Industrial Hygiene andIndustrial Hygiene and 1Industrial Hygiene andIndustrial Hygiene andMonitoring EquipmentMonitoring Equipment
20112011
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
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.
Table of Contents – Full Report
2Page #Study Overview 3Methodology 4Key Findings 5Study Results: Staffing Study Results: Staffing
Employment of Full-Time Hygienist 7Usage of Industrial Hygiene Consultant 8Operator of Industrial Hygiene Monitoring Equipment to Collect Exposure Data 9
Study Results: Purchasing TrendsExpected Company Spending 11Types of Equipment Planning to Purchase 13Types of Equipment Planning to Purchase 13
Study Results: Utilization of Industrial Hygiene EquipmentExposure Risks 15Applications for Hygiene Monitoring Equipment 16Types of Industrial Hygiene Monitoring Equipment Currently In Use 18Attributes That Prevent Equipment From Becoming Commodities 19
Study Results: Purchasing Industrial Hygiene EquipmentStudy Results: Purchasing Industrial Hygiene EquipmentPreferred Information Sources 21Awareness of Manufacturers 22Hygiene Monitoring Equipment Purchased From 28Likelihood to Switch from Manufacturer 34Satisfaction With Manufacturer 35Lik lih d t R d M f t 36Likelihood to Recommend Manufacturer 36
Demographic ProfileLocation of Respondents 38Number of Full-Time Employees 392010 Company Revenue 40Industry 41
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.
Appendix 1: Industry Involvement By Manufacturer Aware OfAppendix 2: Equipment Users By Manufacturers Aware Of
Industrial Hygiene & Monitoring Equipment, 2011
Study Overview
3Background
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 ObjectivesPurpose and ObjectivesThe 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 staffingTrends in industrial hygiene equipment purchasingUtilization of industrial hygiene equipmentyg q pRatings of specific industrial hygiene manufacturers and their products
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.
Industrial Hygiene & Monitoring Equipment, 2011
Methodology
4Research DetailsTarget Audience: A total of 50,958 active, qualified ISHN direct request subscribersSample Selection Method: Systematic sample from the domestic circulation, on an Nth name basis.
Analysis and PresentationOnline results were reviewed and cleaned to eliminate data from unqualified individuals and/or speeders. The data was then exported to SPSS, a statistical software package, and data tabulations were produced.
Survey Method: OnlineIncentive: (5) $50 AMEX gift checksField Dates: February 15 – 27, 2011Completed Returns Summary:
The data produced in SPSS is presented in graphical and tabular format with the number of respondents who answered each question.Some questions in this survey requested respondents to write in a response. Other than minor editing for readability, these responses are presented as written by the respondent.Whenever possible data was trended to previous years althoughWhenever possible data was trended to previous years, although not all questions were asked each year.
Number Mailed
Undeliverable/Unusable
Usable Base
Usable Returns
Response 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%
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.
Industrial Hygiene & Monitoring Equipment, 2011
Study Results
Staffing
Study Results
Staffing
Employment of Full-Time HygienistJust over one-in-three 2011 survey participants indicate their company does employ a full-time hygienist on payroll to manage toxic exposures.
6
62%
69%
55%
62%
No
45%
38%
Yes
31%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2011 (n=324)2009 (n=358)2007 (n=296)
Differences of 4.8% are considered significant using a 90% confidence interval and are indicated by
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.
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
Industrial Hygiene & Monitoring Equipment, 2011
Usage of Industrial Hygiene ConsultantConsistent 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.
7
50%
75%
52%
47%
50%
No
53%
50%
Yes
25%
48%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2011 (n=324)2009 (n=358)2007 (n=296)2005 (n=241)
Differences of 4.8% are considered significant using a 90% confidence interval and are indicated by
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.
Industrial Hygiene & Monitoring Equipment, 2011
Q2. Does your company use the services of an industrial hygiene consultant to manage your company’s toxic exposures monitoring program?Question Type: Single Choice
Operator of Industrial Hygiene Monitoring Equipment to Collect Exposure DataSafety manager on staff is the primary person who operates the industrial hygiene monitoring equipment, followed by professional industrial hygienist on staff and consultants.
8
63%60%
32%
59%Safety manager on staff
Other Mentions:Safety professional (11)
29%
26%
25%
33%
28%
32%
Consultant
Professional industrial hygieniston staff
EH&S professional (6)Technician (6)Corporate (2)All site employees are trainedCalibration LeaderEmergency managerFacilities department
16%
14%
10%
11%
13%
15%
Supervisors
Line employees
Facilities departmentField safety specialistsIAQ specialistsInsurance IH personLab technologistMaintenanceOutside IH
1%
16%
9%
4%
12%
4%
Other
Occupational health nurse
2011 (n=324)2009 (n=358)2007 ( 292)
Project superintendentUAW IHT
6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2007 (n=292)
Differences of 4.8% are considered significant using a 90% confidence interval and are indicated by
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.
Q3. Who at your company operates the industrial hygiene monitoring equipment to collect exposure data?Question Type: Multiple Choice
Industrial Hygiene & Monitoring Equipment, 2011
Study Results
Purchasing Trends
Study Results
Purchasing Trends
Expected Company SpendingCompared to 2009, significantly more respondents expect their companies spending on industrial hygiene monitoring equipment to stay the same or increase in 2011.
10
n=
-28%
-11%
59%
70%
13%
19%2011 324
2009 358
-7% 69% 24%2007 296
-15% 72% 13%2005 241
-40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
IncreaseStay about the sameDecrease
Increase/Decrease differences of 4.8% are considered significant using a 90% confidence interval and are indicated by / respectively
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.
Q5. Compared to 2010, do you expect your company’s spending on industrial hygiene monitoring equipment to increase, decrease or stay about the same?Question Type: Single Choice
Industrial Hygiene & Monitoring Equipment, 2011
Expected Company SpendingOf 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
2011 Spending Levels 79%25% or less
Increase Percentage
Increase19%
2011 Spending Levels
5%
2%
14%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
76%-100%
51%-75%
26%-50%
Mean increase = 24%
Decrease
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Decrease Percentage
Stay about the same70%
Decrease11%
22%
6%
33%
39%
76%-100%
51%-75%
26%-50%
25% or less
Mean decrease = 47%
Q5. Compared to 2010, do you expect your company’s spending on industrial hygiene monitoring equipment to increase decrease or stay about the same?
n= 324 (Overall); 57 (Increase); 36 (Decrease)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
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.
increase, decrease or stay about the same?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]?Question Type: Single Choice
Industrial Hygiene & Monitoring Equipment, 2011
Types of Equipment Planning to PurchaseSurvey 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.
12
36%
20%
15%
32%
30%
35%
33%
51%
50%n=
20112009Single-Gas Monitors
95102
71%72%
8.5%
20112009
Calibration Gases and Regulators
180183
44%49%
6.1%
% No Planned Purchase
Sig. test @ 90% CI Among those planning to purchase
44%
39%
50%
36%
37%
37%
29%
31%
31%
31%
20%
31%
19%
33%
31%2009Single Gas Monitors 10272%8.5%
20112009Docking Stations
5558
83%84%
11.1%
20112009Multi-Gas Monitors
157147
52%59%
6.9%
56%
50%
58%
53%
44%
33%
29%
21%
21%
37%
10%
21%
21%
26%
20%
20112009Radiation Monitors
3838
88%89%
13.9%
20112009
Fixed Point Detection Systems
6678
80%78%
10.2%
44%
54%
52%
64%
53%
36%
24%
29%
28%
27%
19%
22%
20%
8%
20%20112009
Indoor Air Quality Monitors
104183
68%72%
8.3%
20112009Noise Monitors
133133
59%63%
7.2%
2011D t d 9969%52%
44%
30%
36%
18%
19%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
7 to 12 months from now Within the next 6 monthsMore than 1 year from now
Increase/Decrease differences are considered significant using a 90% confidence interval and are indicated by / respectively
20112009
Dust and Particulate Monitors
9994
69%74%
8.7%
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.
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
Increase/Decrease differences are considered significant using a 90% confidence interval and are indicated by / respectively
Industrial Hygiene & Monitoring Equipment, 2011
Study Results
Utilization of Industrial Hygiene Equipment
Study Results
Utilization of Industrial Hygiene Equipment
Exposure RisksRespondents indicate that the most significant exposure risks faced by company employees are toxic gases, fumes, vapors from chemical or manufacturing processes and noise.
14
61%53%
64%Toxic gases, fumes, vapors from chemical or
manufacturing processes
Other Mentions:Lead (5)Silica (5)
General air qualityGeneral IAQHeavy metals
47%
56%
40%
55%
50%
62%
Confined space gases andvapors
Noise
manufacturing processesBenzene (2)Carbon dioxide (2)Carbon monoxide (2)Cobalt (2)Mold (2)Nuisance dust (2)Welding (2)
Hex chrome dustIDLH atmospheresIndoor air qualityMetallic powdersMetalsMicro particulateMRF
17%
47%
14%
15%
16%
21%
Asbestos
Combustible dust
vapors Welding (2)Chemicals (3)Dust (2)Formalin (2)Aerospace ground servicingAmmoniaBeryllium
MRFNatural gasOffice indoor air quality testingPaintPharmaceutical compoundsPotent compounds (API)
11%
17%
21%
8%
14%
18%
12%
Oth
Radiation
Asbestos
2011 (n=324)2009 (n=358)
ChrominumCoatingsCombustible vaporsXyleneMould
pharma/biotechStoddard solventToxic dustsVaries depending on clientVOCs
Diff f 4 8% id d i ifi t i 90% fid i t l d i di t d b
10%21%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Other 009 ( 358)2007 (n=288)
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.
Q4. Which of the following are the most significant exposure risks that employees face at your company?Question Type: Multiple Choice
Differences of 4.8% are considered significant using a 90% confidence interval and are indicated by
Industrial Hygiene & Monitoring Equipment, 2011
Applications for Hygiene Monitoring EquipmentGeneral worker protection is the top application for respondents’ use of hygiene monitoring equipment, followed by confined space entry.
15
59%
66%
54%
64%
53%
62%
Confined space entry
General worker protectionOther Mentions:
IAQ (2)Audit Requirements
9%
9%
20%
12%
12%
21%
12%
15%
24%
Hazmat response
Leak detection
Ventilation
qBeryllium exposureChange in operationsContainment verification with processing APIHearing protection and forklift CO emissionsLP lift t k b ti
9%
10%
9%
3%
9%
14%
5%
8%
11%
Vessel entry
Cleaning & inspection
Hot work permits
LP lift truck carburetionPersonal metals fume exposurePersonnel monitoringSilica detectionSite remediation: radiation and by-products of
2%
2%
4%
2%
2%
3%
4%
3%
3%
Underground work
Facility turnaround/shut
Vessel entry
2011 (n=324)2009 (n=358)
and by products of processing uranium
Diff f 4 8% id d i ifi t i 90% fid i t l d i di t d b
7%8%
4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Other009 ( 358)
2007 (n=279)
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.
Q10. Please indicate the top 2 applications for your use of hygiene monitoring equipment.Question Type: Multiple Choice
Differences of 4.8% are considered significant using a 90% confidence interval and are indicated by
Industrial Hygiene & Monitoring Equipment, 2011
Types of Industrial Hygiene Monitoring Equipment Currently In UseNoise 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
78%
81%
78%
84%
76%
77%
Multi-gas monitors
Noise monitors
Other Mentions:Air sampling pumps
45%
75%
78%
55%
76%
44%
48%
73%
Single-gas monitors
Calibration gases andregulators
Automated weather stationColormetric tubesConstant flow air pumpsLight meterLow and hi volume pumps (2)Mercury vapor
22%
45%
39%
38%
51%
48%
34%
42%
44%
Docking stations
Dust and particulatemonitors
Indoor air quality monitors Mercury vaporOrganic vapor analyzerPassive badges (2)Passive dosimetersPersonal air samplerspH monitoringPiD (2)
28%
34%
22%
34%
39%
8%
26%
32%
Radiation Monitors
Fixed point detectionsystems
2011 (n=324)2009 (n=358)
( )Sampling pumps (2)SapphireTemp/humidity monitorsVelometersWet bulb temperatureWGBTXRF
Diff f 4 8% id d i ifi t i 90% fid i t l d i di t d b
8%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Other2009 (n 358)2007 (n=294)
XRF, pumps
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.
Q8. Which of the following types of industrial hygiene monitoring equipment are currently used at your company?Question Type: Multiple Choice
Differences of 4.8% are considered significant using a 90% confidence interval and are indicated by
Industrial Hygiene & Monitoring Equipment, 2011
Attributes That Prevent Equipment From Becoming CommoditiesUse 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
29%33%
36%
38%
A f
Use of software for recordkeeping and calibration
schedulingOther Mentions:
Lack of experience and education (6)Complexity of use (4)
It is a commodity purchaseIt is equipment that lasts when cared for
31%
40%
25%
30%
31%
36%
Employees face potentiallyfatal toxic exposures
Accuracy of sensortechnology
Complexity of use (4)Ease of use (3)Reliability (3)Expense (2)Exposure (2)Technical aptitude of worker (2)
when cared forMaintenanceNot consumableNot needed 100% of the timeNot needed as commodities
17%
29%
14%
25%
15%
26%
Remote management ofinstrument data
Service from vendor
( )Can’t see the hazards in most situations so it is not top priority if you can’t touch itControlDurabilityE l t d t b f id
Ongoing calibration and maintenanceOur monitoring equipment is used daily & calibrated every 3 months per state OSHAR l t i t
18%
17%
18%
10%
15%
14%
Other
Cost
2011 (n=324)2009 (n=358)
Employees tend to be afraid to be responsibleFrequency of applicationInterpretation of results
Regulatory requirementsThere is not enough competitionUse of the items
Diff f 4 8% id d i ifi t i 90% fid i t l d i di t d b
7%18%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Other 2009 (n=358)2007 (n=272)
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.
Q7. In your opinion, what prevents industrial hygiene monitoring equipment from becoming commodities, such as earplugs or gloves?Question Type: Multiple Choice
Differences of 4.8% are considered significant using a 90% confidence interval and are indicated by
Industrial Hygiene & Monitoring Equipment, 2011
Demographic ProfileDemographic Profile
Location of RespondentsNational 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%
Differences of 4.8% are considered significant using a 90% confidence interval
Total 324
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.
Q19. In what state are you located? Question Type: Single Choice
g g
Industrial Hygiene & Monitoring Equipment, 2011
Number of Full-Time EmployeesRoughly one-half of survey participants report fewer than 1000 full-time employees across all locations.
20
50% 2011 (n=324)
30%
40%
21%
12% 11%13% 12%
20%
30%
6% 6%8% 9%
11%
0%
10%
Fewer than 10 - 49 50 - 99 100 - 499 500 - 999 1,000 - 2,501 - 5,001 - 25,000 or10 2,500 5,000 24,999 more
Differences of 4.8% are considered significant using a 90% confidence interval and are indicated by
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.
Q20. How many full-time employees (and equivalents) are employed by your company across all locations (plants, divisions, subsidiaries)?Question Type: Single Choice
Industrial Hygiene & Monitoring Equipment, 2011
2010 Company RevenueHalf of respondents indicate that their company revenue for 2010 was $100 million or more.
21
50% 2011 (n=324)
30%
40%
10%
19%
15%18%
11% 11%
20%
30%
10%8% 7%
11% 11%
0%
10%
Less than $1 $1 million - $5 million - $25 million - $100 million - $500 million - $1 billion - $5 billion ormillion $4.9 million $24.9 million $99.9 million $499.9 million $999.9 million $4.9 million more
Differences of 4.8% are considered significant using a 90% confidence interval and are indicated by
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.
Q21. What were your company’s total 2010 revenues?Question Type: Single Choice
Industrial Hygiene & Monitoring Equipment, 2011
IndustrySignificantly more respondents come from the manufacturing, chemical or construction industries.
22
6%12%
12%15%
Agriculture and foodConstruction
ChemicalManufacturing Other Mentions:
Insurance (3)Transportation (2)BatteryCoating Services
3%
4%5%
6%6%
6%
Ed ti
Steel millUtility
Government municipalityConsulting
Agriculture and food Coating ServicesCommunicationsDistributionEnvironmental ServicesEquipmentExtrusion aluminumFiberglassF d
2%
3%3%
3%3%
AerospacePulp and paper
Oil & gas (drilling and production)Hospitals/Retail centers
Education FoundryIndustrial plantInsulationOptical & laser componentsPackagingRRM remediationResearch labs
1%1%
2%2%
2%
Automotive
AirlinesRefineries and petrochemical facility
Pharma/BioTechMilitary
Research labsRubber & plasticsSafetyServiceShipyardTextileUSDA FSIS
Diff f 4 8% id d i ifi t i 90% fid i t l d i di t d b
10%
1%1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
OtherRecycling
Mining
2011 (n=324)
Valve repair
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.
Q22. In which industry sector are you employed?Question Type: Single Choice
Differences of 4.8% are considered significant using a 90% confidence interval and are indicated by
Industrial Hygiene & Monitoring Equipment, 2011
23
Industry KnowledgeCl S R h’ t i t k f i d t t d f i lClear Seas Research’s extensive network of industry experts and professional
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 InsightThrough 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 [email protected]
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 StudyCopyright © 2010 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.