2011 Ishn Monitoring Study Editorial

Industrial Hygiene and 1
Monitoring Equipment
2011
Copyright © 2011 by Clear Seas Research/BNP Media. All rights reserved.

Results of this study cannot be used in whole, or in part, for promotional literature or otherwise without the expressed written permission.
ICS Carpet Cleaning Chemical Market Study

Table of Contents – Full Report
Page # 2
Study Overview 3
Methodology 4
Key Findings 5
Study Results: Staffing
Employment of Full-Time Hygienist 7
Usage of Industrial Hygiene Consultant 8
Operator of Industrial Hygiene Monitoring Equipment to Collect Exposure Data 9
Study Results: Purchasing Trends
Expected Company Spending 11
Types of Equipment Planning to Purchase 13
Study Results: Utilization of Industrial Hygiene Equipment
Exposure Risks 15
Applications for Hygiene Monitoring Equipment 16
Types of Industrial Hygiene Monitoring Equipment Currently In Use 18
Attributes That Prevent Equipment From Becoming Commodities 19
Study Results: Purchasing Industrial Hygiene Equipment
Preferred Information Sources 21
Awareness of Manufacturers 22
Hygiene Monitoring Equipment Purchased From 28
Likelihood to Switch from Manufacturer 34
Satisfaction With Manufacturer 35
Likelihood
Lik lih d tto R
Recommend dMManufacturer
f t 36
Demographic Profile
Location of Respondents 38
Number of Full-Time Employees 39
2010 Company Revenue 40
Industry 41
Appendix 1: Industry Involvement By Manufacturer Aware Of
Appendix 2: Equipment Users By Manufacturers Aware Of
Industrial Hygiene & Monitoring Equipment, 2011

Study Overview
3
Background
Clear Seas Research conducted the Industrial Hygiene & Monitoring Equipment Study to help manufacturers and purchasers of industrial
hygiene equipment better understand current market drivers and levels of satisfaction with various industrial hygiene products.
Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the opinions and preferences of safety professionals regarding various brands in the industry.
Specifically, this research seeks to identify:
Trends in industrial hygiene staffing
Trends in industrial hygiene equipment purchasing
Utilization of industrial hygiene
yg equipment
q p
Ratings of specific industrial hygiene manufacturers and their products

Methodology
Research Details Analysis and Presentation 4

Target Audience: A total of 50,958 active, qualified ISHN Online results were reviewed and cleaned to eliminate data from
direct request subscribers unqualified individuals and/or speeders. The data was then
Sample Selection Method: Systematic sample from the exported to SPSS, a statistical software package, and data
domestic circulation, on an Nth name basis. tabulations were produced.
Survey Method: Online The data produced in SPSS is presented in graphical and tabular
format with the number of respondents who answered each
Incentive: (5) $50 AMEX gift checks question.
Field Dates: February 15 – 27, 2011 Some questions in this survey requested respondents to write in a
Completed Returns Summary: response. Other than minor editing for readability, these responses
are presented as written by the respondent.
Whenever possible data was trended to previous years
years, although
not all questions were asked each year.
Number Undeliverable/ Usable Usable Response

Mailed Unusable Base Returns Rate
2011 (Web) 50,958 3,433 47,525 324 1%

2009 (Web) 33,630 NA 33,630 358 1%
2007 (Web/Mail) 2,268 70 2,198 336 15%
2005 (Mail) 750 22 728 274 38%

Study Results
Staffing
Employment of Full-Time Hygienist
Just over one-in-three 2011 survey participants indicate their company does employ a full-time hygienist on payroll to
manage toxic exposures.
62%
No 55%
69%
38%
Yes 45%
2011 (n=324)
31% 2009 (n=358)
2007 (n=296)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Differences of 4.8% are considered significant using a 90% confidence interval and are indicated by
Q1. Does your company employ a full-time hygienist on their payroll to manage your company’s toxic exposures
monitoring program?
Question Type: Single Choice
Usage of Industrial Hygiene Consultant
Consistent with 2007 and 2009, half of respondents indicate that their company uses an industrial hygiene consultant to
manage their company’s toxic exposures monitoring program.
50%
47%
No
52%
75%
50%
53%
Yes
48% 2011 (n=324)
2009 (n=358)
25% 2007 (n=296)
2005 (n=241)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Q2. Does your company use the services of an industrial hygiene consultant to manage your company’s toxic
exposures monitoring program?
Operator of Industrial Hygiene Monitoring Equipment to Collect Exposure Data
Safety manager on staff is the primary person who operates the industrial hygiene monitoring equipment, followed by
professional industrial hygienist on staff and consultants.
8
59%
Safety manager on staff 60%
63% Other Mentions:
Safety professional (11)
Professional industrial hygienist 32% EH&S professional (6)
33% Technician (6)
on staff 26% Corporate (2)
28% All site employees are trained
Consultant 25% Calibration Leader
29% Emergency manager
Facilities department
15% Field safety specialists
Line employees 11% IAQ specialists
14% Insurance IH person
13% Lab technologist
Supervisors 10% Maintenance
16% Outside IH
Project superintendent
4% UAW IHT
Occupational health nurse 4%
1%
2011 (n=324)
12%
2009 (n=358)
Other 9%
6% 2007 ((n=292)
292)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Q3. Who at your company operates the industrial hygiene monitoring equipment to collect exposure data?
Question Type: Multiple Choice

Study Results
Purchasing Trends
Expected Company Spending
Compared to 2009, significantly more respondents expect their companies spending on industrial hygiene monitoring
equipment to stay the same or increase in 2011.
10
n=
2011 -11% 70% 19% 324
2009 -28% 59% 13% 358
2007 -7% 69% 24% 296
2005 -15% 72% 13% 241
-40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Decrease Stay about the same Increase
Increase/Decrease differences of 4.8% are considered significant using a 90% confidence interval and are indicated by / respectively
Q5. Compared to 2010, do you expect your company’s spending on industrial hygiene monitoring equipment to
increase, decrease or stay about the same?
Expected Company Spending
Of those purchasers that expect their spending to increase, most expect their increases to be 25% or less. In contrast,
those expecting a decrease, expect an average decrease of about 50%.
11
Increase Percentage
25% or less 79%

2011 Spending Levels
26%-50% 14%
Increase 51%-75% 2%
19% Mean increase = 24%
76%-100% 5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Decrease Percentage
Decrease
11% 25% or less 39%
Stay about the
same 26%-50% 33%
70%
51%-75% 6%
Mean decrease = 47%
76%-100% 22%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
n= 324 (Overall); 57 (Increase); 36 (Decrease)

Q5. Compared to 2010, do you expect your company’s spending on industrial hygiene monitoring equipment to
increase decrease or stay about the same?
increase,
Q6. You indicated that you expect your company’s 2011 spending to [RESTORE Q5] from 2010 levels. By what
percentage do you expect it to [RESTORE Q5]?
Types of Equipment Planning to Purchase
Survey participants report being most likely to purchase calibration gases and regulators, multi-gas monitors and noise
monitors in the next two years. Calibration gases and regulators are likely to be purchased over the next six months.
There has been a significant increase in the percentage of respondents indicating they plan to purchase docking
stations, multi-gas monitors, fixed point detection systems and indoor air quality monitors within the next six months.
% No Planned Sig. test @

Purchase 90% CI Among those planning to purchase n= 12
Calibration Gases 2011 44% 15% 35% 50% 180
6.1%
and Regulators 2009 49% 20% 30% 51% 183
2011 71% 36% 32% 33% 95

Single-Gas
Single Gas Monitors 8.5%
2009 72% 37% 31% 31% 102
2011 83% 36% 31% 33% 55

Docking Stations 11.1%
2009 84% 50% 31% 19% 58
2011 52% 39% 29% 31% 157

Multi-Gas Monitors 6.9%
2009 59% 44% 37% 20% 147
2011 88% 53% 21% 26% 38

Radiation Monitors 13.9%
2009 89% 58% 21% 21% 38
Fixed Point 2011 80% 50% 29% 21% 66

10.2%
Detection Systems 2009 78% 56% 33% 10% 78
Indoor Air 2011 68% 53% 27% 20% 104

8.3%
Quality Monitors 2009 72% 64% 28% 8% 183
2011 59% 52% 29% 20% 133

Noise Monitors 7.2%
2009 63% 54% 24% 22% 133
Dustt and
D d 2011 69% 44% 36% 19% 99
8.7%
Particulate Monitors 2009 74% 52% 30% 18% 94
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

More than 1 year from now 7 to 12 months from now Within the next 6 months
Increase/Decrease differences are considered significant using a 90% confidence interval and are indicated by / respectively
Q9. Which of the following types of industrial hygiene monitoring equipment do you plan to purchase within the
next 2 years?
Question Type: Single Choice Grid
Study Results
Utilization of Industrial Hygiene Equipment

Exposure Risks
Respondents indicate that the most significant exposure risks faced by company employees are toxic gases, fumes,
vapors from chemical or manufacturing processes and noise.
14
Other Mentions: General air quality

Toxic gases, fumes, vapors 64%
53% Lead (5) General IAQ
from chemical or
61% Silica (5) Heavy metals
manufacturing processes
Benzene (2) Hex chrome dust
62% Carbon dioxide (2) IDLH atmospheres
Noise 55% Carbon monoxide (2) Indoor air quality
56% Cobalt (2) Metallic powders
Mold (2) Metals
Confined space gases and 50%
40% Nuisance dust (2) Micro particulate
vapors 47% Welding (2) MRF
Chemicals (3) Natural gas
21% Dust (2) Office indoor air quality
Combustible dust 15% Formalin (2) testing
17% Aerospace ground servicing Paint
16% Ammonia Pharmaceutical compounds
Asbestos 14% Beryllium Potent compounds (API)
17% Chrominum pharma/biotech
Coatings Stoddard solvent
12% Combustible vapors Toxic dusts
Radiation 8% Xylene Varies depending on client
11% Mould VOCs
2011 (n=324)
18% 2009
009 ((n=358)
358)
Oth
Other 21%
10% 2007 (n=288)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Diff
Differences off 4
4.8%
8% are considered
id d significant
i ifi t using
i a 90% confidence
fid iinterval
t l and
d are iindicated
di t d bby
Q4. Which of the following are the most significant exposure risks that employees face at your company?
Applications for Hygiene Monitoring Equipment
General worker protection is the top application for respondents’ use of hygiene monitoring equipment, followed by
confined space entry.
15
62%
General worker protection 64%
66%
Other Mentions:
53%
Confined space entry 54% IAQ (2)
59% Audit Requirements
q
24% Beryllium exposure
Ventilation 21%
20% Change in operations
15% Containment verification
Leak detection 12% with processing API
9%
Hearing protection and
12% forklift CO emissions
Hazmat response 12%
9% LP lift ttruckk carburetion
b ti
11% Personal metals fume
Hot work permits 14%
10% exposure
8% Personnel monitoring
Cleaning & inspection 9% Silica detection
9%
Site remediation: radiation
5% and by-products
by products of
Vessel entry 3%
4% processing uranium
3%
Facility turnaround/shut 2%
2%
3%
Underground work 2% 2011 (n=324)
2%
2009
009 ((n=358)
358)
4%
Other 8% 2007 (n=279)
7%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Diff
Differences off 4
4.8%
8% are considered
id d significant
i ifi t using
i a 90% confidence
fid iinterval
t l and
d are iindicated
di t d bby
Q10. Please indicate the top 2 applications for your use of hygiene monitoring equipment.
Types of Industrial Hygiene Monitoring Equipment Currently In Use
Noise monitors, multi-gas monitors and calibration gases and regulators are the three types of equipment most likely to
be in used by respondent companies. Noise monitors, single-gas monitors, dust and particulate monitors, fixed point
detection systems and radiation monitors are reportedly used significantly less than in 2009.
16
77%
Noise monitors 84%
81%
76% Other Mentions:
Multi-gas monitors 78% Air sampling pumps
78%
Automated weather station
Calibration gases and 73%
76% Colormetric tubes
regulators 75% Constant flow air pumps
48% Light meter
Single-gas monitors 55% Low and hi volume pumps
45%
(2)
44% Mercury vapor
Indoor air quality monitors 48%
39% Organic vapor analyzer
42% Passive badges (2)
Dust and particulate
51% Passive dosimeters
monitors 45% Personal air samplers
34% pH monitoring
Docking stations 38% PiD ((2))
22%
Sampling pumps (2)
Fixed point detection 32% Sapphire
39%
systems 34% Temp/humidity monitors
26% Velometers
Radiation Monitors 34% 2011 (n=324) Wet bulb temperature
28%
WGBT
8% 2009 (n=358)
(n 358) XRF,
XRF pumps
Other
2007 (n=294)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Diff
Differences off 4
4.8%
8% are considered
id d significant
i ifi t using
i a 90% confidence
fid iinterval
t l and
d are iindicated
di t d bby
Q8. Which of the following types of industrial hygiene monitoring equipment are currently used at your company?
Attributes That Prevent Equipment From Becoming Commodities
Use of software for record keeping and calibration scheduling and accuracy of sensor technology are the top two issues
that prevent industrial hygiene monitoring equipment from becoming commodities.
17
Use of software for record 38%
keeping and calibration 33% Other Mentions: It is a commodity
scheduling 29% Lack of experience and purchase
education (6) It is equipment that lasts
Accuracy off sensor
A 36% Complexity of use (4) when cared for
30% Ease of use (3) Maintenance
technology
40% Reliability (3) Not consumable
Expense (2) Not needed 100% of the
31%
Employees face potentially Exposure (2) time
25%
fatal toxic exposures Technical aptitude of worker Not needed as
31%
((2)) commodities
26% Can’t see the hazards in Ongoing calibration and
Service from vendor 25% most situations so it is not maintenance
29% top priority if you can’t touch Our monitoring equipment
it is used daily & calibrated
Remote management of
15% Control every 3 months per state
14% Durability OSHA
instrument data
17% Employees
E l ttend
d tto be
b afraid
f id Regulatory
R l t requirements
i t
to be responsible There is not enough
14% Frequency of application competition
Cost 10% Interpretation of results Use of the items
18%
15% 2011 (n=324)

Other 18% 2009 (n=358)
7% 2007 (n=272)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Diff
Differences off 4
4.8%
8% are considered
id d significant
i ifi t using
i a 90% confidence
fid iinterval
t l and
d are iindicated
di t d bby
Q7. In your opinion, what prevents industrial hygiene monitoring equipment from becoming commodities, such as
earplugs or gloves?
Demographic Profile
Location of Respondents
National representation was achieved although more participants are located in the Midwest or South compared to the
West or Northeast.
19
Region 2011
Midwest 32%
South 29%
West 20%
Northeast 19%
Total 324
Differences of 4.8% are considered significant

g using
g a 90% confidence interval
Q19. In what state are you located?

Number of Full-Time Employees
Roughly one-half of survey participants report fewer than 1000 full-time employees across all locations.
20
50% 2011 (n=324)
40%
30%
21%
20%
12% 13% 12%

11%
8% 9%
10%
6% 6%
0%
Fewer than 10 - 49 50 - 99 100 - 499 500 - 999 1,000 - 2,501 - 5,001 - 25,000 or
10 2,500 5,000 24,999 more
Q20. How many full-time employees (and equivalents) are employed by your company across all locations (plants,
divisions, subsidiaries)?
2010 Company Revenue
Half of respondents indicate that their company revenue for 2010 was $100 million or more.
21
50% 2011 (n=324)
40%
30%
19% 18%
20%
15%
10% 11% 11%

10% 8% 7%
0%
Less than $1 $1 million - $5 million - $25 million - $100 million - $500 million - $1 billion - $5 billion or
million $4.9 million $24.9 million $99.9 million $499.9 million $999.9 million $4.9 million more
Q21. What were your company’s total 2010 revenues?

Industry
Significantly more respondents come from the manufacturing, chemical or construction industries.
22
Manufacturing 15% Other Mentions:
Insurance (3)
Chemical 12%
Transportation (2)
Construction 12% Battery
Agriculture and food 6% Coating Services
Communications
Consulting 6%
Distribution
Government municipality 6% Environmental Services
Utility 5% Equipment
Extrusion aluminum
Steel mill 4%
Fiberglass
Ed
Education
ti 3% Foundry
F d
Hospitals/Retail centers 3% Industrial plant
Insulation
Oil & gas (drilling and production) 3% Optical & laser components
Pulp and paper 3% Packaging
Aerospace 2% RRM remediation
Research labs
Military 2% Rubber & plastics
Pharma/BioTech 2% Safety
Refineries and petrochemical facility 2% Service
Shipyard
Airlines 1% Textile
Automotive 1% USDA FSIS
Mining 1% Valve repair
Recycling 1%
Other 10% 2011 (n=324)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Diff
Differences off 4
4.8%
8% are considered
id d significant
i ifi t using
i a 90% confidence
fid iinterval
t l and
d are iindicated
di t d bby
Q22. In which industry sector are you employed?

23
Industry Knowledge
Cl
Clear Seas
S Research’s
R h’ extensive
t i network
t k off iindustry
d t expertst andd professional
f i l
trade associations maximizes accuracy within studies and promotes
interaction with the target audience. Utilizing a team of qualified,
experienced market analysts Clear Seas Research provides actionable
results with solid research recommendations.
Clear Insight
Through expert insight and actionable results Clear Seas Research facilitates
superior decision making in today’s business world.
For more information please contact:

Beth Surowiec at 248.786.1619 or surowiecb@clearseasresearch.com

Results of this study ICS Carpet
cannot be Cleaning
used in whole, Chemical
or in part, for promotional literatureMarket Study
or otherwise without the expressed written permission.

2011 Ishn Monitoring Study Editorial

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2011 Ishn Monitoring Study Editorial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Industrial Hygiene and 1

Copyright © 2011 by Clear Seas Research/BNP Media. All rights reserved.

ICS Carpet Cleaning Chemical Market Study

Industrial Hygiene & Monitoring Equipment, 2011

Industrial Hygiene & Monitoring Equipment, 2011

Research Details Analysis and Presentation 4

Number Undeliverable/ Usable Usable Response

2011 (Web) 50,958 3,433 47,525 324 1%

Industrial Hygiene & Monitoring Equipment, 2011

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Industrial Hygiene & Monitoring Equipment, 2011

2011 -11% 70% 19% 324

2009 -28% 59% 13% 358

2007 -7% 69% 24% 296

2005 -15% 72% 13% 241

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Decrease Stay about the same Increase

25% or less 79%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

n= 324 (Overall); 57 (Increase); 36 (Decrease)

% No Planned Sig. test @

2011 71% 36% 32% 33% 95

2011 83% 36% 31% 33% 55

2011 52% 39% 29% 31% 157

2011 88% 53% 21% 26% 38

Fixed Point 2011 80% 50% 29% 21% 66

Indoor Air 2011 68% 53% 27% 20% 104

2011 59% 52% 29% 20% 133

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Utilization of Industrial Hygiene Equipment

Other Mentions:  General air quality

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

15% 2011 (n=324)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Differences of 4.8% are considered significant

Industrial Hygiene & Monitoring Equipment, 2011

50% 2011 (n=324)

12% 13% 12%

50% 2011 (n=324)

10% 11% 11%

Industrial Hygiene & Monitoring Equipment, 2011

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Industrial Hygiene & Monitoring Equipment, 2011

For more information please contact:

Copyright © 2010 by Clear Seas Research/BNP Media. All rights reserved.

You might also like

Other Mentions: General air quality