The Problem with Dust Control Methods

You’re looking for practical methods to reduce dust on construction sites. Water suppression, barriers, speed limits, covered stockpiles – you probably have these in place already.

Here’s the question most site managers don’t ask: Which control measure actually works on which dust source?

Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 requires documented “active management” of dust. That doesn’t mean you implemented control measures. It means you identified the source, targeted the right measure, and proved it worked.

Without source identification, you’re applying water suppression across the entire site hoping some of it hits the problem. That’s expensive, inefficient, and hard to defend to regulators.

With source identification, you deploy targeted suppression exactly where dust originates. Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust did this and achieved an 82% reduction in Scope 3 emissions from waste collection. Not estimated. Measured.

The difference is knowing what caused the dust before you try to control it.

What Visual Causality Actually Means

EMSOL’s Praxis system combines real-time air quality sensors, site cameras, and AI correlation to show you exactly which activity caused each dust spike.

A PM10 exceedance is detected at 10:47 AM. Within seconds, the system links it to camera footage showing excavation activity in the north sector at 10:46 AM. You receive a notification with timestamped video evidence. You deploy dust suppression to that specific zone. PM10 returns to baseline by 11:02 AM.

That’s documented active management. You saw the spike, identified the source, took targeted action, and proved it worked.

Morgan Sindall Construction

Before EMSOL, subcontractors disputed dust exceedances. “It wasn’t our demolition, it was the wind.” Weeks of negotiation per incident. Fines weren’t prevented, they were negotiated.

With Praxis monitoring, Morgan Sindall receives dust alerts with video evidence showing the specific contractor activity that caused each spike. Contractors receive timestamped proof. No argument. Issue resolved same-day. Active management documented.

Result: Faster compliance resolution, eliminated contractor blame-shifting, targeted mitigation instead of blanket suppression across the entire site.

Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust

Hampshire Hospitals couldn’t verify Scope 3 emissions from waste collection contractors. Telematics data isn’t shared, or can be manipulated. Result: “We think we’re reducing emissions” instead of “We know we’re reducing emissions.”

EMSOL monitored air quality at hospital loading bays with source attribution showing when and where waste collection trucks arrived. Real emissions tracked, not assumed.

Outcome: 82% reduction in Scope 3 waste collection emissions. Not estimated. Measured. Proved.

How This Changes Your Dust Management

Without source identification, a dust spike at 10:47 AM triggers investigation. Site manager checks sensors, conducts visual inspection, guesses which of five concurrent activities caused it. Water suppression gets deployed site-wide. Contractor disputes your findings. You negotiate fines.

With EMSOL source identification, the dust spike at 10:47 AM automatically links to camera footage showing the specific activity at 10:46 AM. Site manager receives notification identifying the source and location. Dust suppression gets targeted to that area only. Contractor receives timestamped video evidence. Issue resolved same-day, documented for regulators.

The difference is proof. You move from explaining data to showing evidence.

Which Dust Control Method to Use

Once you know the source, you can target the right control measure.

Water suppression works on active excavation, demolished material, and exposed soil. Misting cannons and water sprayers keep surfaces moist so particles don’t become airborne. The EPA’s Best Management Practices recommend multiple daily applications depending on weather. Deploy this when your monitoring shows dust from material handling or exposed surfaces.

Physical barriers block wind-driven dust. Place fencing and temporary barriers at right angles to prevailing wind direction. This works when monitoring shows dust spikes correlate with wind patterns rather than mechanical activities.

Speed management reduces dust from vehicle traffic on unpaved roads. Controlling traffic speed on internal site roads cuts the mechanical action that kicks up particles. Use this when monitoring identifies vehicle movement as the dust source.

Material storage covers prevent wind accessing stockpiles. Cover sand, gravel, and aggregate with tarps. Store cement in enclosed silos. This works when monitoring shows dust from stored materials rather than active operations.

Power tool extraction captures dust at source from cutting, grinding, and drilling. Integrated extraction systems pull particles into filters before they become airborne. Deploy this when monitoring identifies specific tool activities as dust sources.

The pattern: each method works brilliantly when targeted at the right source. Without knowing the source, you’re guessing which one to use.

Evaluate Your Current Dust Strategy

Ask yourself these questions:

Do you measure dust in real-time? Passive sampling tells you there was a problem two weeks ago. Real-time sensors tell you it’s happening now so you can respond.

Can you identify which activity caused the dust? Without source identification, you’re guessing which of your concurrent activities caused an exceedance.

Can you prove your mitigation worked? Can you show that water suppression in zone X reduced the dust spike from source Y?

Can contractors dispute your findings? Without video evidence, they’ll argue it was wind or the adjacent site. Video proof ends that conversation.

Can you document active management for regulators? Section 61 wants proof you saw the problem, identified the source, and took targeted action.

If you can’t answer yes to all five, your dust control strategy has methods but not proof.

FAQ

Do I need source identification if I already control dust?

Control measures work if targeted at the right source. Without knowing the source, you’re spraying water everywhere hoping some hits the problem. Hampshire Hospitals saw an 82% reduction by targeting control measures at identified sources rather than applying blanket suppression.

Can’t I manually check cameras when sensors alert?

Manual correlation between a sensor spike at 10:47 AM and camera footage is slow and hard to document for regulators. EMSOL automates this with AI, creating instant timestamped evidence that’s immediately defensible.

Which dust control method is best?

It depends on the source. Water for material handling dust. Barriers for wind-driven dust. Speed control for traffic dust. Extraction for power tool dust. Know the source first, then choose the control.

Next Steps

You now understand why dust control methods fail without source identification. The gap between knowing how to reduce dust and knowing which dust source to target is the difference between guessing and proof.

EMSOL’s Praxis system shows you not just that dust happened, but what caused it, with timestamped video evidence. That transforms dust management from reactive defence to documented active management.

See how visual causality works on your site.

[CTA: Schedule a Demo / See Praxis in Action / Talk to Our Team]