Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

IOSH Forums are closing 

The IOSH Forums will close on 5 January 2026 as part of a move to a new, more secure online community platform.

All IOSH members will be invited to join the new platform following the launch of a new member database in the New Year. You can continue to access this website until the closure date. 

For more information, please visit the IOSH website.

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 16 March 2008 19:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By cakey Hi, if anyone could assist with the following COSHH/RPE situation I would be most grateful. A graffiti removal gang apply a product by brush on to an affected area, allow it to react and then power wash the graffiti off. They currently use a polycarbonate full-face visor and disposable P2 valved disposable half mask respirator. (Not chosen by me I must add) I have been advised that in order to correctly select the appropriate RPE, monitoring of the atomised product should take place. The CHIP sheets only consider the product from application with the brush and not when power washing. Once this has been established a further issue is that when used in an enclosed space e.g. bus shelter or subway, the product becomes atomised and causes the full face visor to bloom creating vision problems and saturating the current RPE. Question 1: How are the airborne product levels established i.e. what method and equipment should be used? Question 2: Does the product used for the original graffiti need to be taken into consideration e.g. unknown paint or equivalent. I’m assuming so, but how can you protect against a truly unknown product? Question 3: How is the monitoring task completed safely? i.e. I’m of the opinion the operatives are inadequately protected at the moment so how can personal sampling take place when the correct RPE is yet to be selected? Question 4: Is there any RPE/PPE vision panel material available that will be resistant to blooming? Apologies for the essay but as you can see there are a few issues to consider. To reiterate any help is appreciated.
Admin  
#2 Posted : 16 March 2008 19:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Paul Leadbetter Cakey What is the product and what does it contain? Paul
Admin  
#3 Posted : 17 March 2008 10:10:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By cakey There are a number of products used but the one I'm most concerned about is classified as harmful and corrosive and has the the following risk phrases: R20/21/22, R35, R36/38
Admin  
#4 Posted : 17 March 2008 10:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Chris Packham From a dermatological viewpoint I doubt whether the constituents of the graffitti will present much of a problem as they will almost certainly be in a very low concentration in the pressure wash liquid. I would be much more concerned about the actual graffitti remover. If the product is causing problems with the facial protection, then it follows there will also be body exposure. Given the complex way in which PPE for skin protection works (or all too often doesn't work)if you let me have the constituents of the material that you are using as graffitti remover and the type of PPE that is being used for skin protection I can then comment on its suitability. Chris
Admin  
#5 Posted : 17 March 2008 11:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By cakey The composition of the product includes:- Methanoic Acid (4-7%) 2 - furylmethanol Acid (11-20%) Non hazardous alcohols and esters Surfactants Thickening agents and the PPE that is being used includes Hands - Butyl gloves Face - Full face shield Face mask (FFP2 standard) Waterproof overalls Safety footwear I realise the PPE information is a bit scant but that is the information I have inherited. Regards - Cakey
Admin  
#6 Posted : 17 March 2008 11:49:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Paul Leadbetter Cakey I am not familiar with furyl methanol acid but you probably need an organic vapour mask to protect from the methanoic acid; talk to your supplier. I will leave the suitability of the gloves to Chris Packham as he knows much more than me about skin protection. Paul
Admin  
#7 Posted : 17 March 2008 11:52:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By cakey Thank you for your response Paul.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 17 March 2008 13:04:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter Principles of COSHH? All this effort in protecting your employees. What about the general public? Why use a power washer to remove? What is the impact on the environment and eco-system of flushing this reactant to ground or drain?
Admin  
#9 Posted : 17 March 2008 17:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Chris Packham The butyl glove is fine for these substances. You state that "waterproof overalls" are worn. What is the material? If PVC, then this is probably perfectly OK. Other types of waterproof may not offer the same level of chemical protection. Chris
Admin  
#10 Posted : 17 March 2008 18:28:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By cakey Yes, the overalls are PVC. Thank you for the constructive comments Chris. Re: All this effort in protecting your employees. What about the general public? They are completely excluded from the area and are eliminated from any danger. Why use a power washer to remove? That is the designed method of removal. If you can offer a safer alternative I'm all ears. What is the impact on the environment and eco-system of flushing this reactant to ground or drain? It is not harmful to the environment (according to the MSDS) Any other helpful comments?
Admin  
#11 Posted : 17 March 2008 18:45:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By CFT cakey There are other options, if you want a yap don't hesitate to contact me. Low pressure steam is not a bad option among others. Before I retired from running a support services company including the removal of graffiti through 3 LA areas, I managed to pick a few decent bits of methodology up along the way; yes, for my sins 170 employees later, it was my own company;-) Chazza
Admin  
#12 Posted : 17 March 2008 20:09:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By cakey Charles, I would appreciate a chinwag but how do I contact you?
Admin  
#13 Posted : 17 March 2008 21:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Paul Leadbetter Cakey You can make initial e-mail contact by clicking on CFT's name in red at the top of his contribution to the thread. Paul
Admin  
#14 Posted : 18 March 2008 13:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter Cakey, sorry to have caused upset, it wasn't my intention. You'll see from subsequent posts that there are other ways (steam). In my experience it is impossible to effectively exclude the public from spray drift from pressure washers in public areas. Steam & nozzle attachments can effectively contain the process much closer to the activity. Respectfully, the MSDS you have is for the product you're applying, not for the reactant residue created.
Admin  
#15 Posted : 18 March 2008 20:12:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By cakey Thank you for all the comments.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.