TRTürkçe
ENEnglish
AZAzərbaycanca
UZO‘zbekcha
ARالعربية
FRFrançais
DEDeutsch
RUРусский
ATEX product conformity: intended use, ignition risks and equipment scope
Define the marketed equipment, explosive atmosphere and potential ignition sources before choosing an ATEX conformity route.
Start with the actual product
Directive 2014/34/EU addresses equipment and protective systems for potentially explosive atmospheres, specified safety/control devices and components for incorporation. Equipment need not be electrical: movement, friction, hot surfaces or electrostatic effects can make a non-electrical product relevant. Define the function, supplied unit and intended operating conditions before reaching a scope conclusion.
Separate this product assessment from the employer’s workplace explosion-risk assessment under 1999/92/EC. A site description can inform intended use, but a consultancy cannot assign a zone or certify a workplace from a product photograph. Likewise, an equipment category describes required protection; it does not establish every installation or operating condition.
Hypothetical case: powder-transfer coupling
A manufacturer offers a non-electrical coupling for powder transfer and calls ATEX irrelevant because it contains no wires. Obtain the moving/contacting parts, materials, speeds, supplied combinations, intended dust conditions and instructions. Ask which foreseeable ignition mechanisms need competent assessment; do not invent a category from the word powder or declare the product safe from the absence of electricity.
Record the product boundary and the reasons for the scope decision. If ignition potential, operating limits or supplied combinations remain unclear, resolve those questions before choosing evidence or marking. A material datasheet or an assertion that the coupling has operated without complaint cannot replace a justified assessment of the marketed configuration.
Choose a supported route
Article 13 links conformity procedures to the product group/category and equipment type. The routes are not interchangeable certificate packages: some combine type examination with production conformity, others use internal production control, and unit verification is an alternative. Components have a specific ATEX attestation treatment rather than automatic equipment CE/declaration treatment.
Kayra can help organise the scope brief, procedure questions and evidence gaps. The manufacturer retains product conformity and production responsibilities; notified bodies act within their actual designated tasks, and public authorities retain enforcement. The next useful input is a controlled intended-use/configuration brief for competent technical review, without a promise of approval.
Explore the subject
Use the guides to explore scope and practical questions in this field and find the detail relevant to your situation.
Tell us what you need and our specialists will contact you.
For “ATEX product conformity: intended use, ignition risks and equipment scope”, share the current product model, actual function, intended gas/dust use and available records. The agreed technical scope determines further evidence needs.