Home / LEV Testing / Guide
LEV testing - waste facilities
Handling and processing waste releases bioaerosols - airborne bacteria, fungi and their by-products - that cause real respiratory harm. Managing them in a recycling or waste facility means reducing their release, capturing them at source with extraction, ventilating, using respiratory protection and good hygiene, and keeping the controls working. Here is a practical overview of how to manage bioaerosols in waste facilities. This is general information.
The short answer
Recycling and waste facilities handle biologically active material - decaying organic matter, mouldy waste - and disturbing it releases bioaerosols (airborne bacteria, fungi and their by-products) into the air. Breathing these causes real respiratory harm, so they have to be managed like any airborne health hazard. Here's a practical overview of how to manage bioaerosols in a waste facility. This is general information. Why they need managing (briefly). Bioaerosols cause genuine health effects, mainly respiratory: irritation of the airways, hypersensitivity pneumonitis (an allergic lung inflammation that can cause lasting damage), organic dust toxic syndrome (a flu-like reaction to heavy organic-dust exposure), and aggravation of asthma and allergies (covered in the how-bioaerosols-affect-health-in-waste-facilities page). So they're a real hazard to control, not a nuisance to ignore. Managing them follows the hierarchy of control. Reduce the release. First and best, reduce the release of bioaerosols where you can. Bioaerosols are thrown into the air by disturbing biologically active waste - tipping, sorting, shredding, screening, turning and composting all release them. So reducing that disturbance, and controlling the dustiest steps, cuts the amount released at source. Measures include: enclosing the dustiest, most bioaerosol-generating processes (containing the release rather than letting it spread); damping down where appropriate (moisture suppresses dust and bioaerosol release); and process design that reduces unnecessary disturbance of the material. Making less bioaerosol released is the most effective control, because it reduces the problem before it starts. Extract at source with LEV. Then capture what is released, at source, with local exhaust ventilation (LEV). Extraction at the points where bioaerosols are released - enclosed sorting, shredding or screening points, for instance - draws them away before workers breathe them. LEV is the key engineering control for capturing the bioaerosols that reduction doesn't prevent, removing them at source. Ventilate the space. General ventilation of the space helps keep the background level of bioaerosols down and clears the air - working alongside the source capture (which handles the concentrated release points) to manage the overall air. So general ventilation and LEV do different jobs: LEV captures at the sources, general ventilation manages the whole-space air. Use RPE where needed. Where the reduction, extraction and ventilation don't fully control the exposure - some tasks and areas have residual bioaerosol exposure - use respiratory protection (RPE): suitable, face-fit-tested masks appropriate for the bioaerosols. RPE protects the individual worker for the residual exposure, as a backup to the source controls (which protect everyone), not a substitute. Good hygiene. Given the biological nature of bioaerosols and the fact that they can be transferred hand-to-mouth (as well as breathed), good hygiene matters alongside the airborne controls: washing hands (especially before eating), not eating, drinking or smoking in work areas, and keeping work clothing separate. This reduces the non-airborne exposure route. Keep the controls working, and monitor health. Crucially, keep the controls working. The LEV, as an engineering control for a health hazard, must be maintained and thoroughly examined and tested regularly (typically at least every fourteen months) to confirm it's still capturing the bioaerosols - because a degraded extraction stops protecting workers while still appearing to run (covered in the recycling-and-waste-facilities-lev-for-dust-and-bioaerosols page). And consider health surveillance for workers - monitoring for early signs of respiratory effects, so anyone developing a problem is caught early and it flags if the controls aren't working. Match the effort to the risk. The level of effort should match the risk, which is highest where biologically active (organic, decaying) waste is handled in disturbing ways (composting, shredding, turning organic waste) - so those higher-risk processes and materials warrant the most control, while a facility handling inert, dry recyclables has less bioaerosol risk to manage. So the controls are targeted at the higher-risk waste and processes. The takeaway. So managing bioaerosols in a recycling or waste facility means: reduce their release (enclose dusty steps, dampen down, limit disturbance); extract what's released at source with LEV; ventilate the space; use RPE where the other controls don't fully protect; keep good hygiene; and keep the LEV maintained and tested (with health surveillance to back it up) - all matched to the risk. The aim is to keep workers from breathing the bioaerosols, which cause real respiratory harm. This is general information. This is general information.
Key points
Reduce the release
First and best, reduce the release of bioaerosols where you can. Bioaerosols are thrown into the air by disturbing biologically active waste - tipping, sorting, shredding, screening, turning and composting all release them, the mechanical disturbance putting the biological particles airborne. So reducing that disturbance, and controlling the dustiest, most bioaerosol-generating steps, cuts the amount released at source.
Measures include: enclosing the dustiest, most bioaerosol-generating processes (containing the release rather than letting it spread through the facility); damping down where appropriate (moisture suppresses dust and bioaerosol release); and process design that reduces unnecessary disturbance of the material. Making less bioaerosol released is the most effective control, because it reduces the problem before it starts - less released means less to capture, ventilate and breathe. It also makes the other controls (LEV, ventilation) more effective by giving them less to deal with. So reducing the release comes first in the hierarchy. So reduce the release - enclose, dampen, and limit disturbance - is the first and most effective control: make less bioaerosol released at the disturbing steps. Capturing what's still released is next. So make less bioaerosol released in the first place. This is general information. This is general information.
Extract at source and ventilate
Then capture what is released, at source, with local exhaust ventilation (LEV). Extraction at the points where bioaerosols are released - enclosed sorting, shredding or screening points, for instance - draws them away before workers breathe them. LEV is the key engineering control for capturing the bioaerosols that reduction doesn't prevent, removing them at source at their most concentrated, before they spread.
General ventilation of the space works alongside the LEV: it keeps the background level of bioaerosols down and clears the overall air, handling the diffuse whole-space picture while the LEV handles the concentrated release points. So the two do different, complementary jobs - LEV captures at the sources, general ventilation manages the whole-space air. Together they keep the airborne bioaerosol level down both at the sources and across the facility. Whether and where LEV is needed depends on where bioaerosols are concentrated (which an assessment identifies), and the LEV controlling a health hazard has to be kept working and tested (covered below). So extract at source and ventilate - LEV at the release points, plus general ventilation - is the engineering control: capture the bioaerosols at source and manage the whole-space air. RPE and hygiene back it up (next). So capture at source with LEV, and ventilate the space. This is general information. This is general information.
RPE and good hygiene
Where the reduction, extraction and ventilation don't fully control the exposure - some tasks and areas have residual bioaerosol exposure - use respiratory protection (RPE): suitable, face-fit-tested masks appropriate for the bioaerosols. RPE protects the individual worker for the residual exposure, as a backup to the source controls (which protect everyone in the area), not a substitute for them. So the layered approach is reduce, capture, ventilate, and RPE for what's left.
And given the biological nature of bioaerosols - and the fact that they can be transferred hand-to-mouth as well as breathed - good hygiene matters alongside the airborne controls. That means washing hands (especially before eating), not eating, drinking or smoking in work areas (where bioaerosols on the hands could be ingested), and keeping work clothing separate (so contamination isn't carried around or home). This reduces the non-airborne exposure route, which the LEV and ventilation don't address. So hygiene complements the air controls, covering the ingestion route. So RPE and good hygiene - protect the worker, and cut the hand-to-mouth route - add the personal-protection and hygiene layers: RPE for residual airborne exposure, hygiene for the ingestion route. Keeping the controls working is the crucial last piece. So back the air controls with RPE and hygiene. This is general information. This is general information.
Keep the controls working
Crucially, keep the controls working - because they only protect while they're actually working. The LEV, as an engineering control for a health hazard (bioaerosols), must be maintained and thoroughly examined and tested regularly (typically at least every fourteen months) to confirm it's still capturing the bioaerosols. This matters because extraction degrades unnoticed - a weakening fan, a clogging filter - and stops capturing effectively while still appearing to run, leaving workers exposed without an obvious sign (covered in the recycling-and-waste-facilities-lev-for-dust-and-bioaerosols page).
And consider health surveillance for workers - monitoring for early signs of respiratory effects (through questionnaires and, as advised, lung-function tests), so anyone developing a problem is caught early (when action can protect them), and so that emerging effects flag if the controls aren't working. Health surveillance backs up the exposure control, both protecting individuals and checking the controls. So the controls aren't fit-and-forget: the LEV is maintained and tested, and health is monitored, to keep the protection real and verified over time. So keep the controls working - maintain and test the LEV, and surveil health - is the essential ongoing piece: the controls must be kept proven, or they quietly stop protecting. Matching the effort to the risk is the final point. So maintain and test the LEV, and watch workers' health. This is general information. This is general information.
Match the effort to the risk
The level of control effort should match the risk, which isn't uniform across all waste work. The bioaerosol risk is highest where biologically active (organic, decaying) waste is handled in disturbing ways - composting (the controlled decomposition of organic waste), shredding, screening and turning organic or mixed waste all generate high bioaerosol levels. A facility doing these with organic waste has the most bioaerosol risk to manage, so it warrants the most control.
By contrast, a facility handling inert, dry recyclables (with little biologically active material) has much less bioaerosol risk. So the controls should be targeted at the higher-risk waste and processes - concentrating the reduction, extraction, ventilation, RPE and hygiene where the bioaerosol generation and exposure are greatest, rather than treating every part of every facility identically. A proper assessment of the facility's waste and processes identifies where the risk is highest and where the control effort should focus. This makes the management proportionate and effective. So match the effort to the risk - focus control on the higher-risk waste - is the final principle: target the controls at the biologically active waste and disturbing processes where the bioaerosol risk is greatest. So concentrate the control where the risk is highest. This is general information. This is general information.
Questions
By following the hierarchy of control - reducing their release (enclosing dusty steps, damping down, limiting disturbance), capturing what's released at source with LEV, ventilating the space, using RPE where needed, keeping good hygiene, and maintaining and testing the LEV - all matched to the risk. Bioaerosols in a waste facility are managed by following the hierarchy of control, because they cause real respiratory harm. First, reduce their release: bioaerosols are thrown into the air by disturbing biologically active waste (tipping, sorting, shredding, screening, turning, composting), so enclose the dustiest steps, dampen down where appropriate, and limit unnecessary disturbance to cut the amount released at source. Then, capture what's released at source with local exhaust ventilation (LEV) at the release points. Ventilate the space with general ventilation to keep the background level down. Use respiratory protection (RPE) where the other controls don't fully protect, for residual exposure. Add good hygiene (washing, not eating in work areas, separate clothing) given the hand-to-mouth route. And keep the controls working - the LEV maintained and thoroughly examined and tested regularly (typically at least every fourteen months), with health surveillance to back it up. The effort should match the risk, which is highest with biologically active, decaying, organic waste and disturbing processes like composting. So it's a layered approach - reduce, capture, ventilate, protect, keep hygiene, and keep the controls proven. So by reducing release, extracting, ventilating, protecting and testing. This is general information. This is general information.
Reducing their release at source - because they're thrown into the air by disturbing biologically active waste, enclosing the dustiest steps, damping down and limiting disturbance cuts the amount released before it starts, which is more effective than only capturing or diluting what's already airborne. The most effective way to control bioaerosols is to reduce their release at source - the top of the hierarchy of control. Bioaerosols are thrown into the air by disturbing biologically active waste (tipping, sorting, shredding, screening, turning, composting), so reducing that disturbance and controlling the dustiest steps cuts the amount released in the first place. Measures include enclosing the dustiest, most bioaerosol-generating processes (containing the release), damping down where appropriate (moisture suppresses release), and process design that reduces unnecessary disturbance of the material. This is more effective than only capturing or diluting bioaerosols after they're airborne, because it reduces the problem before it starts - less released means less to capture with LEV, less to clear with ventilation, and less for workers to breathe. It also makes the other controls more effective by giving them less to deal with. So while capturing at source with LEV, ventilating, RPE and hygiene all matter, reducing the release is the most effective single measure and comes first. Then LEV captures what reduction doesn't prevent. So the most effective control is reducing the release at source. So reducing how much is released in the first place. This is general information. This is general information.
Because it only protects while it's actually capturing the bioaerosols, and extraction degrades unnoticed (a weakening fan, clogging filter) and stops capturing while still running - so as an engineering control for a real health hazard it must be maintained and thoroughly examined and tested regularly (typically at least every 14 months) to prove it still works. The LEV in a waste facility needs maintaining and testing because it only protects workers while it's actually capturing the bioaerosols - and extraction degrades over time without obvious signs. A weakening fan, a clogging filter, a blocked duct can all reduce the capture, and the system can stop capturing the bioaerosols effectively while still appearing to run - so workers are exposed without any obvious sign that anything's wrong. Because bioaerosols cause real respiratory harm (hypersensitivity pneumonitis, organic dust toxic syndrome, aggravated asthma), that unnoticed under-protection is a genuine risk. So the LEV, as an engineering control for a health hazard, must be maintained (kept in good order) and thoroughly examined and tested regularly - typically at least every fourteen months under COSHH - to confirm it's still capturing the bioaerosols as it should. The test measures the airflow and capture and checks the system, proving it's still doing its job. Without maintenance and testing, you'd be relying on extraction that might have quietly stopped protecting workers. So it's maintained and tested to keep the bioaerosol control proven, not assumed. So because extraction degrades unnoticed and must be proven to still capture. So because it must be proven to still capture the bioaerosols. This is general information. This is general information.
Yes - RPE (suitable, face-fit-tested) where reduction, extraction and ventilation don't fully control the exposure, as a backup to the source controls; and good hygiene (washing, not eating in work areas, separate clothing) because bioaerosols can be transferred hand-to-mouth as well as breathed. Yes - workers in waste facilities need both RPE and hygiene measures, alongside the source controls. Respiratory protection (RPE): where the reduction of release, source extraction (LEV) and ventilation don't fully control the bioaerosol exposure - some tasks and areas have residual exposure - workers need suitable, face-fit-tested RPE appropriate for the bioaerosols. RPE protects the individual worker for the residual exposure, as a backup to the source controls (which protect everyone in the area), not a substitute for them. Good hygiene: because bioaerosols are biological particles that can be transferred hand-to-mouth (ingested) as well as breathed, hygiene matters to control that other exposure route. That means washing hands (especially before eating), not eating, drinking or smoking in work areas (where bioaerosols on the hands could be ingested), and keeping work clothing separate (so contamination isn't carried around or home). So RPE addresses residual airborne exposure, and hygiene addresses the hand-to-mouth route - both complementing the airborne source controls. Together with reduction, extraction and ventilation, they form the layered protection workers need. So yes - RPE for residual airborne exposure, hygiene for the ingestion route. So yes; RPE as backup, and hygiene for the hand-to-mouth route. This is general information. This is general information.
No - the risk is highest where biologically active (organic, decaying) waste is handled in disturbing ways like composting, shredding and turning, and much lower for inert, dry recyclables; so the control effort should be targeted at the higher-risk waste and processes, matched to the actual risk. No - not every waste facility has the same bioaerosol risk, and the control effort should be matched to the actual risk. The bioaerosol risk is highest where biologically active (organic, decaying) waste is handled in disturbing ways: composting (the controlled decomposition of organic waste), shredding, screening and turning organic or mixed waste all generate high bioaerosol levels, because they disturb microbe-laden material. So a facility doing these with organic waste has the most bioaerosol risk to manage. By contrast, a facility handling inert, dry recyclables (with little biologically active material) has much less bioaerosol risk. So the risk depends on the type of waste (organic and decaying versus inert) and the processes (how much they disturb the material). This means the controls should be targeted at the higher-risk waste and processes - concentrating the reduction, extraction, ventilation, RPE and hygiene where the bioaerosol generation and exposure are greatest - rather than treating every part of every facility identically. A proper assessment of the facility's waste and processes identifies where the risk is highest and where the control effort should focus, making the management proportionate and effective. So no - the risk varies, so target the controls where it's highest. So no; it varies with the waste and processes. This is general information. This is general information.
Directly - the whole point of managing them is to prevent the respiratory harm they cause (irritation, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, organic dust toxic syndrome, aggravated asthma); because those effects are real and serious, the controls (reduce, capture, ventilate, protect, test) exist to keep workers from breathing the bioaerosols. Managing bioaerosols relates directly to the health effects they cause - the whole purpose of the management is to prevent those effects. Bioaerosols cause real respiratory harm: irritation of the airways, hypersensitivity pneumonitis (an allergic lung inflammation that can cause lasting damage), organic dust toxic syndrome (a flu-like reaction to heavy organic-dust exposure), and aggravation of asthma and allergies (covered in the how-bioaerosols-affect-health-in-waste-facilities page). Because these effects are real and can be serious, bioaerosols are a genuine health hazard to control, not a nuisance to tolerate. So the management measures - reducing the release, capturing at source with LEV, ventilating, using RPE, keeping good hygiene, and maintaining and testing the controls - all exist to keep workers from breathing (and ingesting) the bioaerosols, and so to prevent the harm. The seriousness of the health effects is what justifies the effort of proper, layered, maintained control: if bioaerosols were harmless, none of it would be needed. So the health effects are the reason for the management, and the management is aimed squarely at preventing them. Health surveillance also links the two, catching early effects and flagging if the controls are failing. So managing them is about preventing the respiratory harm they cause. So directly - the management exists to prevent those health effects. This is general information. This is general information.
Managing bioaerosols rests on extraction that captures them at source and keeps working - they cause real respiratory harm; we thoroughly examine and test waste-facility LEV, confirming it still captures the bioaerosols and dust, so the control workers rely on is proven, as COSHH requires for a health hazard. Ask us to test your LEV. This is general information.
