Workshop Ventilation

Part 5 of the series: School Workshops: More Than Just Classrooms

Some of the most significant risks in practical learning environments are often invisible.

Reading Time: 5–6 minutes

Introduction

When discussions about safety occur in Design and Technology workshops, STEM spaces, and laboratories, attention often focuses on hazards that are easy to identify. Teachers and students readily recognise moving machinery, sharp tools, hot surfaces, and manual handling risks because these hazards are visible and immediate.

Airborne contaminants are different.

Dust, fumes, vapours, smoke, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are often difficult to see and, in many cases, their effects are not immediately obvious. Yet many practical learning environments generate airborne contaminants on a routine basis. Woodworking activities produce dust. Welding generates fumes. Laser cutters release smoke and vapours. Adhesives, paints, solvents, and resins can release VOCs. Even common classroom technologies such as 3D printers may emit ultrafine particles and airborne contaminants during operation. Safe Work Australia identifies airborne contaminants as workplace hazards that require effective risk management and control measures.

As schools continue to invest in contemporary Technologies and STEM facilities, it is worth asking a simple question:

Are we paying enough attention to the air that teachers and students breathe?

The Challenge of Invisible Hazards

One reason airborne hazards are often overlooked is that they rarely create an immediate incident.

A student can hear a machine operating. They can see a rotating blade or recognise a trip hazard. Airborne contaminants, however, may be present without any obvious warning signs. Fine wood dust can remain suspended in the air long after equipment has stopped operating. Welding fumes may disperse rapidly throughout a workspace. VOCs released from chemicals may be present even when odours are barely noticeable.

The absence of visible dust or obvious fumes does not necessarily mean the risk has been eliminated.

In professional workplaces, airborne contaminants are treated as occupational health hazards and are managed through a combination of ventilation, extraction, monitoring, and workplace design. The same principles apply to school workshops and laboratories.

If You Don’t Measure It, You Don’t Know

One of the most common assumptions in schools is that a workshop is safe if nobody is complaining about dust, fumes, or odours.

Unfortunately, that assumption can be misleading.

Many airborne contaminants cannot be reliably assessed through observation alone. Fine particulate matter, welding fumes, and VOCs may be present even when the workshop appears clean and comfortable.

For this reason, work health and safety legislation requires air monitoring when there is uncertainty about whether exposure standards have been exceeded or where monitoring is necessary to determine whether a health risk exists. Air monitoring provides evidence about whether control measures are functioning as intended and whether exposure risks are being effectively managed.

This raises an important question for schools:

When was the last time the air quality in your workshop, laboratory, or makerspace was actually measured?

Many schools invest in extraction systems, dust collectors, and ventilation equipment. Far fewer verify that these systems continue to perform effectively over time. Equipment ages, filters deteriorate, workshops change, and teaching programs evolve. Without monitoring, schools may simply be assuming that their controls are working.

The Forgotten 30-Year Record Requirement

Air monitoring is not simply about taking measurements.

It is also about maintaining records.

Under the Work Health and Safety Regulations, where air monitoring is undertaken to assess airborne contaminants, the results must be recorded and retained for 30 years after the record is created. Those records must also be accessible to people who may have been exposed.

At first glance, a thirty-year retention period may seem excessive.

However, there is an important reason for this requirement. Many occupational illnesses associated with airborne contaminants develop gradually and may not become apparent until years or even decades after exposure. Long-term retention of air monitoring records provides an evidence base to help understand historical exposures and supports future investigations where health concerns emerge.

This requirement serves as a reminder that airborne contaminants should not be viewed as a short-term issue. They are a long-term workplace health consideration.

Dust Is More Than a Housekeeping Problem

Dust is often perceived as a cleaning issue.

In reality, dust management is a workplace health issue.

Woodworking activities such as sanding, machining, routing, and sawing generate fine particles that can remain airborne for extended periods. While larger particles eventually settle on surfaces, finer particles may remain suspended within the breathing zone of teachers and students.

Dust accumulation can affect air quality, housekeeping, visibility, and equipment performance. Some dusts may also present elevated health risks depending on the materials being processed.

Good housekeeping remains important, but effective dust management begins with controlling dust at its source through extraction systems, ventilation, and suitable work practices.

Welding Fumes and Metalworking Activities

Welding remains an important part of many secondary school Technologies programs.

However, welding fumes are not simply smoke. They are a complex mixture of fine particles and gases generated during the welding process. Exposure is influenced by factors such as welding methods, materials, coatings, and ventilation conditions.

Professional guidance consistently identifies welding fumes as a workplace exposure risk requiring effective control measures. Local exhaust ventilation is widely regarded as one of the most effective controls because it captures contaminants close to the point of generation before they enter the breathing zone of users.

For schools, the challenge is not simply installing extraction equipment but ensuring that extraction systems continue to operate effectively as workshops evolve.

VOCs, Resins and Emerging Technologies

Volatile Organic Compounds are present in many products used in workshops, laboratories, and makerspaces.

Adhesives, paints, solvents, aerosols, cleaning products, and resins may all release VOCs into the surrounding environment. In addition, technologies such as laser cutters and some forms of additive manufacturing can generate airborne contaminants that are not immediately obvious to users.

The increasing use of 3D printers in schools has created new opportunities for innovation and rapid prototyping. It has also created new conversations about air quality.

While 3D printing technologies vary considerably, schools should consider printer location, room ventilation, enclosure systems, and occupancy levels when planning these learning environments. As with other airborne contaminants, assumptions should not replace evidence.

Ventilation Is a Design Issue

Discussions about workshop safety often focus on equipment and procedures.

Air quality reminds us that safety is also influenced by the design of the environment itself.

Ventilation affects how contaminants move through a space, how quickly they disperse, and whether they accumulate over time. Decisions relating to room layout, extraction systems, equipment placement, airflow, and occupancy can all influence exposure levels.

This reinforces a theme explored throughout this series:

Safety is often shaped by design decisions long before teaching begins.

Good ventilation is not an optional extra. It is a fundamental component of creating learning environments that support both educational outcomes and workplace health and safety requirements.

Practical Tip

If your school operates woodworking machinery, welding bays, laser cutters, multiple 3D printers, or manufacturing processes that generate airborne contaminants, consider introducing routine air quality monitoring as part of your workshop review process.

One accessible option is the Qingping Air Monitor, which provides real-time information on particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), carbon dioxide, temperature, humidity, and other environmental indicators.

While it is not a substitute for professional occupational hygiene monitoring, it can provide useful information about workshop conditions and help identify situations where further investigation may be warranted. The data can be downloaded and stored as needed.

Qingping Air Monitor (affiliate link): https://link.amazon/B04lOB06R

Conclusion

Many of the most significant hazards in practical learning environments are not immediately visible.

Dust, fumes, vapours, and VOCs are part of everyday activities in workshops, laboratories, and makerspaces. While their sources differ, the principle remains the same: airborne contaminants deserve the same level of attention as machinery, tools, and physical hazards.

Schools routinely monitor equipment, maintenance schedules, and safety procedures. Yet relatively few actively monitor the quality of the air that students and teachers breathe. Air monitoring, exposure assessment, and long-term record keeping are important components of contemporary workplace health and safety management.

As schools continue to invest in Technologies and STEM learning environments, greater attention should be given to ventilation, extraction, monitoring, and environmental performance.

After all, learning spaces are experienced not only through what students can see and touch, but also through the air they breathe every day.

References

Safe Work Australia. (2025). Airborne contaminants: WHS duties for PCBUs.

Safe Work Australia. (2025). Workplace exposure standards for airborne contaminants.

SafeWork NSW. (2025). Airborne contaminants.

Work Health and Safety Regulations 2011 (Cth), r 50. Monitoring airborne contaminant levels.