The deconfinement protocol of May 9 is clear on one point: in addition to all the well-known sanitary rules, the priority in the professional environment is to spread out
people in time and space. It is only when it is impossible to avoid proximity of less than a meter, – better, two meters
, recommends the INRS (National Research and Safety Institute for the Prevention of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases) – that wearing a mask becomes mandatory
. A mask, yes, but which one?
Only FFP2 protect from the outside
The most protective are the FFP (1, 2 and 3), for two reasons. They are designed to be fully plated on the face. They therefore filter both what you breathe in and what you breathe out. And this, depending on the types, up to 80%, 94% and 99% of particles of 0.6 microns and more. Because their rate of leakage towards the respiratory tract of the wearer, precisely measured, is reduced, FFP2 and 3 and are the only ones to be approved as Personal Protective Equipment. However, from a legal point of view, it is indeed PPE that an employer is obliged to provide to its employees.
But they are tiring
Second problem, practical: breathing through an FFP2 is tiring and one should not wear them too long without taking a break. There are FFPs equipped with a valve that facilitates exhalation but, then, the expelled air is no longer filtered.
Surgeons protect others
Surgical masks types I, II and IIR only filter what is rejected to others. Not what we inspire, because their junction with the face is not waterproof. The aerosol virus in the air can reach the respiratory tract through voids on the fringes of the mask. In addition, their filtration is 95% or 98%, for particles of 3 microns and more, five times larger than for FFPs.
False papers
Please note that the fact that a mask is made of paper does not guarantee that it complies with the surgical standard (EN 14 683). You must check on the instructions that it protects well from viruses. The Ministry of Labor itself was caught and had, at the beginning of May, to remove from its own services the 60,000 masks which were to allow controls in companies by labor inspectors, whose union organizations logically claim that ‘they have FFP2.
A tailor-made category
To the two previous families, which France lacked (but Emmanuel Macron has just said the opposite) the Ministries of Economy, Labor and Health added a third. Not without the risk of adding confusion. Close to surgical masks, but less efficient, it is described in a note March 29, updated April 26. These masks General public
or alternative
only filter 70% (category 2) and 90% (category 1) of particles of 3 microns and more, and always only in what expires.
“In no case” PPE
These are the fabric masks whose production has taken off in France to make up for the shortage. But the Ministry of Labor says so itself in a note from March 31, at the risk of plunging employees and business leaders in perplexity: In the professional context, they can in no case replace personal protective equipment (PPE) whose wearing is made necessary at the workstation.
As for knowing what this or that model is worth, the Ministry of Labor reassures and refers to an updated table. It is better to be attentive: it includes 1,387 references.
The logic of the collective port
We understand, in the maze of files, notes, circulars and successive updates of information or regulatory texts devoted to masks, that the wearing of surgical models and alternative
has its logic in a professional environment: it stops the transmission of the virus as soon as the people in contact with each other all carry it. No one is safe from inspiring the virus, but since everyone blocks the possibility of spreading it, it no longer circulates.
But in case of contact with the public?
But what about people working in contact with unmasked people? As in shops, for example, where it is not mandatory for customers. While acknowledging that they are not PPE, the State indicates that the masks alternative
category 1 are however suitable for such use. But nothing in the famous note of March 29 indicates that they protect the wearer from the aerosols emitted around him. It is clear that for avoid leaks at the edge of the mask
he must allow adjustment on the face with a cover of the nose and chin
. But there is no mention of leak rate standards as is the case for FFP1, 2 and 3.
A regulatory vagueness
From the point of view of the Labor Code, the employer is obliged to provide – free of charge – the personal protective equipment (PPE) which must protect its employees. However, legally, only FFP2 and FFP3 are PPE. However, the deconfinement protocol details the use of all masks under a chapter head dedicated to PPE. It indicates that, FFP2 and surgical being reserved for caregivers, companies can provide their employees with FFP1 and alternative masks… which are not PPE.
It is up to the employer to assess
However, the National Research and Safety Institute for the Prevention of Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (INRS), which reports to the Ministry, warns : companies must assess whether the provision of alternative masks is suitable for the residual risks incurred at work stations ”.
How to do this assessment? The Ministry of Labor refers to the famous job descriptions. Muriel Pénicaud ensures that they constitute an unassailable reference for employers. This is not the opinion of a labor inspector, also a member of the ministry’s CHCT, who recalls that from a legal point of view, the only reference text is the Labor Code
. An annoying vagueness for the safety of the employees and the criminal responsibility of the heads of companies.
Two court decisions
Before the resounding suspension of a labor inspector who, in Marne, intended to impose the wearing of the FFP2 to home helpers, two judgments, pronounced on April 3 and 14 in Lille, have already resulted in the FFP2 being imposed to employees. One applies to home care workers, the other to convenience store employees.
It was the norm in 2009
Truth of yesterday is not that of today … During the H1N1 epidemic, a note dated July 3, 2009 of the Directorate General of Labor indicates that it is the FFP2 which must be worn by the employees who are in close and regular contact with the public
, as well as by those who are in contact with the sick or who handle waste treatment. France then had 290 million FFP2. Today, according to the May 9 protocol, they are reserved for caregivers.
Soft focus for fabric masks
Although they are not PPE, the government therefore details the possibilities of their use in business. For example, there is the question of washing. He specifies that it is up to the employer to ensure this washing and drying, according to the protocol so strict, otherwise we can create a viral outbreak. It’s also up to the employer to count the number of washes. Many SME bosses could be put off by such complexity.
Beware of plexiglass visors
Plexiglas visors, less uncomfortable than masks, have been successful. But beware, INRS warns that they only protect the eyes, not the respiratory tract. What the Ministry of Labor confirmed to Ouest-France: As specified in particular by the interministerial instruction of April 23, 2020, visors, like glasses, do not protect particles remaining in suspension and do not have the effectiveness of respiratory protection masks: they are only used than protecting the eyes, a possible entry point for the virus. Thus, these visors cannot replace the use of masks when their use is necessary (social distancing not respected in particular).
If you wear a visor, you must therefore wear a mask. But it is not specified in the job sheet Cash desk work
edited by the Ministry of Labor.
– .
