with lung cancer from Canada,
Denmark, France, Norway and Sweden indicated that there was an
association between lung cancer and stainless steel welders who were
exposed to Nickel and Chromium.

A study of lung cancer and related occupations (Richiardi et al, 2004)

compared 1132 lung cancer cases that were related to welding occupations,
which were then matched with 1553 randomly selected control subjects from
the same geographical area. Findings identified that there was a greater risk
for contracting lung cancer among persons involved in welding activities than
the control subjects.

To grasp the magnitude of potential ill health welders are exposed to, sources
produced via the welding process are identified in the following Tables (1,

11
2&3) which identifies types of fume, gasses and organic vapours produced in
the welding process, and the specific associated health effects relevant to the
source.

2.5 FUMES, GASSES AND ORGANIC VAPOURS

2.5.1 Fumes

Fumes are composed from different combinations of metals used in the

welding processes, these various combinations potentially can manifest in
varying potential acute and chronic health effects (as documented in Table 1),
to workers exposed to the welding processes. Chronic effects can include
Bronchitis, interstitial lung disease etc.

Composition of fume varies due to complex mixtures of the different metals

and coatings of metals, which are consumed in the welding process.

Fume particles are of various sizes from the nanometre scale to microns 0.1-
1.0 m and are composed of oxides from the metals being welded, plus silica
and oxide, from applied fluxes and coatings (Antonini et al, 2007), (CCOHS,
2010). Acute effects of fume inhalation include Metal Fume Fever (MFF),
resulting from exposure to welding fumes composed of zinc oxide, (ZnO) or
magnesium oxide (MgO). MFF symptoms generally mimic flu like symptoms,
i.e. nausea, headaches, fatigue, irritated pharynx etc. Symptoms of MFF
usually subside between 24 to 48 hours, and complete recovery after 96 hours
(IOSH, 2014).

Manganese (Mn) is an important component and found in most steels, welding

consumables and is also attributed to detrimental health effects to welders.
There have been many studies of the health effects of Mn inhalation by
welders, which document chronic effects including central nervous system
problems.

12
Table 1. Sources and Health Effects of Welding Fumes
Fume Type Source Potential Health Effect

Aluminium component of some alloys, e.g.,

Aluminium Inconel, copper, zinc, steel, magnesium, Respiratory irritant.
brass and filler materials.

Hardening agent found in copper, "Metal Fume Fever." A carcinogen. Other

Beryllium magnesium, aluminium alloys and electrical chronic effects include damage to the
contacts. respiratory tract.

Irritation of respiratory system, sore and dry

Stainless steel containing cadmium or throat, chest pain and breathing difficulty.
Cadmium Oxides
plated materials, zinc alloy. Chronic effects include kidney damage and
emphysema. Suspected carcinogen.

Increased risk of lung cancer. Some

Most stainless-steel and high-alloy
individuals may develop skin irritation. Some
Chromium materials, welding rods. Also used as
forms are carcinogens (hexavalent
plating material.
chromium).

Acute effects include irritation of the eyes,

Alloys such as Monel, brass, bronze. Also
Copper nose and throat, nausea and "Metal Fume
some welding rods.
Fever."

Acute effect is irritation of the eyes, nose and

Common electrode coating and flux material throat. Long-term exposures may result in
Fluorides
for both low- and high-alloy steels. bone and joint problems. Chronic effects
also include excess fluid in the lungs.

Siderosis a benign form of lung disease

caused by particles deposited in the lungs.
The major contaminant in all iron or steel
Iron Oxides Acute symptoms include irritation of the nose
welding processes.
and lungs. Tends to clear up when exposure
stops.

Chronic effects to nervous system, kidneys,

Solder, brass and bronze alloys,
Lead digestive system and mental capacity. Can
primer/coating on steels.
cause lead poisoning.

Most welding processes, especially high- Metal Fume Fever. Chronic effects may
Manganese
tensile steels. include central nervous system problems.

Steel alloys, iron, stainless steel, nickel Acute effects are eye, nose and throat
Molybdenum
alloys. irritation, and shortness of breath.

Acute effect is irritation of the eyes, nose and

Stainless steel, Inconel, Monel, Hastelloy throat. Increased cancer risk has been noted
Nickel and other high-alloy materials, welding rods in occupations other than welding. Also
and plated steel. associated with dermatitis and lung
problems.

Acute effect is irritation of the eyes, skin and

Some steel alloys, iron, stainless steel, respiratory tract. Chronic effects include
Vanadium
nickel alloys. bronchitis, retinitis, fluid in the lungs and
pneumonia.
Zinc Galvanized and painted metal. Metal Fume Fever.
Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS), 2010.

13
Exposure to manganese has the potential to develop into "specific central
nervous syndrome" (Ostiguy et al, 2005). A study of the effects of exposure to
manganese by welders was carried out to determine if welders were at risk of
incurring Parkinsonism due to exposure to welding fume, (Harris et al, 2011).
The study subjects were recruited from two Midwest shipyards and one indoor
fabrication workshop in the USA and involved 394 white male workers who
were exposed to welding fumes from their work activities whilst involved in
heavy fabrication and shipbuilding. The rate of Parkinsonism amongst the
subjects was high, and approached the frequency of Parkinsonism symptoms
found in elderly persons. Additionally the subjects with Parkinsonism
symptoms had a greater reduction in health status across a broad range of
categories (Harris et al, 2011).

2.5.2 Gases

Gasses used in the welding processes can present varying acute, chronic and
potentially fatal risks to the welders health; examples include general irritation
of eyes, respiratory system, asphyxiation (oxygen deficiency). Table 2
identifies four gases produced via welding and the acute and chronic risks to
health, ranging from irritation to the eyes, nose and throat to changes in lung
function, additionally to the gasses produced by the welding process, gas
such as Nitrogen (N2) are used to provide artificial atmospheric conditions to
prevent oxidization of welds, mainly used as a purging gas when welding pipe
work or vessels, this process introduces additional risk of asphyxiation during
construction or confined space (C/S) activities.

14
Table 2. Source and Health Effect of Welding Gases
Gas Type Source Potential Health Effect
Absorbed readily into the bloodstream, causing
headaches, dizziness or muscular weakness. High
Carbon Monoxide Formed in the arc.
concentrations may result in unconsciousness and
death
Irritating to the eyes and respiratory tract. Overexposure
Decomposition of rod can cause lung, kidney, bone and liver damage.
Hydrogen Fluoride
coatings. Chronic exposure can result in chronic irritation of the
nose, throat and bronchi.
Eye, nose and throat irritation in low concentrations.
Abnormal fluid in the lung and other serious effects at
Nitrogen Oxides Formed in the arc.
higher concentrations. Chronic effects include lung
problems such as emphysema.
Welding in confined spaces,
Oxygen Deficiency and air displacement by Dizziness, mental confusion, asphyxiation and death.
shielding gas.
Acute effects include fluid in the lungs and
Formed in the welding arc, haemorrhaging. Very low concentrations (e.g., one part
Ozone especially during plasma-arc, per million) cause headaches and dryness of the
MIG and TIG processes. eyes. Chronic effects include significant changes in
lung function.
Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOSH), 2010.

2.5.3 Organic vapours

Organic vapours are produced via the introduction of degreasing agents,

paints and rust inhibitors etc. into the welding process. Table 3 identifies
gases produced and associated acute and chronic health effects ranging from
irritants to eyes, nose and throat to damage of internal organs.

Table 3. Source and Health Effect of Organic Vapours as a result of

Welding
Gas Type Source Potential Health Effect
Aldehydes (such as Metal coating with binders and
Irritant to eyes and respiratory tract.
formaldehyde) pigments. Degreasing solvents
Eye, nose and throat irritation. High
possibility of sensitization, producing
Diisocyanates Metal with polyurethane paint.
asthmatic or other allergic symptoms, even
at very low exposures.
Metal with residual degreasing
solvents. (Phosgene is formed by Severe irritant to eyes, nose and respiratory
Phosgene
reaction of the solvent and welding system. Symptoms may be delayed.
radiation.)
Metal coated with rust inhibitors.
(Phosphine is formed by reaction of Irritant to eyes and respiratory system, can
Phosphine
the rust inhibitor with welding damage kidneys and other organs.
radiation.)
Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS), 2010.

15
2.6 PHYSICAL HAZARDS

2.6.1 Electrical

Personal observations of Middle East workers perception of electrical hazards

associated with welding are that they are usually limited to electrocution or
electrical fire, with limited or no knowledge of Ultra violet radiation (UVR).
Therefore the possible adverse health effects of UVR are not discussed at the
work start TBT. The electrical arc produced during arc welding process
produces high levels of UVR which is classified into three groups based on the
wavelength: Ultra violet A (UVA) 400-315 nanometers (nm), Ultra violet B
(UVB) 315-280 nm, and Ultra violet C (UVC) 280-100 nm (Dixon, J. and
Dixon, F., 2004).

Welding produces the full spectrum of UVR therefore if the welder or persons
exposed to the welding activity are unprotected, the UVR can result in adverse
acute and chronic health effects (Sliney and Wolbarsht, 1980).

Examples of acute health effects include photkeratoconjunctivitis (arc eye,

ocular pain with a sensation of sand in the eye), skin reddening (erythema),
and chronic effects such as cataracts and ocular melanoma, (Dixon, A. and
Dixon, B., 2004). A study (Emmett et al, 1981) of skin and eye diseases
amongst arc welders, exposed persons and a controlled non exposed group
revealed that the welders and exposed workers had higher levels of actinic
keratosis, and marked elastosis on the face and neck, but did not provide a
link from welding to the development of skin cancer. Although further studies
of 221 patients with uveal melanoma (Holly et al, 1996), established links to
welding exposure and increased risk of developing ocular melanoma.
Lombardi et al (2009), identified that of 2175 United States (US) workers who
submitted welding related eye injury compensation claims to a US insurance
company filed during 2000, 1353 (62%) were welders. Injury classification
results equated to foreign bodies 71.7% and 19.7% UV associated eye burns.

2.6.2 Heat

Welding activities produce intense radiant heat not only from the actual
process, but also from the requirements of quality control, such as pre heating

16
and post heating of the metal prior to and after the weld being performed.
Heat generated by the actual welding process can reach 65000 F depending
on welding process or metal being welded. Pre and post weld heating of
metals can sometimes involve temperatures ranging up to 7500C and held for
several hours or days (Lincoln Electric, 1994). Heat associated health effects
to welders are usually discussed in TBT in basic terms such as acute health
risks e.g. skin burns, environmental conditions, temperature and humidity
levels which can result in heat stress, heat exhaustion etc. to the welder.
However other potential chronic health effects associated with heat are not
discussed, studies have identified a link between radiant heat and a
detrimental health effect of the male reproductive systems. A longitudinal
study of 17 specialized MMA welders (Bonde, 1992) investigated semen
quality and hormone concentrations of the group. The findings revealed that
the specialized welders experienced a reversible decrease in semen quality
and a significantly reduced sperm count, which was attributed to exposure to
radiant heat from the welding activity. This study reinforced findings of earlier
research (Mortensen, 1988), which identified that welding activities increased
the risk of reduced sperm count and quality of sperm. A study (Jensen et al,
2006) on the influence of occupational exposure to heat on the male
reproductive system also concluded that welding and other occupational
exposures could cause harm to the male reproductive system.

2.6.2.1 Heat stress

Additional to the radiant heat produced by the welding process, welders are
also exposed to the harsh environmental conditions of the Middle East. This
can entail being exposed to temperatures that can reach over 500C and
humidity levels of up to 80%. This could result in a person suffering from Heat
stress, an overloading of the bodies regulatory system, due to combined
contributions of the harsh environment, such as air temperature, humidity,
metabolic heat produced, and clothing needed for the welding activity, such as
PPE (Kjellstrom et al, 2009). Health effects can include, heat cramps, heat
exhaustion, heat syncope, and heat stroke, with each stage of the heat stress
symptoms potentially resulting in a greater severity of ill health effects and
possible death (CCOSH, 2010).
17
2.6.3 Noise

Excessive noise is a global occupational concern with social and physiological

impacts including occupational noise induced hearing loss (Nelson et al,
2005). Noise induced hearing loss is now recognised as a major construction
and engineering health risk in Europe and USA. In the UK there are strict
guidance for working in noisy environments, the Control of Noise at Work
Regulations 2005 were implemented in 2006 to provide employers with
guidance of how to protect their work force from excessive noise (HSE, 2005).
These regulations state that an employer must risk assess the effects to heath
of noise levels over 80 decibels and provide adequate hearing protection
zones and hearing protection at levels of 85 decibels. On Middle East
construction sites noise is generated from various mediums, e.g. diesel
generators, diesel de-watering pumps, the use of grinding machines, drilling
machines and mobile plant equipment, such as ground compactors,
excavators etc. Many of these equipment generate sound levels above 85
decibels due age of equipment, poor maintenance and lack of investment,
resulting in excessive noise levels emitted to the worker.

One of the main detrimental effects to health of noise is Tinnitus, a sensation

of ringing in the ears, also known as an auditory phantom sensation. Tinnitus
is associated with loud noise levels incurred either occupationally or socially,
and is more prevalent at a chronic stage in senior persons (Eggermont et al,
2004).

Langguth (2011) identified that evidence suggested that symptoms of Tinnitus

were not only the accepted ringing in the ears but also emotional
characteristics including stress, depression, lack of sleep, reduced
concentration levels and irritation, which could potentially result in workplace
accidents. Additional to noise, injury to the ear can result from hot sparks or
metal welding slag (a hot protective layer produced during the welding
process) which can result in outer or inner ear damage and perforation of the
tympanic membrane (ear drum). A case study of a 46 year old welder
(Simons and Eibling, 2005) who had incurred a spark into his inner ear
experienced an acute injury of a burn and ongoing purulent (pus) discharges

18
from his internal ear. Medical examinations 30 years after the initial injury
revealed that the welder had a perforation to his ear drum and two pieces of
metal slag inside embedded inside his inner ear.

2.6.4 Vibration

It is estimated that 2 million workers in the UK are at risk of ill health due to
use of electrical or pneumatic driven rotating or hammer action tools such as
hand held grinders and chipping hammers (HSE, 2014). To control the health
risks associated with vibratory tools the UK HSE introduced the Control of
vibration at Work Regulations 2005 which sets out a vibratory exposure action
value (EAV) and an exposure limit value (ELV) to which a worker can be
exposed to.

The EAV is equal to 2.5m/s2 A(8) this value requires risk management controls
to be in place, and the ELV of 5 m/s2 A(8) represents a high risk level at which
workers should not be exposed.

Exposure to vibratory tools and equipment can result in several detrimental

hand arm vibration (HAV) health effects to the user including vascular,
musculoskeletal and neurological disorders (Burstrm et al, 2010). Vascular
symptoms are identified by finger blanching during exposure to cold weather,
known as vibration white finger (VWF) although circulation may be restored
over a period of time when a person warms their fingers. Tissue restriction to
the blood supply can lead to a reddening and throbbing sensation of the
fingers when blood returns to the fingers. Neurological symptoms of HAV can
result in reduced sensory capability of the fingers, resulting from numbness
and tingling of the fingers (HSE, 2014).

A cross sectional epidemiological survey of 375 shipyard workers (Letz et al,

1992) in the USA who were exposed to HAV identified that use of vibratory
tools resulted in a greater risk of incurring HAV induced health effects. The
sample groups were identified as, (a) full time dedicated pneumatic powered
grinders, (b) workers who were partially exposed to vibratory equipment, and
(c) workers who were not exposed to vibratory tools. Results were classified
by use of the Stockholm workshop staging system and identified that 71% of

19
the full time exposed workers (a) experienced VWF symptoms compared to
33% of the partially exposed workers (b) and 6% of (c) the workers who were
never exposed to vibratory tools. Additionally the effect of numbness and
tingling in hands and fingers of the three groups were (a) 84%, (b) 50% and
(c) 17%.

A UK questionnaire study of 22,194 randomly selected men and women aged

between 16 to 64 (Palmer et al, 2000), to estimate the prevalence and
occupational exposure patterns to hand transmitted vibration (HTV) in the UK
revealed that an estimated 4.2 million men and 667,000 women in the UK are
exposed to HTV at work in a one week period, the study also estimated that
1.2 million men and 44,000 women exceeded vibration levels of 2.8m/s2. The
most common sources of exposure were attributed to the use hand held
grinders, hammer drills and electrical saws.

HAV health effects have been subject of many studies in the UK, USA and
Europe, and the health effects are now well known within these countries
workforces, unfortunately there is little evidence of any studies been carried
out in identifying levels of workers risk perception of vibratory induced health
effects in Qatar. A literature search of vibration induced health effects relating
to the Qatar workforces has revealed sparse information and is mainly found
in HS&E magazine type publications, which document the health effects but
do not broach the subject of risk perceptions of the workers. This could be an
area that needs further investigation in terms of study and documented
literature on risk perception in the use of vibratory tools.

2.6.5 Biological

2.6.5.1 Metallic fume

Welders and exposed persons to welding fumes may be at risk of inhaling

fumes that can be made up of various metal constituents such as Aluminium
(Al), Chromium (Cr), and Nickel (Ni). Studies of inhalation of welding fumes
(Antonini, 2003) have identified that welding fumes can cause inflammatory
reactions to exposed persons and Al, Cr, Ni components can accumulate in
the blood and plasma and may be measured via biological monitoring as

20
indicators of potential adverse health effects. Effects of Al can cause exposed
persons to experience cognitive disorders such as potential memory loss.
Giorgianni et al (2003) carried out neuropsychological tests, Colour-Word test,
Raven Progressive Matrices test and the Welchsler Memory scale test on 50
welders and reference subjects. These tests identified that welders performed
less well than the reference subjects in areas of memory, abstract reasoning
and attention, concluding that exposure to Al leads to cognitive alterations.

Antonini et al, (2005) also identified potential DNA damage from inhalation of
welding fumes. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC,
2012) classifies welding fume (Group B), potentially carcinogenic to humans,
CR (VI) and NI compounds (Group 1) as carcinogenic to humans. Studies are
now employing biological monitoring methods to determine potential levels of
Al, Cr and NI absorbed into the blood stream from welding fume. Scheepers
et al, (2007) carried out a biological monitoring study of exposure to total
chromium (TCr) and hexavalent chromium (HCr) of 53 welders. The welders
were categorised in 3 groups: mild steel (MS), stainless steel (SS) and high
alloy steel (HAS) welding. Methods of obtaining data were through personal
air sampling and collection of blood and urine samples. Results showed that
TCr levels observed in plasma of the SS and HAS welders were twice the
level of the MS welders.

2.6.5.2 Physiological

Musculoskeletal disorders
Work related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) such as Carpel tunnel
syndrome and tendonitis are painful disorders of the muscles, tendons and
nerves and are an important cause of morbidity and illness from various
occupations (Burdorf et al, 1998). WMSDs can result in a reduced work
capability, possibly resulting in loss of work due to ill health and financial
consequences to the worker and their employer (Meerding et al, 2005).

These conditions can be caused by work activities including welding and

metalworking, which may require repetitive arm/hand movements, exposure to
vibration, fast work pace, awkward posture such as stooping, squatting and
static positioning of the body for long periods during the working day,
21
(Kadefors et al, 1976). An example of static loading would be welding of
overhead work with the welders arms being extended above his head and his
head most probably in the tilted back position.

Symptoms can include both acute and chronic pain, a feeling of weakness,
swelling or burning sensations, and in extreme cases wasting of muscle tissue
(CCOHS, 2014). The EU recognises WMSDs as a major health risk
associated with the work environment. In an observatory report of European
risk, the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EASHW, 2010)
identified that the occupational disease statistics revealed the highest
proportion of European occupational disease was musculoskeletal injuries at
38.1% of reported occupational disease.

In their annual health and safety statistics report for 2013/14 the UK the HSE
identified that of all self-reported illnesses caused or made worse by work in
the last 12 months 180,000 were from workers suffering from musculoskeletal
disorders and 341,000 sufferers from persons reporting illness which started
more than 12 months ago (HSE, 2014).

Absenteeism rates in the UK during 2007 in a 12 month period (HSE, 2009)

for persons suffering from WMSDs have identified that persons suffering from
work related upper limb disorder (WRULD) took an average 13.3 days off
work, persons suffering from back pain took an average 17.2 days off work
and workers suffering from lower limb disorders (WRLLD) took an average of
21.8 days off work.

Studies have identified persons involved in metal trades are subject to

incurring WMSD, an analysis of factors for musculoskeletal sickness and
return to work among 283 welders and metal workers (Burdorf et al, 1998),
revealed that 51% attributed absenteeism from work to a musculoskeletal
disorder and concluded that complaints of shoulder and neck injuries were
associated with sickness absence, and those persons suffering from WMSD
were of a higher risk of subsequent sickness absence in a later time frame.

22
A cross sectional study of musculoskeletal disorders of 853 blue and white
collar persons employed in the shipyard industry (Alexopoulos et al, 2006) of
which 47% were metalworkers exposed to welding activities and 15% welders.

Results identified blue collar workers reported higher wrist and hand disorders
whilst welders reported higher shoulder, neck and lower back disorders than
white collar workers.

2.6.6 Occupational accidents

By their nature of work, welders are exposed to many industrial hazardous

conditions and working environments, which include working in hot, humid and
cold conditions and work environments such as offshore platforms, chemical
plants, oil and gas facilities, power stations, heavy engineering and civil
construction etc. Additionally welders frequently ply their trade in overseas
locations, which can result in exposure to reduced or mixed safety standards
and cultures. Working environments can also place the welder in situations
where he is required to perform his job in high risk situations, such as C/S and
working at heights (WAH), therefore placing the welder at greater risk of
incurring an occupational accident.

Statistics reported under RIDDOR from the UK HSE, reveal that there were 11
deaths, 581 major injuries and 373 over 7 day injuries resulting from fall from
heights in the construction industry recorded in the period 2013/14 (present
data). Table 4 identifies other causes of construction work related deaths. All
the identified causes of death by the HSE are applicable to welding activities,
therefore identifying that welding is a high-risk, high potential activity if not
controlled correctly.

Table 4. Deaths in the UK construction industry (2013/2014)

Deaths in the UK construction industry 2013/2014. (Present data 2014).

Trapped by something Struck by moving or

Fall from heights 11 1 2
overturning or collapsing falling object
Contact with Striking against fixed or
3 Contact with electricity 1 1
machinery stationary object
Total deaths 2013/14
Struck by moving
3 Other kind of accident 6 reporting period. 28
vehicle.
(Present data).
Health and Safety Executive, 2014.

23
3. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

3.1 THE AIM OF THE STUDY

The aim of the study is to investigate and gain an understanding of the risk
perception of welders and workers exposed to welding processes of any
possible future acute or chronic health effects they may incur.

3.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

This study seeks to:

(A) Compare a sample of UK based workers risk perception against a larger

sample of Middle East based workers risk perception of possible health effects
from the welding processes.

(B) Identify exposed workers perception of risk, in relation to acute and

chronic health effects of welding.

(C) Evaluate workers understanding of the consequences of potential health

effects.

(D) Identify any knowledge gaps in PPE requirements and reason for usage.

3.3 HYPOTHESIS

Due to lack of adequate HS&E information, multinational migrant welders and

persons exposed to welding activities in Middle East countries have far less
knowledge and understanding of potential acute and chronic risks to their
health from the welding processes than UK based persons employed in the
welding and fabrication industry. This could be due to the longevity of the UK
HS&E related regulations, standards, training and information provided to UK
workers. If proven that this knowledge gap exists as opposed to a null
hypothesis of equal levels of knowledge and understanding of both participant
groups, could potentially have a negative effect in the observation, prevention
and control measures, resulting in the migrant workers experiencing chronic
health problems in later life.

24
4. METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION

The study explores the subjective perceptions of risks to health of Middle East
and UK based workers involved in, or exposed to welding operations.

The methodology employed was determined by a literature review of health

effects and risk perception associated with welding, plus personal
observations of Middle East based welders and persons exposed to welding
during the execution of their activities. Additionally previous personal
experiences and observations of UK based welders and exposed persons
were also instrumental in determining the methodology.

4.1 EXPERIMENT DESIGN

As this study is based mainly on the risk perceptions of low paid and
potentially poorly educated migrant workers originating from India, Pakistan,
and the Philippines, the use of a descriptive questionnaire, verbal guidance
from their HS&E managers and multilingual site based HS&E personnel of the
same nationality acting as interpreters was identified as the simplest and most
effective form of communication with the participants.

The purpose of the experiment is to identify the level of health risk perception
from Middle East workers exposed to welding activities and compare them
with UK based results of workers employed in the same activities. This will
assist in identifying any potential Qatar workers knowledge gaps in the
understanding of acute and chronic effects to their health. Additionally the
experiment may identify gaps in workers knowledge concerning correct PPE
to be worn and their understanding of why specific PPE should be worn during
the welding activity to protect their health.

4.2 ETHICS

To ensure correct ethical values were adhered to, all participating companies
HS&E managers were contacted to gain approval from their companys
management. The involved participants were then sent a pre-survey invitation
and introduction to the research which informed them of the purpose of the
research, reasons for the invitation, voluntary participation, what they were

25
required to do to participate and finally what will happen to the research
material during and after the study is completed. The participants were also
issued with an informed consent form for signature or rejection which
highlighted that they have understood all the previous information, agreed to
participate and that all information was strictly controlled under the Data
Protection Act (1998).

4.3 PILOT STUDY

The next step of the study process was to conduct a pilot study to determine
the level of understanding of the participants and any improvements that may
have to be implemented to the questionnaire.

Initially the questionnaire was submitted in written English language to several

Qatar and UK based HS&E managers for review and comment. The actual
pilot study consisted of a group discussion and completion of a questionnaire
in English, with verbal translation to a selected multinational group comprising
of 12 welders from a large Middle East based EPIC Company. Cooperation in
the pilot study was given from the participants HS&E managers assisted by
multilingual HS&E supervisors of the same nationalities of the welders, to
translate, guide and clarify any potential non-understanding of the
questionnaire or the reasons for its implementation.

It quickly became apparent that the pilot study group was keen to participate
due to the numerous questions received from the group and that their
perception of the study was that it was a test of their knowledge of welding
and not of their perception to health risks. This resulted in-group verbal
communication with their work colleagues to make sure that they were
correctly answering the questions, therefore the answers were potentially
altered and were not the participants personal perceptions of risk to health.

The pilot study allowed the researcher to identify the required redesign and
modification of the questionnaire to simplify its content, enabling it to be
produced and delivered in the participants native languages. Additionally
HS&E managers and multilingual HS&E officers would have to be in

26
attendance acting as interpreters during the completion of the questionnaire to
give advice on any potential miscommunication.

4.4 DESIGN AND METHODS

The study required a direct comparison of Qatar and United Kingdom based
workers risk perceptions in regard to acute and chronic health effects of
welding. Therefore two groups (A) and (B) were identified and enlisted to
determine a defined comparison of health risk perceptions.

Data from the two groups was analysed using independent T tests, and a
comparison of percentages, which are related to each country total then
compared to determine any gaps in knowledge or perceptions.

Group (A) consisted of two UK companies, company (1) A&P Tyne, a large
ship repair company with a workforce > 200 with a well versed and
implemented HS&E management system in place and company (2), AHL
Industrial Pipeworks Ltd, a medium sized pipework fabrication company
without a dedicated HS&E person.

Group (B) consisted of three Qatar based companies, company (3) Black Cat
Engineering, a medium sized structural fabrication and engineering company
with a core workforce < 200, which increases if required, company (4)
Consolidated Contractors International Company, (CCIC) a large EPIC
company employing over 50,000 personnel over various projects and
company (5) Maersk, a large offshore company which uses subcontractors to
carry out welding and fabrication activities on its offshore platforms, in this
case the subcontractors were invited as the participants. The actual number
and percentage of participants who completed surveys per company are
documented in Figure 1.

To gather the required data to make the comparison, welders and exposed
persons from both groups were requested via the questionnaire (Appendices
1 to 7) to answer questions on seven topics to evaluate their understanding of
risk perception. The questions covered:

27
 1. Demographic information including education, welding training received
and total years of welding experience.

2. Health information, covered total number of employers worked for, if

any pre-employment medical had been given and any health effects
suffered.

3. Occupational accidents, workers history of involvement such as arc

eye, burns, slip trips and falls, etc.

4. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), covering:

(a) Perceived required PPE,

(b) Actual wearing of PPE.

5. Risks and hazards associated with welding, such as chemical, physical,

mechanical, electrical etc.

6. Possible health effects of welding, which covered 29 potential health

effects including both acute and chronic effects e.g. respiratory disease,
back injury and burns etc.

7. Main of causes of accidents covered the workers job and personal

factor perception of what are the main causes of accidents.

4.5 QUESTIONNAIRE SUBMISSION

As the Qatar target audience was mainly Indian, Philippine and Nepalese,
their surveys were produced in three languages, English, Hindi and Tagalog
and administered to the invited participant groups with their HS&E leaders and
interpreters in attendance. Additionally the smaller sample was obtained from
UK based participants with an assumption that HS&E standards would be of a
higher level and workers would have a greater knowledge and perception of
health risks associated with welding activities. The information gathered
would be the baseline to help identify a comparison in results of health risk
perceptions with the Qatar based survey to identify health risk knowledge
gaps within the Qatar and UK workforces.

28
A total of 133 correctly completed questionnaires were received from the
Qatar participants and 50 correctly completed surveys from the UK
participants.

5. ANALYSIS AND DATA

5.1 DATA ANALYSIS

Data collection and analysis was performed using descriptive statistics,

columns, a coding principal and ordinal scale allowing categorization and
numerical value of information. Therefore the information gathered can be
used to identify personal risk perceptions and show trends of perception and
understanding of health risks. The method used to analyse and confirm data
from the returned questionnaires was the software version of the Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Independent sample T Test statistics
were used to compare all agreed answers to obtain mean scores and a P
value at a significance level (Sl) of 0.05 in categories of suffered health,
occupational accidents, PPE, hazards associated with welding, potential
health effects, job and personal factors associated with causes of accidents.
Data is also presented as absolute numbers, with mean values and
comparative cross tabulation of greater percentages where applicable, which
was then used to determine percentage equivalent of the participants
perceptions of risk.

Section 1.

Demographic information.

Demographic information consisted of 7 questions regarding gender, age, job

title, marital status, nationality, education, welding training, plus length of
welding experience and actual work experience in years.

Participants

The participant sample was composed of 183 persons who were exposed to
welding activities either indirectly or during the course of their occupation. All
participants (Figure 1) were male (100%).

29
COMPANY KEY

1. A and P Tyne (UK).

2. AHL Industrial Pipeworks Ltd (UK).

3. Black Cat Engineering (Qatar).

4. Consolidated International Contractors Ltd (Qatar).

5. Maersk (subcontractor) (Qatar).

Figure 1. Company participation-cross tabulation

Numbers per company Percentage per company

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Company 1 Company 2 Company 3 Company 4 Company 5

Age range.

Participant ages were grouped into 11 sections (Figure 2) and ranged from 16
to 21 years up to 66 to 70 years of age. Mean ages of the groups were
UK = 41.4, Qa = 37.7 years.

Figure 2. Participant age percentage cross tabulation

UK % QA %

25
20
15
10
5
0
51 to 55
16 to 21

21 to 25

26 to 30

31 to 35

36 to 40

41 to 45

46 to 50

56 to 60

61 to 65

65 to 70

30
Occupations

Job titles (Figure 3) covered 13 disciplines ranging from welders (UK 86 %),
(Qa 59.4%) to engineers (UK 2%), (Qa 2.26%). HS&E personnel (UK 2%),
(Qa 18.8%) were also included in the survey as it was deemed important to
determine their knowledge and perception of hazards and risk regarding
exposure to welding activities.

Figure 3. Job title percentages cross tabulation

UK Job Title % QA Job Title %
80
60
40
20
0
HSE Adviser

HSE Officer

Manager
C/H Welding

Pipe Fitter

Supervisor

Welder
Fabricator
C/H Piping

Foreman Welder

HSE Manager

QC Inspector

Welding Engineer
Nationality

Participants consisted of eight different nationalities (Figure 4), of which from

Qa participants Indians were the greatest (53.38%); whereas Canadians
(0.75%) and Sri Lankans (0.75%) were the least. A point of interest, it was
noted that UK company (1) had a high percentage of migrant European
workers which accounted for 8.2% of the total survey numbers and 30% of the
UK survey numbers.

31
Figure 4. Nationality percentages cross tabulation
70
UK Nationality % Qatar Nationality %
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 Indian

Indian
British

Sri Lankan
European

Philipine

Nepalese

UK

Canadian
Philippines

Other
Education.

Education levels (Figure 5) revealed that overall, eight participants achieved

no formal education, UK 2% and 5.2% of participants from Qatar had no
formal education. UK participants attended higher levels of education in
primary (82%), secondary, (88%), vocational (40%), college (42%), whereas
(9.7%) of Qatar participants attended university and no UK participants
attended university.

Figure 5. Comparison of educational achievements (percentages)

Education Percentages
UK % Qa %
100

80

60

40

20

0
None. Primary Secondary Vocational College. University

32
Welding training.

All employers provided welding training of varying standards depending on

company requirements. Statistics showed, UK 86% and Qa 53.8% (Figure 6)
received employer training.

Figure 6. Welding training by employer (numbers & percentages)

Welding training by employer (Numbers) Welding training by employer (%)

100

80

60

40

20

0
UK QA

Additionally 32% of UK employees and 24.06% of Qatar employees also

attended welding training schools, independent of the employer (Figure 7).
This data could indicate that employers in Qatar where overall 53.38% are
employer-trained compared to 24.06% by welding school, prefer to provide in-
house training to enable the welders to achieve their required minimum
standards. This could be attributed to several reasons as extra cost of using a
training school, logistics due to mass movement of personnel, etc.

Figure 7. Welding training in welding schools (numbers & percentages)

Welding training school (Numbers). Welding training school (%)

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
UK Qatar

33
Welding process used.

The participants were involved in welding of several metals, mainly carbon

steel (UK 100%, Qa 77.4%) (Figure 8), Stainless steel (UK 70.0%, Qa
53.38%) (Figure 9), and (Figure 10) Inconel (UK 22 %, Qa 12.03%).

Figure 8. Carbon steel welding cross tabulation (numbers &

percentages)
120
Carbon Steel
100

80

60

40

20

0
UK Numbers UK % QA Numbers QA %

Figure 9. Stainless steel welding cross tabulation (numbers &

percentages)
80
Stainless Steel
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
UK Numbers UK % QA Numbers QA %

34
Figure 10. Inconel welding cross tabulation (numbers & percentages)
25
Inconel
20

15

10

0
UK Numbers UK % QA Numbers QA %

Welding experience

Participants with practical welding experience (Figure 11) were grouped into
nine sections, ranging from a minimum 0 to 5 years, to the maximum grouping
of 41 to 45 years with total mean scores of UK 20.7 years, Qa 10.37 years.
The number of participants who did not weld but who were exposed to the
hazards via their job requirements totalled 13.

Figure 11. Welding experience in years cross tabulation (numbers)

60
Welding experience (Years) 0 to 5
50 6 to 10
11 to 15
40
16 to 20
30
21 to 25
20 26 to 30
31 to 35
10
36 to 40
0
41 to 45
UK Numbers QA Numbers

35
Section 2

9.2. Health Questionnaire

Occupational Health

Participants were asked two questions (Q1), Have you ever been given pre-
employment medical checks from your present or any previous companies,
and (Q2) Have you ever suffered from any of the following conditions due to
exposure to welding, answers required were agree, not sure or disagree.

Results for (Q1) (Figure 12) indicated that in the UK (2%), and Qa (14.29 %),
of their respective workforce had not received a pre-job medical to determine
health status, from any previous employers.

Figure 12. Pre-employment medicals results cross tabulation (numbers

& percentages)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
UK (No)

QA No (%)
UK No (%)

QA Medical (Yes)

QA Medical (%)
UK Medical (%)

QA (No)
UK Medical (Yes)

Pre-employment medicals by country revealed that UK (98%), Qa (84.21%)

had at some period within their work experience received a pre-employment
medical, with the total percentage of all participants having received some
type of pre-employment medical 87.98%. A cross country comparison
identified that there was a 13.8% greater yes percentage of the total UK
workforce receiving a pre-employment medical compared to the Qatar total.

Suffered health conditions

In response to (Q2) Have you ever suffered from any of the following
conditions due to exposure to welding?

36
Participants were asked if they had suffered from any of the eight listed health
conditions due to welding e.g. eye, respiratory, tissue scarring, WRULD etc.
Answers were recorded as agree, not sure, or disagree.

Agree answers.

The study found (Table 5) that the UK had a greater significance of reported
suffered health effects, mean (4.1600 2.1223) compared to Qa (1.7519
2.15465), t(181) = 6.765, p=0.0001, which could indicate a greater awareness
of welding induced health effects from UK participants.

Table 5. Suffered Health-Statistical Data

Std. Std. Error
Suffered health effects N Mean
Deviation Mean
UK 1.00 50 4.16 2.12238 0.30015
QA 2.00 133 1.7519 2.15465 0.18683

Suffered health effects

Equal
Equal variances
variances
not assumed
assumed

Levene's Test for Equality of F 0.218

Variances
Sig 0.641
t 6.765 6.811
df 181 89.348
Sig (2 tailed) 0.0001 0.0001
t-test for equality of means Mean difference 2.40812 2.40812
Std. Error Difference. 0.35599 0.35599
95% Confidence Interval ( lower) 1.7057 3.11054
of the Difference (upper) 1.70567 3.11057

UK participants reported agree answers (Figure 13a) in greater numbers of

suffering from a condition in all eight listed health effects compared to the
Qatar participants e.g. eye conditions UK (84%) Qa (32.3%), tissue-scarring
UK (90%) Qa (36%), back problems UK (64%), Qa (23.3%), etc.

Qatar participants scores were low to suffering from a health condition

especially VWF (8.2%), respiratory (11.2%) and WRULD (15%).

37
Figure 13a. Have you suffered any of these health conditions due to
welding? (Agree %)
Health conditions (Agree)
UK % QA%
100
80
60
40
20
0 Respiratory

Tissue scarring

WRULD

Hand and arm

Back problems
Eye

Leg and foot

Vibration white

injuries
injuries
Not sure answers finger

Qatar participants answered not sure, if they had suffered a health condition in
high percentages (Figure 13b) in three of the health categories, respiratory
(13.5%), VWF (15.8%) and WRULD (9.2%). The highest recorded not sure
answers from the UK workers were also respiratory (16%), VWF (10%) and
WRULD (8%).

Figure 13b. Have you suffered any of these health conditions due to
welding? (Not sure%)
Health conditions % (not sure)
UK % not sure QA % not sure
20
15
10
5
0
Eye

Tissue scarring

WRULD

Hand and arm

Back problems
Respiratory

Vibration white

Leg and foot

injuries
injuries
finger

Disagree answers

The statistics also identified that the disagree answers from the UK and Qatar
participants were recorded in large percentages, (Figure 13c). Especially
concerning were the results for potential chronic health effects, such as

38
respiratory, VWF, and WRULD as the participants are disagreeing on
conditions that may develop gradually over a lengthy timescale.

Figure 13c. Have you suffered any of these health conditions due to
welding? (disagree %)
Health conditions % (disagree)
UK % (disagree) QA % (disagree)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

WRULD
Tissue scarring

Hand and arm

Eye

Respiratory

Back problems

Leg and foot

Vibration white

injuries
injuries
finger

Section 3

Occupational accidents

Participants were asked if they had been involved in an occupational

accident covering fifteen categories (Figure 14) including electric shock, slips,
trips or falls, confined space etc., requiring yes or no answers.

The study found (Table 6) that the UK had a greater significant number of
involvement in occupational accidents, mean UK (4.0800 2.0882) compared
to Qa (1.8120 2.1039), t(181) = 6.511, p=0.0001.

Table 6. Occupational AccidentsStatistical Data

Std. Std. Error
Occ Accidents N Mean
Deviation Mean
UK 1.00 50 4.08 2.08826 0.29532
QA 2.00 133 1.812 2.10393 0.18243

39
 Occupational Accidents

Equal
Equal variances
variances
not assumed
assumed

Levene's Test for F 0.096

Equality of Variances
Sig 0.757
t 6.511 6.534
df 181 88.736
Sig (2 tailed) 0.0001 0.0001
t-test for equality of
Mean difference 2.26797 2.26797
means
Std. Error Difference. 0.34831 0.34713
95% Confidence Interval ( lower) 1.58069 1.5782
of the Difference (upper) 1.5782 2.95774

Accidents reported by Qatar based workers were higher in five categories

than the UK participants: falls from height (2.2%), electrical fires (3%),
chemical fires (1.5%), collision with machinery (3%) and asphyxiation (0.75%).
UK workers did not report involvement in any accidents in four of the five
Qatar higher categories; only in the work at height category. The highest
recorded percentages of involvement in accidents in general were from burns,
eye, hand, electric shock and slips trips and falls. This trend of occupational
accidents was mirrored by both sets of participants, although to a higher
percentage from UK participants.

Figure 14. Have you ever been involved in an occupational accident

involving the following? (Yes %)
Involved in Occupational accident (Yes)
UK % QA %
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Fire-gas
Fall from height
Hand injury

Fire-electrical

Fire-chemical

Collision with vehicle

Confined space

Slips/trips/falls
Body injury

Electric shock

Dropped objects

Collision with machinery

Burns
Eye

Asphyxiation

40
The level of greater involvement in occupational accidents is identified when
comparing the percentages of the UK and Qatar statistics. These findings
reveal that many of the reported UK occupational accidents percentages had
a much greater differential than the Qatar participants, e.g. eye +(35.4%)
burns +(49.4%), hand injury +(30.2%), slips trips and falls +(13.7%).

Section 4

PPE Requirements

An indicator of risk perception may be identified by the importance a worker

puts on wearing the correct PPE for welding activities. Therefore, participants
were asked to answer two questions on the importance of fifteen items of PPE
that were identified and listed for consideration for wearing during welding
activities.

Question one asked (Q1) What type of PPE do you think you need for
welding. Answers required were agree, not sure and disagree. For the
purpose of this research only, agree and not sure answers will be
documented for Q1.

Agree answers

The study found (Table 7) that UK and Qatar had no significant overall
difference in perception of type of PPE needed, mean UK (11.2200 2.1973)
compared to Qa (11.4135 2.0638), t (181) = -.555, p=.579. Indicating an
equal level of general awareness of required PPE for welding.

Table 7. PPE Required Statistical Data

Std. Std. Error
PPE Required N Mean
Deviation Mean
UK 1.00 50 11.22 2.19731 0.31075
QA 2.00 133 11.4135 2.06386 0.17896

41
 PPE Required
Equal
Equal variances
variances
not assumed
assumed

Levene's Test for F .1.981

Equality of Variances
Sig 0.161
t -0.555 -0.54
df 181 83.484
Sig (2 tailed) 0.579 0.591
t-test for equality of
Mean difference -0.19353 -0.19353
means
Std. Error Difference. 0.3485 0.35859
95% Confidence Interval ( lower) -0.88118 -0.9067
of the Difference (upper) 0.49411 0.51963

Many of the participants identified and agreed (Figure 15a) that all items of
PPE were required for use during welding, although there were varying levels
of perception in regard to wearing PPE, e.g., safety helmet UK 26%, Qa
88.7%, air fed welding mask, UK 94%, Qa 34.5% and high visibility vest UK
12%, Qa 41.3% etc.

The differing perception levels of wearing PPE from the participants are
clearly identified in Figure 15b. which highlights the difference of agree answer
percentage levels between participants and shows that in several areas there
are significant differing perceptions of PPE to be worn, although overall results
of agree answers indicated a understanding that PPE is required.

Figure 15a. PPE-perceived requirement for welding comparison (Agree

%)
UK PPE Required (agreed) % QA PPE required ( agreed)%

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Welding screen

Gloves

Safety footwear
Air fed welding mask

High visibility vest

Hard hat/safety

Cotton protective

Filtered mask
Dust mask

Ear protection

Flame retardant
Safety glasses

Safety harness
apron/sleeves

Extractor fans/LEV
Leather
coveralls
helmet.

hat

42
Figure 15b. PPE comparison-perceived requirement for welding (Agree)
greater variance %
UK Greater % Qa Greater %

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Air fed welding

Safety footwear
protective hat
Safety glasses

Filtered mask

Gloves

Extractor
Hard hat/safety

Dust mask

Ear protection
Welding screen

Flame retardant

Safety harness
High visibility

apron/sleeves

fans/LEV
Leather
Cotton

coveralls
helmet.

vest
mask
Not sure answers

Figure 15c highlights the comparison of not sure answers, between

participants perception levels of uncertainty of the correct PPE for welding,
e.g. 18% of UK participants are unsure if a dust mask is required for welding
compared to 6% of the Qatar participants.

Figure 15d highlights the comparison of overall greater percentages of PPE

items in which participants differ. The greater perception levels of the not sure
answers e.g., a higher figure of 17.8% of Qatar participants are not sure if an
air fed welding screen is required for welding compared to the UK participants.

Figure 15c. PPE comparison-perceived requirement for welding (Not

sure %)

40 UK (Not sure ) % QA (Not sure) %

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
High visibility vest

apron/sleeves
Gloves
Air fed welding
Hard hat/safety

Cotton protective

Dust mask

Filtered mask

Ear protection

Safety footwear

Safety harness
Flame retardant
Safety glasses

Welding screen

Extractor fans/LEV
Leather
coveralls
helmet.

mask
hat

43
Figure 15d. PPE comparison-perceived requirement for welding (Not
sure) greater % variance
Uk (not sure) variance % Qa (not sure) variance %
20
15
10
5
0

Dust mask

Gloves
Air fed welding

Extractor
Hard hat/safety

Filtered mask

High visibility vest

Cotton protective

Ear protection

Safety footwear
Safety glasses

Welding screen

Flame retardant

Safety harness
apron/sleeves

fans/LEV
Leather
coveralls
helmet.

mask
hat

Question 2 asked, Do you wear any of the following PPE when welding?
Answers required were, yes, occasionally, only when I am instructed and
never.

Yes Answers

Results revealed significant differences between the perceived PPE to be

worn and the actual wearing of the correct PPE, in only one category of PPE
(figure 16a, ) (welding screen) did the actual worn number reach 100%. In all
other PPE, the actual worn numbers varied greatly, although the essential
basic PPE required for welding of safety footwear, gloves and flame retardant
coveralls scored high percentages from all participants.

Figure 16. PPE-actually worn comparison (Yes %)

UK PPE worn % QA PPE Worn %
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Air fed welding

Leather
Hard hat/safety

Cotton protective

Flame retardant
Safety footwear
Safety glasses

Filtered mask

Gloves

High visibility vest

Extractor fans
Dust mask

Ear protection

Safety harness
Welding screen

44
Section 5
Hazards and Risk perception

A questionnaire consisting of 8 sections of hazards and 35 risk factors

associated with welding, asked the question Are any of the hazards listed
associated with welding. Participants were requested to tick the relevant box
stating if they, agree, disagree or were not sure if the listed hazards were
associated with welding.

This section assessed UK and Qatar participants recognition and

identification of chemical, physical, mechanical, electrical, ergonomic,
psychological, environmental and natural hazards, therefore enabling a cross
comparison of risk perception between the UK and Qatar workforces.

The study found (Table 8) that UK had a significant greater perception of

welding hazards, mean UK (26.8200 6.4298) compared to Qa (23.4060
6.8313), t(181) = 3.060, p=.003 which could prove crucial in regard to lack of
recognition of causes of incurring detrimental health problems via their work
activity.

Table 8. Hazards and risk perception Statistical Data.

Std. Std. Error
Hazards N Mean
Deviation Mean
UK 1.00 50 26.82 6.42917 0.90922
QA 2.00 133 23.406 6.83134 0.59235

Hazards
Equal variances Equal variances
assumed not assumed
Levene's Test for F 3.574
Equality of Variances Sig 0.06
t 3.06 3.146
df 181 93.191
Sig (2 tailed) 0.003 0.002
t-test for equality of
Mean difference 3.41398 3.41398
means
Std. Error Difference. 1.11557 1.08516
95% Confidence Interval ( lower) 1.21279 1.25914
of the Difference (upper) 5.51518 5.56883

45
Percentage levels identified overall risk perception of: UK (76.4%) and Qa
(66.65%) and that the Qatar participants had a greater risk perception in only
8 out of 35 risk factors, as follows:

Mechanical, rotating equipment (Qa, 50.3%), (UK, 36%).

Ergonomics, machinery design (Qa, 51.1%), (UK, 36%); workstation layout,

(Qa, 60.9%), (UK, 58%).

Psychological, work rotation, (Qa, 69.9%), (UK, 62%), work organisation

(Qa, 62.4%), (UK, 46%).

Environment, overcrowding of the work area, (Qa, 66.9%), (UK, 50%).

Natural, wind, (Qa, 56.3%) (UK, 50%), heat stress, (Qa, 85.7%), (UK, 82%).

In the sections of chemical, physical and electrical hazards, the survey

revealed that in these risk areas, UK workers possessed a greater perception
of risk than their Qatar counterparts. UK examples: toxic/flammable gasses
(86%), ionizing radiation (82%), airborne particulates (80%), compressed
gasses (86%) and mechanical lifting (84%).

Figures 17(a) to 17(h) document the actual identified risk perception

percentages of UK and Qatar participants plus the greater difference of
percentages between UK and Qatar participants of risk perception.

Figure 17 (a to h). Risk factors-perception of participants (Agree % and

greater % variance)
Chemical (a) (Agree %). Greater % variance.

UK % QA % UK + % QA + %

100 35
30
80
25
60 20
40 15
10
20 5
0 0
(toxic/flamma

(toxic/flamma
(toxic/flamma

(toxic/flamma

Dust

Vapors
Particulates.
Dust

Vapors
Particulates.

Liquid
Gas-
Liquid
Gas-

46
 20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80

0
0
0

100
120
100
100
120

Noise
Rotating Ionizing
machinery.
Static. Slips trips and
Compressed

UK %

UK %
UK %

Mechanical Temperature.
lifting.
Physical (b) (Agree %).

Manual

Electrical (d). (Agree %).

QA %
QA %

QA %
Explosion.

Mechanical (c). (Agree %).

Voltage Confined space.
Operation of
vehicles. Heat
Cold

47
10
20
30
40
50
10
15
20
25
30
10
20
30
40
50

0
0
5
0

Noise
Rotating Ionizing
machinery.
Static. Slips trips and
Compressed

UK + %
UK + %
UK + %

Temperature.
Greater % variance.
Greater % variance.

Mechanical

Greater % variance.
lifting. Manual
Explosion.

QA + %
QA + %
QA + %

Voltage Confined space.

Operation of
vehicles. Heat
Cold
 20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80

0
0
0

100
120
100
120
100

Humidity. Manual
Shift patterns.
handling.

Temperature.
Machinery
Work rotation.

UK %
UK %

UK + %
design.
Lighting.
Work Workstation

QA %
QA %
Ergonomic (e). (Agree %).

QA %
Overcrowding organization. layout.

Environment (g). (Agree %).

Psychological (f). (Agree %).
of work area.
Incorrect
Personal space. Ventilation
equipment.

48
10
15
20
10
15
20
10
12
14
16

0
5
0
5
0
2
4
6
8

Humidity. Manual
Shift patterns.
handling.

Temperature.
Machinery
Work rotation.
UK +%

UK + %
UK + %

design.
Greater % variance.
Greater % variance.

Greater % variance.
Lighting.
Work Workstation
Overcrowding organization. layout.
QA + %

QA + %
QA + %

of work area.
Incorrect
Personal space. Ventilation
equipment.
Natural (h). (Agree %). Greater % variance.
UK % QA % UK Greater % QA Greater %

100 7
80 6
5
60 4
40 3
2
20 1
0 0
Wind

Wind
Heat stress.

Heat stress.
Section 6

Perception of health effects

To gain a greater understanding of the participants perception of detrimental

health effects 29 examples of possible health hazards were listed.
Participants were asked to answer, Are any ailments listed possible health
effects of welding? stating, agree, not sure or disagree.

The study found (Table 9) that UK had a significant greater perception of

possible health effects, mean UK (23.0800 5.6128) compared to Qa
(16.4737 8.9303), t(139.682), p=0.0001, these statistics coupled with section
5 results (Hazards and risk perception) raises concerns for the future
wellbeing of the Qatar participants.

Table 9. Health Effects Statistical Data

Std. Std. Error
Health effects N Mean
Deviation Mean
UK 1.00 50 23.08 5.61281 0.79377
QA 2.00 133 16.4737 8.93035 0.77436

49
 Health effects
Equal variances Equal variances
assumed not assumed
Levene's Test for F 20.753
Equality of Variances Sig 0
t 4.877 5.957
df 181 139.682
Sig (2 tailed) 0 0.0001
t-test for equality of
Mean difference 6.60632 6.606632
means
Std. Error Difference. 1.3547 1.10892
95% Confidence Interval ( lower) 3.93327 4.41388
of the Difference (upper) 9.27936 8.79876

The answers for agree are documented in Figure 18a, and greater
percentage comparisons documented in Figure 18b. Answers for disagree
and not sure are documented in Figures 18c and 18d.

Greater UK health effect recognition included, respiratory disease UK (96%)

Qa (63.1%), lung cancer UK (88%) Qa (48.1%), skin cancer UK (82%) Qa
(30%). Only in the categories of lack of concentration Qa 39.1%, disease
(general) 38.3% and dermatitis 31.5% did the Qatar participants score a
higher percentage. Additionally the Qatar participants generally scored higher
in the disagree and not sure answers.

Figure 18a. Potential health effects of welding comparison (Agree %)

UK % QA %
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Asphyxiation

Skin cancer

Headaches
Bruising
Motivational.

Serious injury
General injuries

Fractures

Disease
Eye damage
Skin tissue damage

Cuts
Burns (hot/cold)

Infection
Respiratory disease

Oxygen deficiency

Fatality

Stress
Lack of concentration
Occupational disease

Lung cancer

Abrasions

Dermatitis

Fatigue
Toxic poisoning

Musculoskeletal injuries
Permanent disability
Reduced hearing capacity

Acute/Chronic back problems

50
 10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
10
15
20
25
30
35
10
20
30
40
50
60

0
0
5
0
Respiratory Respiratory Respiratory disease
Motivational. Motivational. Motivational.
Lack of Lack of Lack of concentration
Occupational Occupational Occupational disease
Toxic poisoning Toxic poisoning Toxic poisoning
Oxygen Oxygen Oxygen deficiency
Asphyxiation Asphyxiation Asphyxiation
Fatality Fatality Fatality
Serious injury Serious injury Serious injury
General injuries General injuries General injuries
Permanent Permanent Permanent disability
Reduced Reduced Reduced hearing capacity
Lung cancer Lung cancer Lung cancer

UK Disagree %

UK Not sure %
UK Greater %

Skin cancer Skin cancer Skin cancer

51
Bruising Bruising Bruising
Eye damage Eye damage Eye damage
Skin tissue Skin tissue Skin tissue damage
Burns (hot/cold) Burns (hot/cold) Burns (hot/cold)
Acute/Chronic Acute/Chronic Acute/Chronic back
QA Greater %

QA Not sure %
Headaches Headaches QA Disagree % Headaches
Fractures Fractures Fractures
Cuts Cuts Cuts
Abrasions Abrasions Abrasions
Infection Infection Infection
Disease Disease Disease
Dermatitis Dermatitis Dermatitis
Musculoskelet Musculoskelet Musculoskeletal injuries
Fatigue Fatigue Fatigue
Stress Stress Stress

Figure 18d. Potential health effects of welding comparison (Not sure %)

Figure 18c. Potential health effects of welding comparison (Disagree %)
Figure 18b. Potential health effects of welding greater (agree) variance %
Section 7
Main causes of accidents

To evaluate the participants perception to causes of accidents, 11 questions

were asked concerning personal factors and 10 questions about job factors
(Figure 19). The participants were asked to answer agree, disagree or not
sure.

Personal factors

Identification of personal factors is a complex area of human behaviour, which

can include areas, such as skills, habits, culture and the physical match of the
person to their task (HSE 1999), any of which can be a contributory factor to
either intentional or unintentional unsafe behaviour, which then can potentially
result in involvement or initiation of workplace incidents.

The study found (Table 10) that there was no significant difference in
perception of personal factors, UK mean (7.5400 2.5651) compared to Qa
(7.5489 2.9681), t(101.223), p=0.984 indicating an awareness of personal
factor accident causation.

Table 10. Personal Factors Statistical Data

Std. Std. Error
Personal Factors N Mean
Deviation Mean
UK 1.00 50 7.54 2.56515 0.36277
QA 2.00 133 7.5489 2.96818 0.25737

Personal Factors
Equal variances Equal variances
assumed not assumed
Levene's Test for Equality of F 0.915
Variances Sig 0.34
t -0.019 -0.02
df 181 101.223
Sig (2 tailed) 0.985 0.984
t-test for equality of means Mean difference -0.00887 -0.00887
Std. Error Difference. 0.47522 0.44479
95% Confidence Interval ( lower) -0.94655 -0.8912
of the Difference (upper) 0.9288 0.87345

Results (Figure 19) indicated high percentages of all participants agreed

personal factors such as, failure to follow rules UK (86%), Qa (82.7%) and

52
lack of experience UK (82%), Qa (68.4%) etc. were factors in causing
accidents.

UK participants have a marginally greater understanding of individual personal

factors as causes, although Qatar participants scored higher in factors
concerning carelessness (Qa 79.7%), lack of motivation (Qa 46.6%) and
stress (Qa 77.4%). Another factor that also must be considered of personal
perception. Do the UK workers view these categories as casual factors and
not as direct causes of an accident?

Figure 19. Main causes of accidents comparison-Personal factors.

(Agree%)
UK Personal factors % Qa Personal factors %

100
80
60
40
20
0
Not thinking the

Stress
Failure to follow

experience
Incorrect use of
Carelessness

communication

motivation

Other, e.g. (lack

Poor decision

or competency)
of intelligence
Lack of
Lack of
job through

equipment

making
plant or
Lack of
rules

Job factors

The study found (Table 11) that there was a significant difference in
perception of job factors from the UK, mean (6.7400 2.6939) compared to
Qa (5.3083 3.00331), t(181), p=0.004 indicating a greater understanding of
job factors as causes of accidents by the UK participants, this statistic may
indicate a greater level of technical awareness from the UK participants.

Table 11. Job Factors Statistical Data

Std. Std. Error
Job Factors N Mean
Deviation Mean
UK 1.00 50 6.74 2.69398 0.38099
QA 2.00 133 5.3083 3.00331 0.263

53
 Job Factors

Equal variances Equal variances not

assumed assumed
Levene's Test for Equality F 2.009
of Variances Sig 0.158
t 2.93 3.093
df 181 98.523
Sig (2 tailed) 0.004 0.003
t-test for equality of means Mean difference 1.43173 1.43173
Std. Error Difference. 0.48857 0.46295
95% Confidence Interval ( lower) 0.46771 0.51308
of the Difference (upper) 2.39575 2.35038

Results (Figure 20) indicated that UK participants perception of causes of

accidents recognised the job factors of inadequate training (92%) and too few
staff (98%), as the major causes of accidents, whereas the Qatar participants
recognised inadequate training (72.9%), inadequate supervision (70.6%), and
lack of job instruction (73.6%), as the major causes of accidents.

Qatar participants scored higher in one answer regarding job factors, work
overload, (48.8%). The results indicated that UK participants have a greater
understanding or awareness of job factors as causes of accidents, especially
in technical areas of planning projects, risk assessments and staffing levels.

Figure 20. Main causes of accidents comparison-Job factors (Agree %)

UK Job Factors % QA Job Factors %

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate
procedures

Too few staff

resources
instruction

Work overload

Inappropriate
supervision
Inadequate risk

Inadequate

Lack of job

responsibility
allocation of
planning

Lack of
assessments

training

54
6. DISCUSSION

This study is aimed at identifying the understanding of workers level of risk

perception of acute and chronic health effects, and the importance of PPE
compliance when exposed to welding activities.

Work situations, work environments, etc., coupled with varying levels of

experience, education level, culture and personal beliefs can be instrumental
in forming an individuals perception of risk (Alexopoulos et al, 2009).
Therefore, risk perception or lack of it can potentially result in the exposed
worker making a wrong decision and not identifying a potential hazard from
the welding process; this in turn can lead to the causes of acute and chronic
health effects not being recognised or understood by the worker, resulting in
exposure to inherent health hazards and later development of potential
detrimental health effects.

To identify the recognition levels of risk perception and evaluate workers

understanding of the consequences of potential acute and chronic health
effects, the study compared a sample of UK based workers from two
companies, against a larger sample of Qatar based workers from three
companies. The UK sample was intended to be of a larger number with an
expected two additional participating companies, but due to excessive
operational workloads and work force requirements, the companies withdrew
their involvement. Therefore, due to time constraints and personal workload it
was impossible to identify and negotiate with potential alternative
organisations for their participation in this study.

6.1 DEMOGRAPHIC

Demographic information revealed that 183 participants with ages ranging

from 20 to 66 years, covering 13 associated work disciplines and 8 different
nationalities participated in the survey. HS&E advisors were also included in
the study; this was done to assess any potential lack of knowledge and
recognition of risk from HS&E personnel, who may potentially give poor or
incorrect onsite HS&E guidance to the participants they advise.

55
An interesting statistic revealed that in the UK survey a high percentage of the
welders who participated (Company 1) were actually recruited directly from
Poland. This amounted to (30%) of the UK total therefore introducing an
unexpected additional cultural risk perception perspective to the UK study
statistics.

6.2 EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Education levels varied with UK (2%), and Qa (5.2%) having received no

formal education of any kind. Percentages of primary, secondary, vocational
and college education were all greater by the UK participants, while no UK
participants attended university; figures revealed that 9.7% of Qa participants
achieved some level of university education.

The percentages for vocational education are especially interesting and

relevant, with 40% of UK participants and 14.2% of Qa participants attending
vocational study. These figures could be an influencing factor of health risk
perception levels, in that hazard identification of health effects associated from
the welding processes to 85.8% of Qa and 60% of UK participants has not
been delivered by any formal vocational training. This fact could be
contributory to lack of any required knowledge, level of hazard perception, and
non-identification of health risks of the participants.

Employees received welding training from employers both in the UK (86%),

Qa (53.3%), and in welding training schools, UK (34%) Qa (24%), although it
is not identified from the research the actual location (country) of the training
received from training schools. Observed learning methods of training
indicate that employer and training schools in Qatar tend to concentrate
mainly on the practical side of welding, with little or no theory of the welding
process given. Quality and timescale of welding training delivered to the
participants from Asian countries prior to deployment in Qatar are difficult to
establish, although an example of company welding training (when deployed)
was observed. This training provided by CCIC (Company 5) to workers
deployed in Qatar consisted of in-house (on site) training for welders. The
training involves basic instruction on welding techniques to achieve a pre-

56
determined required level of expertise for their business (construction), but
does not provide class room instruction of welding theory or information of
the potential acute, or chronic health effects associated with the welding
process.

Acute health effects such as eye injuries, burns etc., are identified and briefly
discussed in the company induction programme, but without information about
the potential chronic health effects being delivered. This level of information
dissemination is considered acceptable and standard practice by Qatar based
companies, whereas an UK based employee training can involve enrolment in
a welding/fabrication apprenticeship coupled with in house training from
experienced welders. Apprenticeships also enable the employee to attend
college either part time or full time, to achieve vocational qualifications which
incorporate HS& E knowledge and additionally gain practical onsite
experience leading to industrial welding standard qualifications.

6.3 WELDING EXPERIENCE

Welding experience statistics were grouped and ranged from 1 to 5 years

(20.2%), 6 to 10 years (30.6%) and 11 to 15 years (13.1%), which provided
over 63.9% of the total participants experience in welding, this indicates that
most of the workforce participants had a good level of welding experience in
the actual application of various welding processes and one would assume,
knowledge of potential health effects.

The participants were exposed to several welding processes, MIG, SMAW

and TIG. Metals welded included Carbon steel, Stainless steel and Inconel,
which if not controlled correctly by correct engineering controls or PPE, can
result in detrimental health effects such increased risk of lung cancer. A fact
enforced by a study of stainless steel welding fumes (Leonard et al, 2010)
which indicated that exposure time and size of particles of chemical fumes
from stainless steel can cause lung injury, including cancer. The statistics
from the participants involved in this study identified that a high percentage of
Qatar participants were unaware of this fact, with only 48.1% of Qatar
participants agreeing that welding can cause lung cancer compared to 88% of

57
the UK participants. The statistics also identified that the risk of skin cancer
was recognised by 82% of UK participants, compared to only 30% of the
Qatar participants. A possible conclusion of these statistics could be the
direct result of poor work related education and healthcare awareness of the
Qatar participants from their native countries in comparison to UK work related
education. A personal observation of company HS&E training to welders in
Qatar is that its of a basic level, without due thought to provide adequate
information of potential chronic health effects.

6.4 HEALTH CONDITIONS

Pre-employment medicals

Pre-employment medical assessments can be an important factor in effective

recruiting and management of a workforce. They are undertaken to not only
assess a persons medical condition but also assure that the person is
physically fit and suitable for his prospective employment role.

Results of the survey indicated that 98% of UK and 84.21% of Qa participants

had received at some stage of their employment some type of a pre-
employment medical, although the standard of the medicals cannot be
confirmed. Pre-employment medicals may differ greatly between the UK and
Qatar, as in the UK pre-employment medicals can entail tests for height,
weight and body index, blood pressure, heart rate, urinalysis, HAV screening,
RSI screening, eyesight evaluation, spirometry and audiometry, depending on
the employers requirements and vacancy category. This is to enable the
company medical professionals to establish a health base line to assess
health levels during future periodical medical tests of the employee and to act
accordingly if any occupational health condition is diagnosed.

Pre-employment government medical assessments in Qatar are standard to

all persons when entering the country to work and basically consist of, an eye
test, blood test and chest x-ray solely to determine if the new employee is
suffering from HIV/Aids, Tuberculosis, or Hepatitis B and C, without any
consideration of their future occupation. Additionally prospective employees
from India, Pakistan and Nepal amongst others have to undergo pre-

58
employment medicals at Qatar government approved clinics in their home
countries before given approval and permission to travel to Qatar.

There is no enforced requirement for Qatar based companies to carry out their
own medical examinations of employees, relying solely on the governments
mandatory medical assessments; therefore, there is potential for chronic
medical conditions such as RSI, VWF and WRULD etc., to go unreported by
the employee, possibly due to their lack of awareness of symptoms and
therefore accordingly also unnoticed by the employer due to a lack of follow
up medical assessments, whereas in the UK employees are encouraged via
company health and HS&E awareness campaigns to identify symptoms and
report ill health to the company doctor, or their own medical practitioner.

Suffered health effects

Health effects of welding can include various ailments such as

Musculoskeletal: painful disorders of the tendons, muscles and nerves
(Burdorf et al, 1998), and respiratory: coughing, spitting, shortness of breath
and decreasing pulmonary function among welders (Fidan et al 2005).

VWF and hand arm injuries can result in reduced sensory capacity numbness
and tingling of the fingers (HSE, 2014) etc., which can also result in a reduced
work capacity and financial consequences to both the worker and the
employer (Meerding et al, 2005).

Work related occupational health injuries can be difficult to identify, as the

longevity or timescale for symptoms to develop may be weeks, months or
even years after the initial exposure to the cause of the illness; therefore
sometimes it is difficult to identify the actual cause. Industrial occupational
health statistics for all UK industries state that 1.5 million workers suffer from
some type of ill health each year (HSE, 2014) therefore, it is imperative that a
company implements good pre-employment and long-term medical monitoring
programmes.

The findings of the study indicate that UK workers percentages of suffering a

ill health effect are significantly greater than the Qatar participants in all eight-
category of health conditions with a mean level of UK 51.75% and Qa 19.75%,
59
reporting suffering from the eight listed ill health conditions, (Figure 13a) e.g.
eye condition (UK 84%, Qa 32.3%), tissue-scarring (UK 90%, Qa 36%), back
problems (UK 64%, Qa 23.3%). This greater reporting of poor health
conditions from UK participants could be due to various reasons, peer
encouragement to report incidents, robust reporting systems in place,
implementation of no blame cultures, companies, union and HSE campaigns
highlighting medical issues and the realisation via these campaigns of the of
potential long-term health effects if the condition is not reported and the
correct medical advice or treatment obtained or, alternatively, the
compensation claim culture which is prevalent in UK society. The factors of
greater welding UK exposure time (mean 20.71years) and age of participants
(mean 41.4 years) could also be influential, as this time span of exposure may
increase the individuals recognition of the development of any health effects
and ultimately lead to their reporting.

The failure to report suffered health effects from the Qatar participants raises
the question of why are the reporting percentages so low. Possible answers
could be related to the current employment system and control of workers
implemented in Qatar. Asian employees sometimes pay high recruitment fees
to agents to gain work in Qatar, funding these fees by obtaining loans
therefore incurring a financial burden before commencement of their
employment. The employment system in Qatar is known as the Kafala
system, which gives the employer total control over the worker, his
movements, and his civil rights and ties the employees legal residence to the
employer. The Human Rights Watch (2014), has documented reports of
employers withholding wages and abusing employees, therefore the Kafala
system and documented employee abuse may be instrumental in a workers
confidence to report suffered ill health, due to fear of repercussions from his
employer and the perception of potential loss of wages or employment
coupled with the potential cost of any occupational healthcare which may be
necessary.

Qatar participants also recorded high not sure figures (Figure 13b) of VWF
(15.8%), WRULD (9.2%), and respiratory condition (13.58%) which gives

60
concern in regard to Qatar workers lower recorded suffered percentages and
their perception and identification of occupational health effects, as potentially
they may continue to carry out their duties without realising they could be
suffering from an occupational induced chronic medical condition. This could
possibly result in the Qatar workers not understanding and requesting the
correct controls measures to be implemented at the workplace, or requesting
the medical treatment required ensuring their good health.

The accumulation of the agree and the not sure percentages answers from the
Qatar participants could be the result of lack of knowledge or perception of
possible health effects due to inherent national safety cultures, perceived
blame culture, and the lack of HS&E or government health initiatives within
their native countries. Additional results also show high disagree percentages
(Figure 13c) from the Qatar participants e.g. VWF (62.41%), WRULD
(63.16%) and respiratory conditions (64.66%). The question could be asked,
is the Qatar participants knowledge of symptoms at a sufficient level that they
are capable of identifying the occupational health symptoms? Alternatively,
are they even actually aware they are experiencing any symptoms associated
with occupational health effects from their exposure to the welding process?
The denial of ill health could be associated with the factors previously
discussed plus other factors e.g. bravado, (not appearing weak to co-workers,
supervisors etc.), or the perception that admittance could result in loss of
basic pay, overtime or even their employment.

Further research of levels of Asian workers occupational health education

prior to deployment to Qatar will need to be carried out, as it is possible that
they are not adequately informed of the health risks or detrimental
occupational health effects associated with welding activities. An example of
Asian HS&E culture and risk perception was identified in a cross sectional
study of occupational injuries and perception of hazards of 36 Indian roadside
welders (Shaikh and Bhojani, 1991), which identified that 33% of the welders
did not have any perception of risk, resulting in three injuries per worker per
month. This documented identification of lack of risk perception and possible
lack of knowledge of occupational health symptoms amongst migrant welders

61
adds weight to the argument that good levels of hazard identification and
health risk information are not being communicated to welders in their native
countries, reflecting the results of this study of levels of risk perception by
welders in Qatar.

6.5 OCCUPATIONAL ACCIDENTS

Cesar-Vaz et al, (2012) identified that workers are exposed to many potential
hazards and risk of injury from those hazards, which can potentially result in
an accident, e.g. work at heights, and hand injuries. Welders are exposed to
an array of hazardous working conditions and environments, e.g., heavy
engineering, inclement work climates, offshore platforms, and especially in
Qatar, desert locations which may increase the risk of involvement in an
occupational accident or associated occupational health problems.

An example of rates of WAH occupational accidents in Qatar is documented in

an epidemiology study of work related fall from heights and cost of trauma
care in Qatar (Tuma et al, 2013), which revealed that there were 298
workplace related fall from heights in Qatar from the time period November 1st
2007 until October 31st 2008 of which 29 (9.7%) resulted in a fatality. This
study also hypothesised that the causes of fall from heights of migrant workers
could be due several factors, lack of construction experience, language
barriers, inadequate training, lack of physical safety controls such as barriers,
PPE, signage, non-implementation of HS&E legislation, and lack of motivation
of companies to improve HS&E in the workplace.

As part of this study of perception of risk, participants were asked if they had
ever been involved in an occupational accident. This question identified 15
categories of accident, of which several had the potential to result in a fatality.

The findings related to involvement in any occupational accidents (Figure 14),

revealed that accidents involving hand, (Qa 33.8%, UK 64%), eye (Qa 46.6%,
UK 82%), and burns (Qa 40.6%, UK 90%), were the greatest injury categories
to all participants. Qatar participants scored higher percentages in being
involved in five categories of accidents, fall from heights (2.2%), electrical fire
(3%), chemical fire (1.5%), collision with machinery (3%), and asphyxiation

62
(0.75) although generally these statistics appear low, they represent a high
risk potential of incurring a serious injury or a fatality, especially from work at
height. It could be said that the findings of this section of the study are relative
to the findings from the Cesar-Vaz et al, (2012) study, and the Tuma et al,
2013 studies.

Documented UK statistics (HSE, 2014) for deaths in the construction industry

year ending 2014, revealed that fall from heights (11), contact with machinery
(3), contact with electricity (1) were amongst some of the recorded reasons for
occupational fatalities, confirming with comparison to the study results, that
even the low Qatar recorded percentages in these categories possess a high
potential of worst outcome (fatality).

These statistics raise the question of does a presumed increased UK

awareness of risk result from a better incident reporting level by the UK
participants? The occupational accident statistics revealed that in some
categories the UK percentages are nearly double the Qatar percentages. A
possible factor of the reduced Qatar percentages could also be related to the
current employment climate in Qatar and the ease of which an employee can
hide involvement in an accident, opposed to the no blame reporting culture
in the UK. The statistics reveal that the highest percentages of reported
accidents from the Qatar participants are accidents which are physically
visible to another person, e.g. eye, hand and burns that may have required
treatment and therefore reportable by the medic or HS&E officer, whereas the
other categories e.g. dropped objects, slips, trips and falls, are actual events
which could possibly be intentionally under reported. Also as previously
discussed, job security, peer pressure, bravado etc. could be factors in under -
reporting of accidents.

Poor safety performance and consequently any resulting occupational

accidents can be affected by factors such as lack of training (Hinze and
Gambatese, 2003). An observational perception (by expat HS&E
professionals) is that occupational accidents in Qatar are associated and
partly attributed to poor standards of training and general poor commitment to
HS&E from management, engineers, supervisors etc., within the participants

63
native countries, e.g., WAH, (inadequate or no scaffolds, incorrect or no PPE),
fire (incorrect equipment, incorrect rated hoses, poor housekeeping) and
collision with vehicle/machinery (poor driving standards, congested roads),
etc. These attitudes and cultures are then transferred to the Qatar work
environment, before any long-term safety culture shift to the worker via
behavioural safety programmes and HS&E training can take effect. Examples
of poor culture and poor work practices in the above categories are
highlighted frequently in project HS&E reports in Qatar. These incorrect
practices may not be intentional but could be a direct result of transference of
the poor HS&E culture from their native country.

6.6 PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

Although PPE is the last line of defence in any hierarchy of control measures,
it is essential that, due to the health risks involved, the welder or exposed
person understands the reasons why the correct PPE has to be worn and why
it should be maintained. It is frequently observed by HS&E professionals that
the required PPE is not correctly identified, selected, stored, or maintained;
therefore possibly reducing its effectiveness of protection to the worker.

If the welder, his supervisor or HS&E advisor has a poor risk perception of the
possible health effects of the welding activity and a lack of knowledge of
selection of correct PPE, the worker could be incorrectly advised and may fail
to identify and wear the correct PPE for the task, exposing himself to the
associated risks and occupational illness. Other factors in selection and
incorrect use of PPE can include comfort, fit, lack of training, enforcement and
reinforcement (Lombardi et al, 2009).

Required PPE for welding activities can vary due to the process being used
and the location of the work area, e.g., a fabrication-welding workshop where
MMA is being used could have local exhaust ventilation (LEV) installed,
whereas field site areas could rely on natural ventilation to disperse welding
fumes.

Participants were asked two questions relating to perception of PPE required,

and actual worn PPE, (Q1) What type of PPE do you think you require for a

64
welding activity? and (Q2) Do you wear any of the following PPE when
welding? Results showed (Figure 15a), that in regard to Q1 Qatar participants
scored higher in seven categories, safety helmet (Qa 88.7%, UK 26%), safety
glasses (Qa 90.2%, UK 86%), dust mask (Qa 78.2%, UK 64%), ear protection
(Qa 95.4%, UK 84%), high visibility vest (Qa 41.3%, UK 12%), leather
apron/sleeves (Qa 93.9%, UK 82%), and safety harness (Qa 42.8%, UK
14%).

Several answers from the Qatar participants may indicate a lack of knowledge
and awareness of the importance of correct use and care of PPE. An
explanation of some of the higher Qatar percentages may be partially
attributed to individual circumstances and the actual PPE provided; for
instance some welding screens used by Qatar welders are designed with an
incorporated safety helmet attached to the welding screen, therefore the
welder is always wearing his safety helmet whilst performing his duty, whereas
in the UK this is not the norm and the welding screen is separate from the
safety helmet. As identified in the study of eye protection and comfort of PPE
as a factor (Lombardi et al, 2009), this type of safety helmet welding/screen
combination is uncomfortable to wear and therefore not widely used in the UK.
Another example relates to the perception of dust masks (Qa 78.2%), this
figure could be cultural related, possibly due to the inherent environmental
conditions in Qatar, e.g. high winds, sand storms; dust masks are generally
worn by high percentages of persons at their work location. Additionally it is
not unusual to see persons wearing dust masks during their leisure time, even
within the shopping malls.

A good example of differing cross-country participant risk perception relates to

the perception of wearing a safety harnesses when welding. Results identify
that UK (14%) and Qa (42.8%) participants perceive that a harness needs to
be worn when welding and working at height; this statistic could be influenced
due to a general requirement in Qatar that it is mandatory to wear a safety
harness and implement a 100% tie off to a structure when working above a
height of 1.8 metres. The question that could be asked is, do the Qatar
participants understand that the welding process can damage the harness

65
e.g., hot sparks, molten metal splash back, etc., and therefore reduce its
capacity to arrest any fall from height? It seems the 100% tie off rule is being
perceived as required by a large percentage of the workers without the
realisation of the possible consequences, questioning the Qatar participants
risk perception of correct use of PPE and any potential consequences.

Although the UK results indicate that this fact is mainly understood by the UK
participants, the figure of 14% agreeing that a safety harness should be worn
during the welding activity is still concerning in regard to risk perception of
those participants.

The results from Q2 actually worn also revealed that Qatar participants had a
higher percentage of answers in six categories: Safety helmet (Qa 56.3%, UK
10%), safety glasses (Qa 61.6%, UK 56%) dust mask (Qa 48.8%, UK 22%),
high visibility vest, (Qa 24.8%, UK 6%), leather apron (Qa 60.1%, UK 18%)
and safety harness (Qa 24%, UK 2%). Therefore, the actually worn answers
when compared with perceived results reveal questions in regard to the
understanding of risk or the thought process in decision making, e.g., safety
harness Qatar perceived 42.8% compared to actually worn 24% could be the
result of many factors: culture, training, work pressure; therefore it is critical
that the correct knowledge of PPE is delivered to the workers, as it is the final
defence in ensuring protection from potential detrimental health effects.

A long-term strategy to improve these varying PPE perception results will

entail delivering specific training in hazard recognition, correct control
measures and ensuring the correct PPE is worn, educating the workforce as
to why it needs to be worn through long term behavioural safety programmes.
The drawback to this strategy is two-fold, firstly construction workforces are
generally transient, therefore restricting the implementation of long term
behavioural safety programmes and secondly, many Qatar employers do not
display the willingness or commitment to instigate cultural change, perceiving
the implementation of behavioural based safety programmes is not cost
effective and therefore detrimental to the project budget, resulting in the
reliance of PPE as a main control factor.

66
6.7 RISK FACTORS

6.7.1 Hazards

Welding in general can be a stressful, uncomfortable occupation, exposing the

welder to heat, fumes, loud noise, glaring light, uncomfortable PPE and
placing the body in awkward positions for extended periods. In addition,
welding hazards may vary from process to process e.g. electric shock from
M.M.A., explosion from oxy-acetylene welding, asphyxiation from T.I.G.
welding etc.

To identify and cover the main welding hazards, and the associated specific
welding risks, hazards were grouped into eight categories (Figures 17a to
17h) consisting of chemical, physical, mechanical, electrical, ergonomic,
psychological, environmental and natural, with 23 identified individual risks
such as dust, vapours, noise, rotating equipment, work rotation, humidity, and
heat stress within the main categories. Participants were asked to identify,
are any of the hazards associated with welding activities? and were asked to
answer, agree, disagree or not sure.

6.7.1.1 Chemical

The findings indicate a high percentage of participants, (UK mean of 75.6%,

vs Qa mean 58.4%), perceived that chemical risks are associated with the
welding activity. Although the risks were consistently recognised at a higher
percentage by UK workers than Qatar workers e.g., vapours (UK 88%, Qa
57.8%), particulates (UK 80%, Qa 54.1%), the Qatar participants also
recognised some chemical risk at high percentages e.g. dust (Qa 81.2%, UK
88%) as a major hazard to their health. Participants also perceived toxic
flammable gas (UK 86%, Qa 63.9%) and toxic flammable liquids (UK 36%, Qa
35.3%) as risk factors.

Exposure routes to the body from chemical hazards can include inhalation,
skin and eye contact, which target eyes, skin, respiratory and central nervous
systems. Participants reported suffering from some type of eye health
condition (UK 84%, Qa 32.3%) and (UK 36%, Qa 11.2%) from respiratory
conditions, which could possibly be associated with chemical exposure.
67
Further in-depth studies could be made to correlate the frequency of exposure
to chemical hazards and specific incident rates such as acute and chronic
respiratory and eye symptoms of welding activities.

Questions also could be asked such as, could the Qatar increased perception
of dust as a hazard be possibly due to their inherent working conditions?,
which are mainly desert based construction sites; therefore are they
associating the exposure of wind and sand storms to dust hazard, and not the
actual welding environment therefore affecting their risk perception?

6.7.1.2 Physical

Physical factors covered 10 risks factors, including noise, confined space, etc.
The survey revealed (Figure 17b) the UK participants identified physical risk at
a higher percentage than the Qatar participants in all 10 listed risk factors, e.g.
noise (UK 90%, Qa 79.7%), confined space (UK 90%, Qa 81.2%), etc. The
level of identification of physical hazards from all participants suggests that
there is a greater UK understanding of physical risk.

6.7.1.3 Mechanical

Mechanical hazards covered three areas of risk: rotating machinery,

mechanical lifting, and operation of vehicles. Results identified that the mean
percentages of (UK 58.66%, Qa 48.03%) indicated that UK participants had a
greater awareness of mechanical hazards. Although UK percentages were
higher in mechanical lifting (84.0%) and operation of vehicles (56%), the Qatar
participants percentage of rotating machinery was greater than the UK
participants were where only 36% agreed.

The question could be raised: is this lower UK figure due to UK participants

assuming that rotating equipment being guarded as per the UK Provision and
Use of Work Equipment Regulations, (PUWER) 1998, therefore not
recognising or being aware of the inherent risk of rotating equipment? Even
though the Qatar participants scored a greater percentage in rotating
equipment, only 50.3% of their participants agreed and perceived the
equipment as a risk factor.

68
6.7.1.4 Electrical

Electrical hazards can occur from exposure to both voltage and static
electricity. Voltage via direct contact with the welding circuit e.g. cables, work
piece and static electricity, an imbalance of electrical charges which can be
discharged by combustible material such as atmospheric dust (Dhogal 1986),
although the risk of injury from static electricity in the Qatar construction
industry is low due to the nature of the work. The most common threat of
electric shock to the welder is due to voltage, with the perception of
electrocution, although an estimation of electrical injuries revealed that 77% of
injuries are caused by arc flash (Mc Carthy, 2013). Results from the survey
revealed that 78% of UK and 39.1% of Qatar participants had knowledge of
static electricity, plus 98% UK and 84% Qa recognising that voltage was a
hazard of welding. The statistics also revealed that UK 34% and Qa 14.2%
participants had been involved in an accident resulting from electric shock.

Contact with electricity can cause serious acute and chronic health effects
ranging from slight electric shock, eye damage, to severe burns and even
death, therefore in relation to this study and prevention of electric shock we
must consider the participants perception of PPE. The results for PPE
actually worn during welding activities revealed that in none of the categories
(Figure 16a) was there full PPE compliance from the participants apart from
the wearing of welding screens by UK and Qatar, and UK wearing of safety
footwear. This gives concern as to the participants perception of the potential
severity of injuries that can be sustained from the welding activity.

6.7.1.5 Ergonomics

Ergonomics covered manual handling, machinery design, workstation layout,

and incorrect equipment. Qatar participants scored a greater percentage in
risk of machinery design (+15.1%), and workstation layout (+2.9%) although
agreed, answer numbers were low from all participants apart from in the
manual handling category (UK 94%, Qa 82.7%).

The statistics could suggest poor risk perception in the areas of machinery
design and workstation layout. Generally, these categories are not discussed

69
at TBT, which are the main sources of disseminating HS&E information to the
workers in Qatar. Whereas correct manual handling techniques are included
in Qatar site induction programmes and UK companies are bound by the
Manual Handling Operations regulations (MHOR) 1992 (HSE, 1992), duties of
employers, regulation 4, which may be instrumental in the higher risk
perception regarding manual handling.

As a possible area of future development, ergonomics could possibly be an

area of major improvement in the development of HS&E information and
training to both UK and Qatar workers to enhance their risk perception, as
from a personal observational view, at present apart from basic manual
handling information, specific ergonomic information and training is not readily
available to the workforce, additionally it is personally observed that most
company HS&E trainers in Qatar do not possess the required skill set or
provided with adequate resources to deliver this information.

6.7.1.6 Psychological

Shift patterns, work rotation, work organisation and ventilation were the
psychological categories surveyed. Results indicated that Qatar participants
had greater risk perception in the areas of work rotation (69.6%) and work
organisation (62.4%) than their UK counterparts.

In Qatar, companies tend to over man work forces, flooding the project with
workers; this is partially due to the cheap cost of labour and the requirement
for continuous progress of the project in the harsh climate, e.g., heat,
humidity. Therefore, it could be reasonable to assume that the Qatar workers
would recognise this fact and associate work rotation and the organisation of
workers with risk to their health, as generally dangers of the inherent climate
result in a mandatory heat stress programme which is implemented during the
summer months, this incorporates work rest ratios, job rotation and mass
transportation of workers from labour camps to worksite during the mandatory
11.30hrs until 1500 hrs daily break.

70
6.7.2 Environment

Good environmental conditions are critical in assuring a workers health,

especially in the Middle East, were temperatures can reach +500 and humidity
levels of 80%. Therefore it is essential workers are aware of the risks from
the environment and working conditions. Participants identified that humidity,
(UK 98%, Qa 87.9%), temperature (UK 98%, Qa 90.8%) and poor natural
lighting (UK 86%, Qa 72.9%), were high risk factors associated with welding.

It is not surprising that a relatively high percentage of Qatar participants

recognise the risks associated with high humidity levels and temperatures, as
the workers are constantly exposed to these elements during the summer
months, and are well versed in the dangers of exposure to that environment.
Overcrowding of work areas and lack of personal space were also identified
as hazards of welding from the Qatar and UK participants, this could be
directly related to the large size of workforces utilised in Qatar.

6.7.2.1 Natural.

For the purpose of this study due to differing climatic conditions between
Qatar and UK, natural risks were identified as wind and heat stress. Results
(Figure 17h) indicated a general good awareness of heat stress with UK
(82%) and Qa (85.7%), recognising heat stress as a risk factor.

A contributory factor for this high recognition rate could be that it is mandatory
for Qatar companies to report all heat stress cases to the Qatar Supreme
Council for Health, (the governing medical body). This accountability puts the
onus on the employer to provide heat stress management programmes,
involving education, provision of workplace rest areas, drinking facilities,
correct work rotation schedules and correct PPE for the climate.

This is an area that demonstrates that good HS&E communication, education,

training and provision of the required PPE such as, cooling bandanas and
water flasks etc., can change workers awareness and ultimately their culture.
Although the agreed results for heat stress are generally high, it is still
concerning that some participants do not recognise natural heat as a major
risk. The survey revealed that in the UK (2%), and Qa (3.7%), disagreed,
71
that heat was a risk, and UK (16%), Qa (10.5%) were not sure that heat was
a risk factor associated with welding.

6.8 POSSIBLE HEALTH EFFECTS

Results showed that UK participants had a greater perception of

understanding of welding health effects, with agree mean scores of UK
78.62% and Qa 56.34%, the UK scoring greater in 26 out of the 29 sections.

Especially concerning was that in recognising long term chronic health effects,
Qa participants recorded low percentages e.g. occupational disease UK
(86%), Qa (39.8%), reduced hearing capacity UK (94%) Qa (61.6%), lung
cancer UK (88%) Qa (48.1%), skin cancer UK (82.0%) Qa (30%),
Chronic/acute back problems UK (96%) Qa (53.3%) and musculoskeletal
injuries: UK (92%), Qa 53.3%), etc.

Additionally concerning was that the Qatar percentage of not sure and
disagree answers in those sections were relatively high e.g., not sure:
occupational disease, (32.33%), reduced hearing capacity (17.9%), lung
cancer (30.8%), skin cancer (42.8%), chronic/acute back problems (23.3%)
and musculoskeletal injuries (25.5%), and disagree: occupational disease
(20.3%), reduced hearing capacity (21.05%), lung cancer (21.8%), skin
cancer (27.07%), chronic/acute back problems (23.31%), and musculoskeletal
injuries (21.05%), therefore adding weight to the possibility of the Qatar
participants being unaware of long term effects to their health from welding
activities. As previously discussed Siew et al, (2008) identified that iron fume
and dust exposure during welding could increase the risk of lung cancer.
Sjgren et al, (1994), indicated that there was an association between lung
cancer and stainless steel welders, Richiardi et al, (2004) compared 1132 lung
cancer cases, related to welding occupations, and compared them to
unexposed cases of 1553 randomly selected control subjects. Findings
identified that there was a greater risk for contracting lung cancer among
persons exposed to welding activities than the random control subjects. A
study of prevalence of RM among 126 Indian welders (Jani and Mazumdar,
2004) revealed a high prevalence of 44% RM among welders. The study also

72
revealed that there was an inherent culture of not wearing PPE, workers
stated reasons of uncomfortable, inconvenient and non-availability for non-
compliance.

Evidence such as this should help ensure that employers and HS&E
professionals strive to educate and develop all persons exposed to welding
activities to help prevent chronic occupational illness.

6.9 CAUSES OF ACCIDENTS

6.9.1 Personal factors

Human factors are defined as being related to three aspects, the individual,
the job and how they impact on safety related behaviour (HSE 1999).
Personal job factors can be affected by a persons culture, expertise,
understanding or interpretation of given information; e.g. repetitive job tasks
can result in a worker becoming complacent in his work which can lead to
carelessness and unintentional shortcuts, which may lead to a unsafe work
practice and ultimately an incident.

Results identified that overall the UK had a mean percentage perception of

68% compared to Qa 64.4% that personal factors were responsible for
causing accidents indicating an equal level understanding of personal factors
as causes of accidents.

Although the UK participants had a higher percentage of personal factor

perception in seven of the ten categories than the Qatar participants; failure to
follow the rules, lack of experience, poor decision making, lack of
communication, not thinking the job through, lack of intelligence/competence
and incorrect use of plant or equipment, the Qatar participants scored higher
percentages in stress, carelessness and lack of motivation. Interestingly both
UK (86%) and Qa (82.7%) participants identified failure to follow rules as the
main personal factor in the cause of accidents. This is an area which should
be subject to further research to identify why migrant workers break rules.

73
6.9.2 Job factors.

Job factor statistics revealed that the UK had a mean percentage of 68.6%
compared with the Qatar mean of 53.16%, indicating a greater perception of
causation of accidents due to job factors from the UK participants. Higher
perceptions of main causes were identified in nine out of the ten categories
from the UK participants; too few staff, inadequate training, inadequate
supervision, inadequate risk assessments, lack of instruction, inadequate
planning, inadequate procedures and lack of resources, with only the work
overload category identified as a higher percentage by Qatar participants.
UK participants identified that too few staff (98%) was the main cause of job
factor accidents whilst Qatar identified that lack of instruction (73.6%) as the
main cause of an accident.

Both the UK and Qatar participants identified that; inadequate training,

inadequate supervision and inadequate risk assessments as the next three
main causes of accidents

7. CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the comparison of perception of risk and awareness and
understanding of the possible acute and chronic health effects that exist from
exposure to the welding process between UK and migrant Asian workers.
The literature review identified and confirmed that several physical, chemical,
physiological and biological risks are associated with exposure to welding
processes, which can result in the manifestation of numerous acute and
chronic health effects.

The demographics of the study revealed a varied age range covering 13

disciplines, from 8 nationalities with varying levels of experience and
education achieved e.g. 2% of the UK and 5.2% of Qatar participants received
no education, whilst 0% of UK and 9.7% of Qatar participants attended
university therefore achieving a good cross section of participants.

Survey results also revealed that pre-employment medicals for Qatar

participants were of a basic standard with no follow up health surveillance
implemented, which resulted in workers being approved for work without any
74
detailed medical history being given to the employer. Answers to the survey
questions revealed that although all participants identified potential health
effects, a greater percentage of UK participants realised the potential for ill
health existed in comparison to the Qatar participants, especially in chronic
health areas such as lung and skin cancer, occupational disease, and
WRULD, additionally large percentages of Qatar participants disagreed that
there were any health effects of the welding process in all 29 documented
categories.

This lack of understanding or poor perception of risk to health can lead to the
worker incorrectly identifying the required PPE for his task. The survey
revealed that all participants agreed that some form of PPE must be worn for
welding, but there was a discrepancy between identification of PPE for use
and the actual wearing of PPE, with percentages of actually worn far less than
the identified levels. This non-compliance of PPE could be associated with
several reasons such as imported culture, as identified by a study of Indian
roadside welders (Shaikh and Bhojani, 1991), plus inadequate training,
availability, supply and provision.

To be aware of the of potential health effects a worker also needs to be

knowledgeable of the inherent hazards and risks that are present from the
welding process. The survey revealed in the areas of risk from mechanical,
ergonomics, physiological, environment and natural hazards associated with
the welding activity, that UK participants consistently identified the risk at
higher percentages in 27 of the 35 categories, suggesting a greater UK risk
perception than the Qatar participants for the hazards identified in the survey.

The results of having suffered a health condition and involvement in an

occupational accident identified that UK participants reported suffering from
the documented health conditions at a greater percentage than the Qatar
participants, with the Qatar participants also answering not sure or disagree in
high percentages. Occupational accident results also showed that UK
participants reported greater percentages of involvement. This leads the
researcher to believe that the Qatar participants are less aware or
knowledgeable of health effects suffered and may be unintentionally exposing

75
themselves to suffer a chronic health effect in the future. The low percentage
results of reporting involvement in occupational accidents raises questions,
such as; are reporting procedures being followed or enforced by the company
management or site team? Are workers discouraged from reporting
accidents? Do the participants actually understand the definition of an
accident and why it should be reported? Or what other factors may be
preventing accidents being reported e.g. cultural, job security.

Causation of accidents revealed that UK and Qatar participants had a similar

understanding of personal factors, although the UK showed a higher
percentage in seven out of the ten categories. Job factor results showed that
UK participants had a greater perception of causation of accidents than the
Qatar participants in all ten categories, with mean scores of 68.8% of UK
participants compared to 53.16% of Qatar participants. This section of the
study has identified that although participants recognise personal and job
factors are causes of accidents the numbers of personnel recognising these
factors should be higher and needs to be improved.

Overall, results of this study have demonstrated a greater perception and

awareness of the hazards, risks and potential acute and chronic health effects
from exposure to the welding activity from the UK participants. This leads the
researcher to believe that there is a crucial need to improve the level of
perception and understanding of risk from the Qatar participants, which in turn
should help advance their perception of risk and knowledge of potential health
effects from the welding activity. Additionally pre-employment screening and
health surveillance follow up for the migrant Qatar based workers is not of an
acceptable standard and needs to be improved by the companies involved in
the recruitment of the migrant workers.

Deficiencies of the study

The research process and findings have identified areas of low risk perception
and health risk awareness, which may be applicable to utilise in any future
research programme. The assumption that UK participants long term
exposure to good HS&E and occupational health awareness information and

76
systems would give them a greater risk perception level and knowledge of
health effects was affected by the unexpected inclusion of the European
participants in the UK statistics. Increased participant numbers from UK
nationals whose only exposure was to UK HS&E systems could have
enhanced the comparison of percentage levels therefore providing a more
refined result.

Dissemination of surveys proved difficult due to the multi nationalities

involved, translation of the questionnaire and correct delivery from the
volunteer HS&E managers and their staff, resulted in several incomplete
surveys being submitted therefore reducing the Qatar based workforce correct
responses. Future studies may need to involve a greater personal interaction
with the participants in the form of workshops.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS.

Government level.

Qatar Government

Explore avenues to initiate dialogue via QP corporate HS&E and government

departments to carry out investigation and review of HS&E and Occupational
health gaps in government regulatory framework.

Safety inspection standards

Increase the number of government HS&E site inspectors, (at present approx.
300) providing them with correct training, in regard to hazard identification,
industry best practice, and correct welfare and Occupational health
requirements. Provide enough resources to ensure periodical inspection
schedules are fulfilled, increase powers of enforcement to ensure employers
are held accountable for any safety and occupational health violations.

Company level.

Companies to ensure workers are adequately informed and trained to identify

hazards and potential acute and chronic health effects associated with their
work task.

77
Implement ongoing classroom educational programmes in the areas of
occupational health, hazard identification, correct PPE etc.

Implement follow-up on-site training, delivering specific information to exposed

persons concerning welding hazards and potential health effects, e.g.
pictograms/multi lingual information, TBTs, lessons learned of health effects
of welding.

Appointment of sufficient numbers of skilled, competent personnel to ensure

correct control measures via risk assessments, ensuring all identified
hierarchy of control measures are implemented therefore, enabling PPE to be
recognised and used as the last line of defence and not as a first line control
measure.

78
REFERENCE LIST

1. Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations (ACSNI),

(1993). Organising for Safety. ACSNI. Human factors Study Group, Third
Report. Suffolk. HSE Books.

2. Alexopoulos, E. C., Kavaldi, Z., Bakoyannis, G. and Papantonopoulous, S.,

(2009). Subjective risk assessment and perception in the Greek and
English Bakery industries. Journal of Environmental and Public Health,
pp.1-8.

3. Alexopoulos, E.C., Tanagra E., Konstantinou E., and Burdorf A., (2006).
Musculoskeletal disorders in shipyard industry: prevalence, health care
use, and absenteeism. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 7:88.

4. Antonini, J.M., (2003). Health effects of welding. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 33, pp.
61-103.

5. Antonini, J.M., Leonard, S.S., Roberts, J. R., Solano-Lopez, C., Young, S.

H., Shi, X. and Taylor, M. D., (2005). Effects of stainless steel manual
welding on free radical production DNA damage, and apoptosis production.
Mol. Cell. Biochem. 279, pp. 17-23.

6. Antonini, J.M., Stone S., Roberts J. R., Chen B., Schwegler-Berry D.,
Afshari A. A. and Frazer D. G., (2007). Effect of short term stainless steel
welding fume inhalation exposure on lung inflammation, injury, and
defense response in rats. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 223(3), pp. 234-45.

7. Billings, C. G. and Howard P., (1993). Occupational siderosis and welders

lung: A review. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis Aug; 48(4), pp.304-14.

8. Bhumika, N., Prabhu, G. V., Ferreira, A. M., Kulkarni, Manoj, K., Vaz, F. S.
and Singh, Z., (2012). Respiratory Morbidity among welders in the
shipbuilding industry, Goa. Indian Journal of Occupational &
Environmental Medicine, Vol. 16, Issue 2, p.63.

9. Bonde J. P., (1992). Semen quality in welders exposed to radiant heat. Br

J Ind Med 49(1), pp.5-10. Available at < http://oem.bmj.com>. (Accessed
10 October 2014).

79
10. Burdorf A., Naaktgeboren B., and Post W., (1998). Prognostic factors for
musculoskeletal sickness and return to work among welders and metal
workers. Occup. Environ. Med., 55, pp. 490-495.

11. Burstrm L., Hagberg M., Liljeind I., Lunstrm R., Nilsson T., Pettersson H.
and Wahlstrm J., (2010). A follow up study of welders exposure to
vibration in a heavy engineering production workshop. Journal of Low
Frequency Noise Vibration and Active Control. 29, pp.33-39.

12. Canadian Centre for Occupational Safety and Health CCOSH, (2010).
Welding Fumes and Gases. Available at:
<http//:www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/safety_haz/welding/fumes.html>
(Accessed on 28 July 2014).

13. Canadian Centre for Occupational Safety and Health CCOSH, (2014).
Work Related Musculoskeletal Disorders (WMSDs). Available at:
<http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/diseases/rmirsi.html>, (Accessed 30
October 2014).

14. Canadian Centre for Occupational Safety and Health CCOSH, (2014). Hot
Environments Health Effects and First Aid. Available at:
<http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/phys-agents/heat-health.html>,
(Accessed 10 November 2014),

15. Casjens S., Henry J., Lehnert M., Weiss T., Kendzia B., Lotz A., Van
Gelder R., Berges M., Hahn J U., Brning T. and Pesch B., (2014).
Exposure to respirable welding fume and iron status in German welders.
Occup Environ Med; 71, Suppl 1:A78.

16. Cary, H. B. and Helzer, S. C., (2004). Modern Welding Technology,

Prentice Hall. 6th Edition. 736 pp.

17. Cesar-Vaz, M., Alves Bonow, C., Pereira, L., Capa Verde de Almeida, M.,
Oliveira Severo, L., Miritz, A., Vaz, J., and Turik, C., (2012). Risk
Communication as a Tool for Training Apprentice Welders: A study about
risk perception and occupational accidents. The Scientific Journal. Vol.
2012. Art. ID 140564. 14pp. Available at:
<http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2012/140564/>. (Accessed 29
November 2014).

80
18. Dhogal, P.S., (1986). Basic Electrical Engineering, Volume 1. Tata
McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited. 257 pp.

19. Data Protection Act, 1998. UK. The Stationery Office Limited.

20. Dixon, A. J. and Dixon, B. F., (2004). Ultraviolet radiation from welding and
possible risk of skin and ocular malignancy. Med J. Aust, 2004, 181(3), pp.
155-157.

21. Doherty M J., Healy M., Richardson S. G. and Fisher N. C., (2004). Total
body overload in welders siderosis. Occup Environ Med 61, pp.82-85.

22. Eggermont, Jos. J. and Roberts L., (2004). The neuroscience of tinnitus.
Trends in Neuroscience, Vol. 27.11, pp.676-682.

23. Emmet, E. A., Buncher C. R., Suskind R.B. and Rowe. K. W Jr., (1981).
Skin and eye diseases among arc welders those exposed to welding
operations. J Occup Med; 23, pp. 85-90.

24. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work EASHW, (2010).
European Risk Observation Report. OSH in figures: Work-related
musculoskeletal disorders in the EU-Facts and figures. Luxemburg:
Publications Office of the European Union. Available at:
<http://oha.europa.eu>.

25. Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Derby, S. L., and Keeney, R. L.
(1981). Acceptable risk. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 204.

26. Fidan, F., Unl, M., Kken, T., Tetik, L., Akgn, S., Demirel, R., Serteser,
M., (2005). Oxidant-antioxidant status and pulmonary function in welding
workers. J. Occup. Health, 47(4), pp. 286-92.

27. Giorgianni, C., Faranda, M., Brecciaroli, R., Beninato, G., Muraca, P.,
Cantanoso, R., Agostani, G. and Abbate, C., (2003). Cognitive disorders
among welders exposed to Aluminium. G Ital. Med. Lav. Ergon. 25(3),
pp.102-103.

28. Health and Safety Executive, HSE (1999). Reducing Error and influencing
behaviour. Available at: <http://www.hse.gov.uk/pudms/priced/hsg 48.pdf>
(accessed on 30 March 2015).

81
29. Health and Safety Executive, HSE (2011). Hand Arm Vibration - Health
surveillance-Guidance for Occupational Health Professionals. Available at:
<http://www.hse.gov.uk/vibration/hav/advicetoemployers/havocchealth.pdf
> (Accessed on 27 November 2014).

30. Health and Safety Executive, HSE, (2015). Health and Safety Statistics.
Annual Report for Great Britain 2013/14. Available at:
<http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/overall/hssh1314.pdf.> (Accessed 28
January 2015).

31. Health and Safety Executive, HSE (2009).Self-reported work-related illness

and workplace injuries in 2007/08: Results from the Labour Force Survey.
Available at: <http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/lfs/lfs0708.pdf> (accessed
on 31 January 2015).

32. Health and Safety Executive, HSE, (2014). Work-related respiratory

disease in Great Britain 2013. An overview of the current burden of
disease in Great Britain. Available at:
<http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/respiratory-diseases.htm>
(Accessed 17 October 2014).

33. Health and Safety Executive HSE. Occupational Health. The priorities. Part
of A recipe for Safety series. Available at: <http://www.
hse.gov.uk/food/occhealth.pdf>. (Accessed on 25 October 2014).

34. Health and Safety Executive, HSE, (1997) .HSG 139. The safe use of
compressed gases in welding flame cutting and allied processes. HSE
Books. 69 pp. Available at:
<http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/hsg139.pdf>. (Accessed 28
November 2014).

35. Hannu T., Piipari R., Kasurinen H., Keskinen M., Tuppurainen M. and
Tuomi T., (2005). Occupational asthma due to manual metal-arc welding of
special stainless steels. European Respiratory Journal, 26: pp.736-739.

36. Harris, R.C., Lundin, J.I., Criswell, S., R., Hobson, A., Swisher, L.M.,
Evanoff, B.A., Checkoway, H. and Racette, B.A., (2011). Effects of
Parkinsonism on health status in welding exposed workers. Parkinsonism
& related disorders, 17(9):pp. 672-676.

82
37. Hertz, D., and Thomas, H., (1983). Risk Analysis and its applications.
Wiley, New York.

38. Hinze, J., and Gambatese, J., (2003). Factors that influence safety
performance of speciality contractors. Jour Constr. Engrg. Mgmt., ASCE
129 (2), pp.159-164.

39. Hobson, A., Sterling, D.A., Emo, B., Evanoff, B.A., Sterling, C.S., Good, L.,
Seixas, N., Checkowa, H and Racette, B.A., (2009). Validity and Reliability
of an Occupational Exposure Questionnaire for Parkinsonism in Welders.
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 6(6).

40. Holly, E.A., Aston D.A., Ahn D. K. and Smith, A. H., (1996). Intraocular
melanoma linked to occupations and chemical exposures. Epidemiology,
Vol 7(1). pp. 55-61.

41. Huang, X. and Hinze, J., (2003). Analysis of Construction Workers Fall
Accidents. Jour. Constr. Engrg. Mgmt., ASCE 129(3), pp.262-271.

42. Human Rights Watch. World Report 2014: Qatar. Available at

<www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/qatar> (Accessed
30/03/2015).

43. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), (2012). Monographs

on the evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. A review of Human
Carcinogens: Arsenic, Metals, Fibres and Dusts, Vol 100c. IARC Scientific
Press, Lyon, France.

44. Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH), (2014). Inhalation

disorders. Available at: <http://www.iosh.co.uk/Books-and -resources/Our-
OH-toolkit/Inhalation-disorders.aspx>. (Accessed 29 July 2014).

45. Jani V. and Mazumdar V.S., (2004). Prevalence of respiratory morbidity

among welders in unorganised sector of Baroda city. Indian J of Occup
Environ Med. 8(1):pp.16-21.

46. Jayawardana P. and Abeysena C., (2009). Respiratory health of welders

in a container yard, Sri Lanka. Occupational Medicine; 59: pp.226-229.

83
 Available at: <http://occmed.oxfordjournals.org/>. (Accessed on 24
September, 2014),

47. Jenkinson, C., Fitzpatrick, R., Peto, V., Greenhall, R. and Hyman, N.,
(1997). The PDQ-8: Development and validation of a short-form
Parkinson's disease questionnaire. Psychology & Health, 12:6, 805-814.

48. Jensen, T., Bonde, J.P. and Joffe, M., (2006). The influence of
occupational exposure on male reproductive function. Occup. Med. 56(8):
pp 544-553.

49. Kadefors R., Petersn I., and Herberts P., (1976). Muscular reaction to
welding work: an electromyographic investigation. Ergonomics 19, pp.543-
558

50. Keskinen H., Kalliomki P L. and Alanko K., (1980). Occupational asthma
due to stainless steel welding fumes. Clin Allergy. 10:pp.151-159.

51. Kjellstrom T., Holmer I. and Lemke B., (2009). Workplace heat stress,
health and productivity-an increasing challenge for low and middle-income
countries during climate change. Glob Health Action. Available at:
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2799237/>. (Accessed 11
October 2014).

52. Langguth, B., (2011). A review of tinnitus symptoms beyond ringing in the
ears A call to action. Current Medical Research and Opinion. 2:8.
pp.1635-1643.

53. Leonard, S., Chen, B., Stone, S., Schwegler-Berry, D., Kenyon, A., Frazer,
D. and Antonini, J., (2010). Comparison of stainless steel and mild steel
welding fumes in generation of reactive oxygen species. Particle and Fibre
Toxicology. 7:32.

54. Letz R., Cherniack M. G., Gerr F., Hershman D. and Pace P., (1992). A
cross sectional epidemiological survey of shipyard workers exposed to
hand-arm vibration. British Journal of Industrial Medicine; 49:pp.53-62.

55. Lincoln Electric (1994). The Procedure Handbook of Arc Wielding.

Cleveland: Lincoln Electric.

84
56. Lombardi D. A., Verma S. K., Brennan M, J. and Perry M, J., (2009).
Factors influencing worker use of personal protective eyewear. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 41(4).pp. 755-762.

57. Mc. Carthy, K., (2013). Accidents Happen in a Flash. Health and safety
International. Available at:
<http://www.hsimagazine.com/article.php?article_id=935>. (Accessed
03/02/2015).

58. Manual Handling Operations Regulations, 1992. London, Health and

Safety Executive (HSE).

59. Meerding, W, Ijzelenberg, W., Koopmanschap, M., Severens J., and

Burdorf, A., (2005). Health problems lead to considerable productivity loss
at work among workers with high physical load jobs. Clin Epidemiol, 58(5),
pp. 517-523.

60. Miller Electric Co. Guidelines For Gas Metal Arc Welding (GMAW).
Available at: < http://www.millerwelds.com/pdf/mig-handbook.pdf>.
(Accessed 30 October 2014).

61. Mortensen, J.T., (1998). Risk for reduced sperm quality among metal
workers, with special reference to welders. Scand. J Work Environ Health;
14:pp.27-30.

62. Ntanen, R., and Summala, H, (1974). A model for the role of
motivational factors in drivers decision making. Accident and Prevention,
6:pp.243-261.

63. Ntanen, R., and Summala, H, (1976). Road user behaviour and traffic
accidents. Amsterdam: North Holland.

64. Nelson, D.I., Nelson, R. Y., Concha-Barrientos, M., and Fingerhut, M.

(2005). The global burden of occupational noise induced hearing loss.
American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 48(6), pp.446-458.

65. Ostiguy, C., Asselin, P., Malo, S., Nadeau, D., and DeWals, P., (2005).
Management of occupational manganism: consensus of an experts panel.
Report R-417, Studies and Research Projects, IRSST. Available at

85
 <http://www.irsst.qc.ca/en/_publicationirsst_100134.html>. (Accessed on
17 October 2014).

66. Palmer K. T., Griffen, M. J., Bendall, H., Pannet, B. and Coggon, D.,
(2000). Prevalence and pattern of occupational exposure to hand
transmitted vibration in Great Britain: findings from a national survey.
Occupational and environmental medicine, 57(4), pp.218-228.

67. Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER), 1998.

London, Health and Safety Executive.

68. Patel R. R., Yi, E. S. and Ryu J. H., (2009). Systematic iron overload
associated with welders siderosis. Am J Med Sci.;337(1), pp.57-9

69. Richiardi L., Boffeta P., Simonato L., Forastiere F., Zambon P., Fortes C.,
Gaborieau V. and Merletti F., (2004). Occupational risk factors for lung
cancer in men and women: a population based control study in Italy.
Cancer Cause Control, 15(3), 285-294.

70. Rundmo, T., (1996). Associations between risk perception and safety.
Safety Science, 24(3), pp.197-209.

71. Sawacha, E., Naoum. S., and Fong. D., (1999). Factors affecting safety
performance on construction sites. International Journal of Project
Management, 17(5), pp. 309-315.

72. Scheepers, P.T.J., Heussen G.A.H., Peer, P.G.M., Verbist, K., Anzion, R.
and Willems, J., (2007). Characterisation of exposure to total and
hexavalent chromium of welders using biological monitoring. Toxicology
Letters 178, pp.185-190.

73. Shaikh. T. Q. and Bhojani, F.A., (1991). Occupational injuries and

perceptions of hazards among road-side welding workers. J. Pak Med
Assoc. 41(8), pp.187-188

74. Siew, S., Kauppinen, T., Kyyrnen, P., Heikkil, P. and Pukkala, E.,
(2008). Exposure to iron and welding fumes and the risk of lung cancer. J
Work Environ Health. 34(6), pp.444-50.

86
75. Simmons, J., and Eibling, D., (2005). Tympanic membrane perforation and
retained metal slag after a welding injury. Journal of Otolaryngology. Head
Neck Surg. 133 (4), pp.635-636.

76. Sjgren B., Hansen K S., Kjuus H. and Persson P.G., (1994). Exposure to
stainless steel welding fumes and lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Occup
Environ Med, 51(5), pp.335-336.

77. Sliney D and Wolbarsht M., (1980). Safety with lasers and other optical
sources. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 1035.

78. Stepniewski, M., Kolarzyk, E., Pietrzycka, A., Kitlinski, M., Helbin, J., and
Brzyszczan, K., (2003). Antioxidant enzymes and pulmonary functions in
steel mill welders. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and
Environmental Health, 16(1), pp.41-47.

79. Teo, M. M. M. and Loosemore, M., (2001). A theory of waste behaviour in

the construction industry. Construction Management and Economics
19(7), pp.741-751.

80. The control of Noise at Work Regulations, 2005. London, Health and
Safety Executive (HSE). Available at:
<http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1643/pdfs/uksi-20051643_en.pdf>
(Accessed 18 October 2014).

81. The control of vibration at Work Regulations, 2005. London, Health and
Safety Executive (HSE).

82. Torn K., Jrvholm B., Brisman J., Hagberg S., Hermansson B. A. and
Lillienberg L., (1999). Adult-onset asthma and occupational exposures.
Scand J Work Environ Health, 25(5), pp.430-435.

83. Toole, T. M., (2002). Construction site safety roles. J. Constr. Engrg.
Mgmt., ASCE 128(3), pp.203-210.

84. Tuma, M.A., Acerra. J.R., El-Menyar, A., Al Thani, H., Al Hassani, A.,
Recicar, F.J., Yazeedi, W, A. and Maull, K. I., (2013). Epidemiology of
workplace related fall from height and cost of trauma care in Qatar. Int J
Crit Illn Inj Sci.; 3(1), pp. 3-7.

87
85. Wagenaar, W.A., Hudson, P.T., and Reason, J.T., (1990). Cognitive
Failures and Accidents. Appl. Cognitive Psychology, 4, pp. 273-294.

86. Weman, Klas (2003). Welding processes handbook. First Edition. CRC
Press LLC, New York, 208 pp.

87. Wilde, G.J.S. (1982). The theory of risk homeostasis: Implications for
safety and health. Risk Analysis, 2(4):pp.209-225.

88
 APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Demographics

Section 1
Demographic Survey-Middle East.
(Answer appropriate box)
Categories
Variables
Tick the appropriate box
Male
Gender
Female

Age

Current Job title

(Tick the appropriate box).
Single
Married
Marital Status.
Divorced
Widowed
(Tick the appropriate box).
UK
USA
Canada
Europe
Gulf states.
Nationality
Indian
Nepal
Philippine
Sri Lanka
Other
(Tick the appropriate box).
No Education
Primary School
Secondary School.
Education
Vocational Studies
College.
University.
(Tick the appropriate box).
By employer
By welding
Welding training
training
school
Metals welded Yes No
Carbon steel
Stainless steel
Inconel
Total welding experience (in years).
Total UK work experience (in years).

89
Appendix 2: Suffered health conditions

Large company.(>200 Medium company. Small company. (< 50

employees) (50-199 employees) employees).
How many employers Please insert number in
have you had adjacent box.
Which of these carried
out pre job health Please tick adjacent box.
medical?

Yes. No.

Manual metal arc. Please tick adjacent

Welding processes (MMA) box.
used. Metal inert gas. Please tick adjacent
(MIG) box.
Tungsten inert gas. (TIG) Please tick adjacent
Please tick adjacent
Oxy-Acetylene.
box.
Health effects
Have you ever suffered from any of the conditions below due to welding?
(Tick appropriate box).

Tick applicable box 1=Agree. 2=Not Sure 3= Disagree.

Eye injuries.
Respiratory complaints.
Tissue (skin) scarring due
to heat or radiation burns.
Vibration white finger.
Back problems.
Work related upper limb
disorders.
Hand/arm injuries
Leg/foot injuries

90
Appendix 3: Involved in occupational accidents

Section 3
Have you ever been involved in an occupational accident,
which involves the following?
Tick applicable box.
Type of accident Yes No
Eye injury e.g. 'arc eye'
Hand injury.
Body injury.
Electric shock.
Fall from height/scaffolds
Confined space.
Slips trips, falls.
Dropped objects.
Explosion/fire-electrical.
Explosion/fire-chemical.
Explosion/fire-gas.
Collision with vehicles.
Collision with machinery
Asphyxiation.
Burns.

91
Appendix 4: PPE (Required)

Section 4a

What type of Personnel Protective Equipment (PPE)? do you

think you require for welding.

(Tick applicable box)

PPE 1= Agree 2=Not sure 3= Disagree

Hard hat/safety helmet.

Protective cotton hat (cap).
Safety glasses.
Dust mask.
Filtered mask.
Welding mask/screen.
Gloves
Air fed welding mask/screen.
Ear protection.
Safety footwear.
Flame retardant coveralls.
High visibility vest.
Leather apron/sleeves/spats.
Safety harness
Extractor fans/Local exhaust
Ventilation.

92
Appendix 4b: PPE (Supplied)

Section 4b
Does your employer supply the correct PPE?
(Tick applicable box)
PPE 1= Agree 2=Not Sure 3= Disagree

Hard hat/safety helmet.

Protective cotton hat

(cap).

Safety glasses.

Dust mask.

Filtered mask.

Welding mask/screen.

Gloves
Air fed welding
mask/screen.

Ear protection.

Safety footwear.

Flame retardant
coveralls.

High visibility vest.

Leather
apron/sleeves/spats.

Safety harness

Extractor fans/Local
exhaust
Ventilation.

93
Appendix 4c: PPE (Worn)

Section 4c
Do you wear any of the following PPE? when welding.
(Tick applicable box)

3=Only when I am
PPE 1=Yes 2=Occasionally
instructed to do so.
4=Never

Hard hat/safety helmet.

Protective cotton hat

(cap).

Safety glasses.

Dust mask.

Filtered mask.

Welding mask/screen.

Gloves
Air fed welding
mask/screen.

Ear protection.

Safety footwear.

Flame retardant coveralls.

High visibility vest.

Leather
apron/sleeves/spats.

Safety harness

Extractor fans/Local
exhaust
Ventilation.

94
Appendix 5: Associated Hazards and Risks.

95
Appendix 6: Possible health effects of welding

Section 6

Are the ailments below possible health effects of welding

Tick applicable box 1 Agree. 2=Not Sure 3= Disagree.

Respiratory disease.
Motivational problems.
Lack of concentration.
Occupational disease.
Toxic Poisoning
Oxygen deficiency.
Asphyxiation.
Fatality.
Serious injury.
General injuries.
Permanent disability.
Reduced hearing capacity.
Lung Cancer.
Skin cancer.
Bruising
Eye damage/ eye strain.
Skin/tissue damage.
Burns (hot/cold).
Acute/Chronic back injury.
Headache.
Fractures.
Cuts
Abrasions.
Infection.
Disease.
Dermatitis
Musculoskeletal injuries.
Fatigue,
Stress.

96
Appendix 7: Main causes of accidents, personal factors/job factors

Section 7-What are the main causes of accidents?

(Add corresponding number next to column).

1=Agree 2=Not Sure 3= Disagree

Personal factors Job factors
Inadequate
Not thinking the job through
planning
Inadequate risk
Carelessness
assessment
Inadequate
Failure to follow the rules
supervision
Inadequate
Lack of communication
training
Lack of job
Lack of experience
instruction
Inappropriate use of plant Inadequate
and equipment procedures
Lack of motivation Work overload
Poor decision making Too few Staff
Inappropriate
Stress allocation of
responsibility
Lack of
Fatigue
resources
Other (Lack of intelligence
lack of competency)

97