Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Renown II
Our building is at present being refurbished, and one of our pregnant ladies is worried and extremely tearful that the paint fumes in her area could harm her feotus. (The walls are being emulsioned and her desk is in an open area.)
I have tried to allay her fears and have set up a fan for ventilation, and asked her Manager to let her take more frequent breaks.
I have since noticed that small amounts of gloss work are also being carried out in this area this morning.
There is an option to move her to another area but I would like some opinions first (have searched on previous forums and this has not appeared before)
Kind regards
Renownii
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David J Jones
I understand her concern, but would draw a comparison with redecoration at home.
That said, I believe some "trade" paints may differ from those available for domestic use. I would have a look at the MSDS for the paint, or what the paint container label shows. I do not think fumes - more a "smell" - from emulsion poses a threat.
The gloss however, may be high in VOC's, again this should be on the container label. But most gloss paint these days are low in VOC's.
Unless there is a huge area being painted with the atmosphere very heavy with "fumes" I would suggest your approach by using a fan is sensible. If the lady is still concerned and you have the ability to re-site her until the smell disperses then I would see this as a sensible solution and may well enhance her perception of the company's approach to H & S.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By graeme12345
just reassure her that there is nothing to worry about with newer paints, the risk would be a hundred fold more by walking along a busy road and breathing in the fumes, older paints had problems with lead (named teratogens, lead / organic mercury compounds).
if she's like this now whats she going to be like nearer the end of the procedure, pity the other half, but it does take two to tango.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Haynes
Whilst I do not think that there are any problems from the fumes - why not move her anyway - making clear to her that is for her peace of mind, rather than because of any risk to her baby?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Renown II
Many thanks for the responses. I have also since found out that she is very anxious as she did lose a feotus before, so I can understand her concerns.
I have allayed her fears with the paint, and we are going to re-accommodate her in another office temporarily until all the painting has been completed. As this office wont be ready today, we have allowed her to go home. She also got advice from her midwife, who was also concerned.
She is now quite happy, and said she didnt want to cause a fuss, but is glad that H&S has helped her out.
Kind regards
Renownii
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kirsty Davies2
Regardless of whether painting fumes could cause harm, the practice certainly caused anxiety and stress to the employee. Thus, a good move by the employer to re-locate the concerned employee.
Please don’t use the following term
“H&S has helped her out”.
I would be better to express her in the lines of
“We as an employer do listen and act on employees’ concerns and issues”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Renown II
Thanks Kirsty - they were her words, not mine. She was just so pleased that she wasn't on her own. Bless her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
Was the paint water or solvent based? There is a significant difference in the potential hazards that might arise.
Specifically water-based paints generally contain a preservative, often a formaldehyde releaser. At least one study, in this case with Kathon ( a combination of methylchloroisothazolinone and methylisothiazolinone) has shown release of preservative as a vapour even as long as 10 days after the paint was supplied. Since isothiazolinones are potent sensitisers, in an inadequately ventilated place this could lead to an accumulation that could result in an allergic reaction.
Whilst this may not be relevant in your lady's case, some of the statements made in response to your posting do need treating with some caution.
We have had allergic reactions (respiratory and skin) in a company that changed from solvent to water based paint and did not appreciate the potential hazard that this had introduced. There are other case studies in the literature that also confirm this.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By LMR http://www.rsc.org/Scien...tesonPregnantWorkers.aspuse this and the other notes referred to and obtain MSDS for all paints and items being used. She is very correct to be worried. Additionally it is the quick fillers that they use that cause problems on exposure and these 'little bits' are not entered on method statements or considered for COSHH listings - it is they that send me into anaphylaxis despite the best efforts of my employer to remove me to a safe area - i usually get sent home. I accept not pregnant related by I know I react so I take my own safety seriously but there is no-one to stand up for the unborn .... and this now extends to the newborn and nursing mum's
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By graeme12345
OK now Kirsty
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kirsty Davies2
Sorry I didn't get that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By GeoffB4
graeme12345, are you sure about your earlier response?
In my garage I have a tin of paint (Dulux) which says it should not be used indoors. Other tins say use in well ventilated areas.
I'm sure if I looked up the data sheets for these they would require some precautions to be taken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By lee kelly
As a Toxicologist and TechIOSH i thought i would throw in a few ideas, firstly the unborn foetus is very well protected, the maternal and foetal blood are filtered in the placenta. only a few blood components are allowed to mix.
The foetus is more at risk from foods such as Fish (methyl mercury) and unwashed fruit and vegetables.
The MSDS will contain all the hazardous components of the paint even the trace elements.
The MSDS should be read in conjunction with the EH40 published by the HSE this will provide WELS for the compounds concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
Lee
May I take issue with you on one point re the MSDS. They do not show all the toxic constituents, only those above a certain concentration, e.g. 1% or 0.1% depending upon the nature of the substance.
It is possible for a person already sensitised to a particular allergen to react, even at these low levels.
Furthermore, the MSDS will only show you what was put into the product. For example, it may list a formaldehyde releaser, but since this may not be a sensitiser as introduced by the manufacturer, formaldehyde would not normally appear on the MSDS. It will be present in the product at a later stage, however.
Furthermore, substances can change with time. D-limonene (the oil extracted from citrus fruits) is not itself a sensitiser (although it is a skin irritant). However, when exposed to air it will oxidise and the resultant contaminants are sensitisers (and some are photosensitisers). D-limonene will not be shown as a sensitiser on the MSDS.
So the conclusion has to be that one treats MSDS with caution as they may not tell you what you need to know. This is one reason why I do not believe that MSDS are a reliable basis for a COSHH risk assessment.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Eddie
No withstanding all the excellent technical advice given previously re MSDSs, toxicology,chemical constituents of paint such as methylchloroisothazolinone and methylisothiazolinone et al, is anybody seriously suggesting that the mother or unborn child is at significant risk of physical harm
( as opposed to stress etc) from the paint being applied to the walls of her office?
If this is the case, I assume that given the large number of expectant mothers that must have ever been historically exposed to the painting of walls at home or at work there must be a huge body of medical evidence to support the suggestions that the mother is correct to be concerned.
I think the original poster got it right in the way it was dealt with, including keeping a sense of perspective!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kirsty Davies2
physical harm???
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Eddie
Kirsty,
I was just trying to differentiate between harm to the unborn child or mother caused by the paint (or its chemical constituents)and psychosocial issues such as stress brought on by the mother being worried that the paint could cause harm.
That will teach me not to consult my NEBOSH Diploma notes before posting :-.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kirsty Davies2
Eh,
I though you meant slips, trips, falls etc
Yes, I strongly agree with you we need to look into the associated psychosocial issues as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By GeoffB4
Eddie, you seem to be saying (but could you confirm) that no harm can possible come to a foetus from paint vapours.
My point would be it is extremely unlikely (but depends on circumstances eg air circulation, quantity of paint, mixing methods etd) but cannot be disregarded. Stress is a known problem and must be catered for - by trying to reduce or eliminate the factor causing the stress.
I also agree with the originator taking these factors into account - whereas you give the impression, perhaps wrongly, that exposure is not a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By graeme12345
Geoff, they would, but it would not involve removing all pregnant women, and
don't be dismayed, just prove to me, "how modern paints are harmful" in this situation,
it would also be helpful for you to remember the fundamentals of risk assessment
Sensible risk management IS NOT about: trivial risks.
If you and the others who have come up with a load of technical waffle (not the "good ol techie")really believe there is a real risk to this woman's foetus from a contractor applying paint to the walls of her office then no wonder the "conkers bonkers" brigade prevail.
But as you already know we are all wrong because we all have our own opinions
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By phalda
I am in a state of shock... there is no significant risk here from paint fumes and if there were it should have been dealt with BEFORE work commenced.. BUT,.. I do agree with previous posts dealing with the stress/anxiety aspect of the situation.. again though I feel the lady concerned should maybe seek further help ( counselling etc) as I suspect deeper issues need to be resolved due to her previous loss..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
Graeme
My posting re formaldehyde releasers, isothiazolinones, etc. did state that this would probably not be relevant for this particular case. All I was trying to do was to counter the posting suggesting that all paints are harmless.
The problem with paints and release of sensitisers is not a trivial one. As a member of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis I receive copies of "Contact Dermatitis". There are frequently reports in this and other relevant journals of cases of airborne allergic contact dermatitis due to the release of sensitisers from freshly painted surfaces where adequate ventilation has not be arranged. Someare severe and some are occupational.
Whilst most of these allergic reactions will be type IV it is not impossible or unkown for the person to suffer a type I reaction, potentially with anaphylaxis. Whether this would be potentially harmful to foetus I am not qualified to say, but it is something that I feel those conducting a risk assessment should be aware of.
So I will not accept that I am one of the conkers-bonkers brigade, even though you may take that view.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Richards Since alcohol, nicotine and drugs can pass between the mothers blood and the blood of the foetus prior to birth I fail to see (nor can I find) anything to suggest that solvents cannot do the same. I did (short look) find this: http://nepc.gov.au/pdf/A...cs/Xyl_Health_Review.pdfwhich gives the research results of exposure of rats to Xylene (1,2-1,3-1,4-di-methyl-benzene) note the results on the foetus. Xylene is commonly used in gloss paints. Still, bonkers-conkers. Nothing is likely to happen for many years....the worst that could happen (from a H&S viewpoint) is that the child may develop leukemia in childhood.....and a no-win-no-fee solicitor may get involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By GeoffB4
Quote: But as you already know we are all wrong because we all have our own opinions.
A silly comment not worth commenting on.
Fact: A person had their first asthma attack at the age of 40 (no previously related symptoms of any sort) which happened 10 years ago when their office was being painted. That person has suffered from asthma ever since then.
I'm not an expert on paint fumes but it seems likely they were the cause. If that is accepted as being the case then it must be accepted there is a transfer mechanism of harmful substances. How are we to know what the risk is when so many chemicals are involved and should we not be taking some precautionary measure?
To simply state there is no risk is irresponsible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Leadbetter
Some substances do cross the placental barrier, as has already been noted, and, given the emotive nature of the risk, a caring employer would, I am sure, remove the employee, if at all possible, from the area regardless of the level of risk involved.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
If stress can lead to a severe case of dermatitis (aerospace plant),can impair the immune system in elderly patients rendering them more susceptible to infection(Birmingham University study), and Prof. Marks' (Cardiff University)study showed impaired wound repair in those with (non-occupational) stress, who is to say what effect stress in the mother might have on the unborn child? True, a search did not reveal any studies on this but that does not mean it isn't a possibility.
So the action taken would appear to make sense.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Eddie
GeoffB4,
I said that I do not believe that there is a significant risk to either the mother or unborn child the and any actions such as moving her to a different area etc would be based on removing any distress or worry she may be feeling rather than any harm from the paint.
Again I would ask where is the evidence of harm, given the large numbers of expectant mothers who historically must have been "exposed" to paint in both work at at home over the years.
I am not sure that making a number of assumptions based on one incident would constitute sufficient evidence of significant risk in this case.
This thread is a good example of how difficult and interesting risk management can be at times though isn't it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By GeoffB4
Re-read my responses Eddie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Eddie
Fair enough:-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Renown II
Many thanks to all who have contributed to this topic. Many varying responses, all appreciated and I think the action taken was carried out swiftly and was correct.
One angle I had not looked at was the psychosocial issues, didn't occur to me so have since spoken to her manager to see if the lady concerned would consider counselling, as she certainly was in quite a state yesterday.
However, she is back to work today, in her temporary accommodation, and in a better frame of mind. Her manager is going to monitor her from time to time.
Once again, many thanks to all those who contributed, it was really helpful
Kind regards
Renownii
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.