With workplace head injuries sidelining tens of thousands of workers each year, the American National Standards Institute’s (ANSI) approval of the new ANSI/ISEA 100-2024 Industrial Bump Cap Standard marks an important moment for safety professionals across industries, according to Minnesota-based personal protective equipment (PPE) specialist Ergodyne. The measure establishes a consistent guideline for classification, test procedures, and performance requirements for bump caps, aiming to reduce injuries caused by head impacts with stationary objects.
Industrial bump caps serve as a category of PPE designed to curtail bumps, scrapes, and cuts in environments where traditional hard hats or safety helmets may not be required or practical. The new ANSI/ISEA 100-2024 standard addresses a critical gap in workplace head protection by providing manufacturers with a benchmark for developing effective bump cap solutions. It classifies industrial bump caps into two performance levels, both intended to reduce the force of impact resulting from a worker generated impact to the head:
- Level 1 bump caps are tested for penetration at the apex and a force transmission equivalent to 7.5 J at a single point on the front and at a single point on the back of the crown.
- Level 2 bump caps are tested for penetration at the apex and a force transmission equivalent to 12.5 J at two points on the front and at two points on the back of the crown.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, head injuries account for approximately 78,000 incidents resulting in at least one day away from work each year in the private sector. Notably, only 7.2 percent of these injuries occur in construction, where hard hats are commonly used, while service workers and those in transportation and material moving occupations—sectors less likely to utilize hard hats or bump caps—account for 22.1 percent and 20.6 percent of head injuries, respectively.
“The amount of head injuries outside of traditional hard hat zones highlights the need for a different, application-appropriate solution,” says International Safety Equipment Association Trustee and Ergodyne President Greg Schrab, who led ANSI/ISEA 100-2024 development through the ISEA Head Protection Group. “The approval of this standard is a significant step toward enhancing safety for these workers.”
BUMP CAPS VS HARD HATS
“Bump caps are a vital component of comprehensive workplace head protection,” observes ISEA CEO Cam Mackey in a statement announcing the standard. “However, ANSI/ISEA 100-2024 is not a replacement for products covered by ANSI/ISEA Z89.1, which provide an entirely different level of protection for a variety of similar and different hazards.” Bump caps and hard hats both fall under the category of head protection but are designed for very different applications, he adds:
- Protection scope. Hard hats are engineered to provide protection against falling objects and high-impact forces, making them essential for construction and other heavy-duty industries. Bump caps, on the other hand, are designed to protect against minor bumps, scrapes, and cuts from stationary objects.
- Weight and comfort. Bump caps are significantly lighter and more comfortable than hard hats, making them ideal for extended wear in low impact environments.
- Use case. Hard hats are mandated in environments with risks of falling objects. Bump caps fill the need for lighter protection where such risks are minimal but head injuries from stationary hazards still occur.
Prior to the new standard, there was no U.S. benchmark for bump cap manufacturers. The existing ANSI/ISEA Z89.1 standard for industrial head protection did not cover bump caps, and manufacturers often referenced the European standard, EN812, which has limitations, particularly concerning universal bump cap inserts. ANSI/ISEA 100 addresses these issues by incorporating testing and language clarity that accommodate various designs, including bump cap inserts that can be used with different types of headwear—from baseball caps to winter hats. The ANSI/ISEA 100-2024 standard shares similar performance requirements with EN812 but offers greater flexibility in design to meet the diverse needs of workers across various industries and work scenarios. — Egodyne, St. Paul, Minn., www.ergodyne.com