Protecting Workers: Fume Extraction and Protective Gloves in Electronics Manufacturing

Electronics manufacturing involves various safety risks, often overlooked but crucial for worker protection. Two key areas of concern are fume extraction and protective gloves. Proper ventilation ensures that harmful fumes from soldering and chemicals are removed efficiently, while the right gloves protect both workers and sensitive components.

This article explores best practices, practical improvements, and recommendations based on industry experience.

Protective Gloves: Finding the Right Fit

Case Study: Evaluating Protective Gloves

The gloves examined in this study are Category I Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and comply with the EN 420 standard. These gloves are designed for minimal risks, such as superficial scratches, but are not suitable for mechanical hazards, chemicals, or biological exposure.

Their primary function is to prevent contamination of circuit boards by blocking fingerprints and skin oils. They feature a polyurethane (PU) coating on the fingertips, which provides basic protection for specific tasks.

💡 What is EN 420?
EN 420 is a general European standard ensuring gloves are safe to use and free from harmful substances.

Testing for Silicone Penetration

Assessments of protective gloves have been conducted to determine their resistance to silicone penetration. Findings indicate that PU-coated fingertips effectively block silicone, even though these gloves do not meet EN 374 chemical resistance standards.

However, the uncoated fabric areas allowed minor penetration, emphasizing that gloves used for chemical handling should be fully coated for better protection.

🚨 Key Finding: PU coatings do not protect against low-viscosity liquids, which can seep through the material.

Alternatives to Category 1 Gloves

If more protection is needed, consider testing these alternatives:

✅ Nitrile ESD Gloves – Offer better chemical resistance but may be too thick for fine assembly work.
✅ PU-Coated Comfort ESD Gloves – Provide full-palm coverage for improved protection while maintaining flexibility.

For environments with chemical exposure, EN 374-compliant gloves are recommended. These protect against prolonged chemical contact and must be selected based on specific chemicals present (refer to material safety data sheets).

🔍 The Challenge: Finding gloves that are both EN 374-compliant and ESD-safe is difficult. Currently, the best option is disposable nitrile gloves, which offer both chemical resistance and electrostatic discharge (ESD) protection.

⚠️ Drawback: While nitrile gloves provide excellent protection, they lack breathability and need frequent replacement.

Standardizing Glove Selection

To simplify inventory management and ensure consistent safety standards, companies should standardize the types of gloves used based on risk assessments.

Fume Extraction: Ensuring a Clean Work Environment

Measuring Airflow Efficiency

Efficient fume extraction depends on proper airflow settings. In previous assessments of workstations using Alsident System 50 extraction pipes, airflow rates were recorded as follows:

📌 First workbench group: 10 m/s (70 m³/h) – aligned with recommended flow rates.
📌 Second workbench group: 15 m/s (106 m³/h) – caused excessive noise when fully open.

💡 Recommended Flow Rates (Alsident System 50):
✔️ Normal: 65 m³/h
✔️ Minimum: 45 m³/h
✔️ Maximum: 85 m³/h

📏 Best Practice: Keep the extraction pipe within 20 cm of the fume source to ensure optimal performance.

Selecting the Right Nozzle for Optimal Suction Efficiency

Different applications require different nozzle types, each affecting the effective suction area and overall performance of the extraction system. Choosing the right nozzle can improve efficiency while reducing noise and wear on the system.

💨 How Nozzle Type Affects Suction Efficiency

For reference, with a suction power of 85 m³/h, the effective suction area varies based on the nozzle used:

✔️ Without a nozzle (pipe alone): Effective suction area is approximately 10–12 cm from the center of the pipe.
✔️ With a plate nozzle at 55 m³/h: The same 10–12 cm effective area is achieved with lower suction power.
✔️ With a plate nozzle at 85 m³/h: The effective area increases to 17–20 cm, improving overall coverage.

However, increasing the suction power beyond 85 m³/h does not significantly expand the working area. Instead, it leads to:
⚠️ Higher noise levels due to increased sound pressure in the pipe.
⚠️ Faster filter wear, leading to unnecessary maintenance costs.

💡 Key Takeaway: Proper nozzle selection optimizes airflow efficiency while keeping noise and maintenance in check.

Different applications require different nozzles:

🚨 Tip: If using a hood, choose one made of ESD-safe material to prevent unwanted electrostatic buildup.

Portable Fume Extractors: A Practical Solution for Flexible Workspaces

In many electronics manufacturing environments, installing a fixed exhaust system to vent fumes outside the building is not always an option. This may be due to building restrictions, temporary workspaces, or cost constraints. In such cases, portable fume extractors provide an effective alternative.

These standalone units are equipped with high-performance HEPA and chemical filters, capable of capturing hazardous fumes and particles directly at the source. Instead of relying on external ventilation, the extractors purify the air and recirculate it back into the workspace, ensuring a cleaner and safer environment.

Why Choose Portable Fume Extractors?

✅ No Permanent Installation Required – Ideal for rented spaces or work areas where modifying ventilation systems is not possible.
✅ Highly Flexible – Can be easily repositioned if workstations need to be relocated.
✅ Effective Filtration – Advanced HEPA and activated carbon filters efficiently remove harmful particles and gases.
✅ Cost-Effective – Eliminates the need for costly ductwork and permanent exhaust infrastructure.

For environments where soldering, gluing, or chemical processing generates airborne contaminants, portable fume extractors provide a safe and adaptable solution. Regular filter maintenance is essential to ensure continued efficiency, as clogged filters reduce airflow and filtration effectiveness.

By incorporating these systems, manufacturers can maintain compliance with safety regulations while protecting workers from harmful fumes—even in workplaces where traditional exhaust systems are impractical.

Verifying Fume Extraction Efficiency

A smoke pen (e.g., Dräger Smoke Pen) visually demonstrates how well fumes are captured. This helps identify areas for improvement.

🚀 Pro Tip: Use a smoke pen to adjust nozzle placement and maximize fume capture.

Challenges in Measuring Solder Fumes

Measuring ultrafine particles (10–500 nm) is complex and requires specialized equipment like the Testo DiSCmini. However, such devices cost over $2,000 and are rarely used in manufacturing environments.

📏 Relevant Standard: SFS-EN 481, which defines size fractions for workplace air quality.

Key Takeaways

💡 Protective Gloves:
✔️ Choose gloves based on risk assessment.
✔️ ESD-safe nitrile gloves offer both chemical and electrostatic protection.
✔️ Standardizing glove types simplifies inventory and improves safety.

💡 Fume Extraction:
✔️ Adjust airflow according to manufacturer recommendations.
✔️ Too much airflow creates noise without improving suction.
✔️ Choose the right nozzle to balance usability and performance.
✔️ Use a smoke pen to verify extraction efficiency.

By following these best practices, electronics manufacturers can ensure worker safety while maintaining an efficient production environment.