Industrial Hygiene and 1 Monitoring Equipment 2011 ICS Carpet Cleaning Chemical Market Study
Table of Contents Full Report Page # 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 to Recommend Manufacturer 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 2
Study Overview 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 equipment Ratings of specific industrial hygiene manufacturers and their products 3
Methodology Research Details Target Audience: A total of 50,958 active, qualified ISHN direct request subscribers Sample Selection Method: Systematic sample from the domestic circulation, on an Nth name basis. Survey Method: Online Incentive: (5) $50 AMEX gift checks Field Dates: February 15 27, 2011 Completed Returns Summary: Analysis and Presentation Online 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. 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, although not all questions were asked each year. 4 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%
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. 6 62% No 55% 69% 38% Yes 31% 45% 2011 (n=324) 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. 7 50% No 47% 52% 75% 50% Yes 25% 48% 53% 2011 (n=324) 2009 (n=358) 2007 (n=296) 2005 (n=241) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Differences of 4.8% are considered significant using a 90% confidence interval and are indicated by 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 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 Safety manager on staff Professional industrial hygienist on staff Consultant Line employees Supervisors Occupational health nurse Other 15% 11% 14% 13% 10% 16% 4% 4% 1% 12% 9% 6% 32% 33% 26% 28% 25% 29% 59% 60% 63% Other Mentions: Safety professional (11) EH&S professional (6) Technician (6) Corporate (2) All site employees are trained Calibration Leader Emergency manager Facilities department Field safety specialists IAQ specialists Insurance IH person Lab technologist Maintenance Outside IH Project superintendent UAW IHT 2011 (n=324) 2009 (n=358) 2007 (n=292) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Differences of 4.8% are considered significant using a 90% confidence interval and are indicated by 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 / 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 respectively
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 2011 Spending Levels 25% or less 26%-50% 14% 79% Increase 19% 51%-75% 76%-100% 2% 5% Mean increase = 24% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Stay about the same 70% Decrease 11% Decrease Percentage 25% or less 39% 26%-50% 33% 51%-75% 6% 76%-100% 22% Mean decrease = 47% 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? 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
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. Calibration Gases and Regulators Single-Gas Monitors Docking Stations Multi-Gas Monitors Radiation Monitors Fixed Point Detection Systems Indoor Air Quality Monitors Noise Monitors % No Planned Sig. test @ Purchase 90% CI Among those planning to purchase 2011 44% 15% 35% 50% 6.1% 2009 49% 20% 30% 51% 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 71% 72% 8.5% 83% 84% 11.1% 52% 59% 6.9% 88% 89% 13.9% 80% 78% 10.2% 68% 72% 59% 63% 8.3% 7.2% 36% 37% 36% 39% 50% 44% Dust and 2011 69% 44% 36% 19% 99 8.7% Particulate Monitors 2009 74% 52% 30% 18% 94 53% 50% 58% 56% 53% 52% 54% 64% 32% 31% 31% 29% 37% 31% 21% 29% 21% 27% 29% 24% 33% 28% 33% 31% 33% 31% 19% 20% 26% 21% 21% 20% 20% 22% 10% 8% n= 180 183 95 102 55 58 157 147 38 38 66 78 104 183 133 133 12 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 Toxic gases, fumes, vapors from chemical or manufacturing processes Noise 53% 61% 64% 62% 55% 56% Other Mentions: Lead (5) Silica (5) Benzene (2) Carbon dioxide (2) Carbon monoxide (2) Cobalt (2) Mold (2) Nuisance dust (2) Confined space gases and 50% 40% vapors 47% Welding (2) Combustible dust Asbestos Radiation Other 12% 8% 11% 10% 21% 15% 17% 16% 14% 17% 18% 21% 2011 (n=324) 2009 (n=358) 2007 (n=288) Chemicals (3) Dust (2) Formalin (2) Aerospace ground servicing Ammonia Beryllium Chrominum Coatings Combustible vapors Xylene Mould General air quality General IAQ Heavy metals Hex chrome dust IDLH atmospheres Indoor air quality Metallic powders Metals Micro particulate MRF Natural gas Office indoor air quality testing Paint Pharmaceutical compounds Potent compounds (API) pharma/biotech Stoddard solvent Toxic dusts Varies depending on client VOCs 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Differences of 4.8% are considered d significant ifi using a 90% confidence interval and are indicated d by Q4. Which of the following are the most significant exposure risks that employees face at your company? Question Type: Multiple Choice
Applications for Hygiene Monitoring Equipment General worker protection is the top application for respondents use of hygiene monitoring equipment, followed by confined space entry. General worker protection Confined space entry Ventilation Leak detection Hazmat response Hot work permits Cleaning & inspection Vessel entry Facility turnaround/shut Underground work Other 24% 21% 20% 15% 12% 9% 12% 12% 9% 11% 14% 10% 8% 9% 9% 5% 3% 4% 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 4% 7% 8% 62% 64% 66% 53% 54% 59% Other Mentions: IAQ (2) Audit Requirements Beryllium exposure Change in operations Containment verification with processing API Hearing protection and forklift CO emissions LP lift truck carburetion Personal metals fume exposure Personnel monitoring Silica detection Site remediation: radiation and by-products of processing uranium 2011 (n=324) 2009 (n=358) 2007 (n=279) 15 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Differences of 4.8% are considered d significant ifi using a 90% confidence interval and are indicated d by Q10. Please indicate the top 2 applications for your use of hygiene monitoring equipment. Question Type: Multiple Choice
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. Noise monitors Multi-gas monitors Calibration gases and regulators Single-gas monitors Indoor air quality monitors Dust and particulate monitors Docking stations Fixed point detection systems Radiation Monitors Other 8% 48% 55% 45% 44% 48% 39% 42% 51% 45% 34% 38% 22% 32% 39% 34% 26% 34% 28% 77% 84% 81% 76% 78% 78% 73% 76% 75% 2011 (n=324) 2009 (n=358) 2007 (n=294) Other Mentions: Air sampling pumps Automated weather station Colormetric tubes Constant flow air pumps Light meter Low and hi volume pumps (2) Mercury vapor Organic vapor analyzer Passive badges (2) Passive dosimeters Personal air samplers ph monitoring PiD (2) Sampling pumps (2) Sapphire Temp/humidity monitors Velometers Wet bulb temperature WGBT XRF, pumps 16 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Differences of 4.8% are considered d significant ifi using a 90% confidence interval and are indicated d by Q8. Which of the following types of industrial hygiene monitoring equipment are currently used at your company? Question Type: Multiple Choice
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. Use of software for record keeping and calibration scheduling Accuracy of sensor technology Employees face potentially fatal toxic exposures Service from vendor Remote management of instrument data Cost 15% 14% 17% 14% 10% 18% 38% 33% 29% 36% 30% 40% 31% 25% 31% 26% 25% 29% Other Mentions: Lack of experience and education (6) Complexity of use (4) Ease of use (3) Reliability (3) Expense (2) Exposure (2) Technical aptitude of worker (2) Can t see the hazards in most situations so it is not top priority if you can t touch it Control Durability Employees tend dto be afraid to be responsible Frequency of application Interpretation of results 17 It is a commodity purchase It is equipment that lasts when cared for Maintenance Not consumable Not needed 100% of the time Not needed as commodities Ongoing calibration and maintenance Our monitoring equipment is used daily & calibrated every 3 months per state OSHA Regulatory requirements There is not enough competition Use of the items Other 7% 15% 18% 2011 (n=324) 2009 (n=358) 2007 (n=272) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Differences of 4.8% are considered d significant ifi using a 90% confidence interval and are indicated d by Q7. In your opinion, what prevents industrial hygiene monitoring equipment from becoming commodities, such as earplugs or gloves? Question Type: Multiple Choice
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 using a 90% confidence interval Q19. In what state are you located? Question Type: Single Choice
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% 20% 21% 10% 6% 6% 8% 9% 12% 11% 13% 12% 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 Differences of 4.8% are considered significant using a 90% confidence interval and are indicated by Q20. How many full-time employees (and equivalents) are employed by your company across all locations (plants, divisions, subsidiaries)? Question Type: Single Choice
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% 20% 19% 15% 18% 10% 10% 8% 7% 11% 11% 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 Differences of 4.8% are considered significant using a 90% confidence interval and are indicated by Q21. What were your company s total 2010 revenues? Question Type: Single Choice
Industry Significantly more respondents come from the manufacturing, chemical or construction industries. Manufacturing Chemical Construction Agriculture and food Consulting Government municipality Utility Steel mill Education Hospitals/Retail centers Oil & gas (drilling and production) Pulp and paper Aerospace Military Pharma/BioTech Refineries and petrochemical facility Airlines Automotive Mining 6% 6% 6% 5% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 15% 12% 12% Other Mentions: Insurance (3) Transportation (2) Battery Coating Services Communications Distribution Environmental Services Equipment Extrusion aluminum Fiberglass Foundry Industrial plant Insulation Optical & laser components Packaging RRM remediation Research labs Rubber & plastics Safety Service Shipyard Textile USDA FSIS Valve repair 22 Recycling Other 1% 10% 2011 (n=324) Differences of 4.8% are considered d significant ifi using a 90% confidence interval and are indicated d by Q22. In which industry sector are you employed? Question Type: Single Choice 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
23 Industry Knowledge Clear 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 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 Copyright 2010 by Clear Seas Research/BNP Media. All rights reserved. Results of this study ICS cannot be Carpet used in whole, Cleaning or part, for promotional Chemical literature Market or otherwise without Study the expressed written permission.