Home / LEV Testing / Guide
LEV testing - engineering
A single engineering workshop can throw off welding fume, grinding dust, oil mist and more - each a different hazard needing a different kind of capture. Testing such a shop is not one job but several, and missing any of them leaves a gap.
The short answer
An engineering workshop often runs several hazardous processes side by side - welding, grinding, machining, cutting - each producing a different airborne hazard and each controlled by its own kind of LEV: fume arms, downdraught benches, on-tool extraction, machine enclosures. Testing the shop properly means testing every one of those LEV systems, to the capture each hazard needs. Missing any process leaves an exposure untested and a gap in compliance.
The mixed-process reality
A general engineering workshop is rarely a single process. In one space you might have welding producing metal fume, grinding and linishing throwing off metal and abrasive dust, machining and turning generating oil mist from metalworking fluid, and cutting or fabrication adding their own contaminants. Each of these is a different substance hazardous to health, produced in a different way, needing a different approach to capture.
So the workshop is really several extraction problems in one, and its LEV reflects that - a mix of fume arms over welding bays, downdraught or extracted benches for grinding, on-tool or enclosure extraction on machines, and general or point extraction elsewhere. Understanding a workshop's LEV means seeing it as this collection of different systems for different hazards, not one uniform installation.
Different hazards, different capture
The reason each process needs its own kind of LEV is that the hazards behave differently. Welding fume rises with heat and needs capture close above or beside the arc. Grinding throws dust and sparks with energy in a direction, needing capture that catches that throw - a downdraught bench or a well-placed hood. Oil mist from machining hangs and drifts, needing extraction that encloses or closely captures the machine. What controls one hazard can be quite wrong for another.
This means a workshop cannot be treated as if one type of extraction covers everything. Each capture point has to be designed and assessed for the specific hazard it serves, at the capture velocity and configuration that hazard demands. A fume arm that is fine for welding does nothing for the oil mist across the shop, and vice versa - the diversity of hazards requires a diversity of controls, each doing its own job.
Why testing must cover everything
Because each process has its own LEV and its own exposure, testing the workshop properly means testing all of it - every fume arm, every extracted bench, every machine extraction, each assessed for whether it controls the specific hazard it serves. A test that covers the welding extraction but overlooks the grinding benches, or checks the machines but not the fume arms, leaves whole processes - and the people working at them - untested and unproven.
This is where a mixed-process shop is easy to get wrong. The sheer variety makes it possible for a capture point to be missed, or for the diversity of hazards to be under-assessed by treating them all the same. A proper examination identifies every process and every capture point, tests each against its own hazard, and reports on the whole picture - so no process is left as a blind spot in the workshop's compliance.
The competence it takes
Testing a mixed-process workshop well takes an examiner who understands the different hazards and the different capture each needs. Judging whether a welding fume arm, a grinding downdraught bench and a machine mist enclosure are each controlling their respective hazards requires knowing what good capture looks like for fume, for dust and for mist - which are not the same. It is a more demanding examination than a single-process site.
This is another reason a thorough, competent test matters more in these environments, not less. The variety that makes a workshop's LEV complex is exactly what a superficial test glosses over - treating everything as one, missing capture points, or failing to assess each hazard on its own terms. A proper examination engages with the diversity, so each process is genuinely tested against what it actually produces.
The takeaway
For an engineering workshop, the key point is that its LEV is a collection of different systems for different hazards, and all of them fall under the same COSHH duty to be examined and tested. Testing the shop means testing every process - welding, grinding, machining and the rest - at the capture each hazard needs, and reporting on the whole. Any process left out is an exposure left untested and a compliance gap left open.
So a mixed-process workshop should be examined comprehensively, process by process and capture point by capture point, by an examiner competent to assess the range of hazards involved. Done that way, every operator at every bench and machine is covered, and the workshop can show that all of its varied extraction is genuinely controlling the varied exposures it deals with - which is what testing a real engineering environment properly requires.
Questions
Because one workshop can run several hazardous processes - welding, grinding, machining, cutting - each producing a different airborne hazard and controlled by its own kind of LEV. Testing means assessing every one of those systems, not one uniform installation.
Yes. Welding fume rises and needs capture close to the arc; grinding dust is thrown with energy and needs a downdraught bench or well-placed hood; oil mist hangs and needs enclosure or close capture. What controls one hazard is often wrong for another.
That process - and the people working at it - are left untested and unproven. A test covering the welding but overlooking the grinding benches, or the machines but not the fume arms, leaves whole exposures unassessed and a gap in compliance.
Because judging whether a fume arm, a grinding bench and a mist enclosure each control their hazard requires knowing what good capture looks like for fume, dust and mist - which differ. It is a more demanding examination than a single-process site.
Comprehensively - every process and capture point identified and tested against its own hazard, by a competent examiner, with the whole picture reported. So no process is left as a blind spot in the workshop's compliance.
Yes. Every LEV system controlling a hazardous substance falls under the same duty to be thoroughly examined and tested, so all the varied extraction in the workshop must be tested and maintained, not just the most obvious.
We test the whole of a mixed-process workshop - fume, dust, mist and more - assessing each capture point against its own hazard.
