Silica Case Studies
Resources · Resources overview
Representative silica case studies showing how silica dust monitoring, silica air sampling and silica risk assessment programmes are scoped, run and reported for UK workplaces. The scenarios below are illustrative formats based on common silica exposure patterns in construction, engineered stone fabrication, concrete cutting, abrasive blasting and quarrying - they are not named client projects.
How to read these silica case studies
Each scenario below follows the same structure: the silica exposure question being asked, the silica monitoring strategy used to answer it, the kind of result that would normally come back from a defensible programme, and the silica control or COSHH actions that result would typically trigger.
The scenarios are written as representative formats rather than named client projects. They are intended to show how a silica monitoring or silica risk assessment programme is shaped to a workplace - not to claim specific outcomes for specific organisations. Real numbers from a real silica monitoring round would always be reported back to the commissioning employer in their own report.
Scenario A - engineered stone worktop fabrication
Question: an engineered stone fabrication workshop wants to demonstrate that operators sizing, mitring, edge profiling and polishing high-silica worktops are working below the respirable crystalline silica Workplace Exposure Limit, and that wet processing plus dedicated silica LEV is adequate as the engineering control.
Strategy: a similar exposure group is defined for fabrication operators. Full-shift personal pumped sampling is run with respirable cyclones on lapel heads, calibrated against the cyclone before and after each shift. Short task-based silica samples are added for the most intense edge profiling and dry-touch-up tasks. Wet processing, silica LEV face velocity and RPE use are documented per sample.
Output: an EN 689-aligned silica monitoring report comparing 8-hour TWA RCS exposure against the silica WEL, identifying any tasks or operators where in-house silica action levels were exceeded, and recommending specific silica control changes (for example tightening wet processing on a specific machine or repositioning silica LEV capture for a polishing station). The output feeds directly into the silica COSHH review.
Scenario B - concrete cutting on a construction site
Question: a principal contractor wants representative silica dust monitoring data for cutting and coring reinforced concrete with handheld and walk-behind saws, to evidence adequacy of water suppression and on-tool extraction under COSHH.
Strategy: personal sampling on operators across a representative shift covers continuous cutting work, with task-based silica samples added for short, intense cuts. Water suppression flow, on-tool extraction capture and RPE in use are recorded per sample. Background static silica sampling is added at the work area perimeter for diagnostic context.
Output: a silica air sampling report sets each operator RCS exposure against the silica WEL, identifies whether water suppression alone, on-tool extraction alone or both are providing sufficient silica control, and recommends specific operational changes - for example escalating from intermittent water feed to continuous suppression, or moving from a borrowed extraction unit to a tool-matched on-tool extraction system.
Scenario C - quarry silica exposure programme
Question: a quarry operator wants a baseline silica exposure profile across drilling, crushing, screening and tipping operations, including plant operator cabins, to evidence proportionate silica control under COSHH.
Strategy: similar exposure groups are defined by role (drillers, crusher operators, screen operators, loader and tipping crews). Full-shift personal silica air sampling is run for representative operators in each SEG, with static sampling added inside cabins to evidence the effectiveness of cabin pressurisation and filtration against quarry silica dust.
Output: an EN 689-aligned silica monitoring report sets operator RCS exposure against the silica WEL by role, flags cabins where filtration or pressurisation is not adequately controlling quarry silica exposure, and prioritises silica control upgrades - typically a mix of dust suppression at transfer points, cabin filtration upgrades and silica-specific RPE programme review.
Scenario D - abrasive blasting silica exposure review
Question: a blasting contractor wants to evidence silica exposure control for operators blasting silica-bearing substrate, even where substitute media is in use, and to confirm that enclosure, blast booth ventilation and air-fed respiratory protection are doing the job.
Strategy: short, task-based personal silica air sampling is used because blasting tasks generate very high RCS concentrations within seconds. Helmet feed pressure, breathing-air quality, blast booth ventilation and substrate type are recorded. Static silica sampling outside the blast enclosure characterises bystander silica exposure and re-entrainment risk.
Output: a silica monitoring report sets operator RCS exposure against the silica WEL with explicit task and protection-factor context, identifies any enclosure or blast booth ventilation gaps allowing silica dust to escape, and recommends targeted silica control upgrades - frequently a combination of enclosure integrity work, blast booth ventilation rebalancing and tightened RPE management.
What every silica case study programme has in common
Across every scenario, three things drive a defensible silica monitoring programme: a sampling strategy aligned to BS EN 689, full documentation of tasks, materials and silica controls at the point of sampling, and reporting that links each RCS result back to the silica control change most likely to reduce exposure on the next round.
Programmes that skip any of those three quickly produce silica monitoring numbers that are technically accurate but operationally useless - they cannot be used to defend a silica COSHH position or to prioritise the next silica control investment.
Frequently asked questions
Are these silica case studies real client projects?
No. The scenarios are representative formats based on common silica exposure patterns in UK construction, engineered stone fabrication, concrete cutting, abrasive blasting and quarry work. They are written to show how silica monitoring and silica risk assessment programmes are scoped and reported, not to claim specific outcomes for specific organisations.
Why are no client names or numbers published?
Silica monitoring data is commercially and operationally sensitive. Real RCS exposure results are reported back to the commissioning employer in their own silica monitoring report and remain confidential. Published silica case studies are therefore deliberately written as representative scenarios rather than client-named projects.
Can a silica case study be used to estimate cost or duration for my workplace?
The scenarios indicate the shape of a silica monitoring programme - number of operators sampled, type of sampling, level of reporting - but actual scope, cost and duration depend on the specific tasks, materials, silica controls in place, number of similar exposure groups and the silica COSHH question being answered. Scoping is done on enquiry.
Do silica case studies cover health surveillance?
They cover the silica exposure measurement and silica control side of the programme. Health surveillance arrangements for workers exposed to respirable crystalline silica are a separate workstream and are normally referenced in the silica risk assessment rather than in a silica monitoring case study.
Which sectors do these silica case studies cover?
The representative silica scenarios cover engineered stone fabrication, construction concrete cutting and coring, quarrying and abrasive blasting - the four UK sectors where respirable crystalline silica exposure is most commonly the dominant occupational hygiene question.
How is a silica case study programme scoped on enquiry?
Scoping starts from the silica exposure question being asked, the tasks and materials involved, the silica controls already in place, the number of operators and similar exposure groups, and the reporting depth required to satisfy the relevant silica COSHH or silica compliance need.
Related pages