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

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
Kay  
#1 Posted : 24 June 2010 17:11:53(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Kay

Hello,

I have just found out that some of our employees have been using a certain well-known brand of paint stripper (organic solvent comprising Dichloromethane, Methanol and hydrosulphurised heavy Naptha) and I wondered:
1. Does anyone else permit use of it?
2. Where - outside?
3. Are there any less hazardous alternatives? (I have already decided against needle guns or grinders)
4. Any other thoughts or comments to enable me to carry out a COSHH assessment?

They claim they have been painting it on and following the instructions on the label, but they didn't have the MSDS until today so I suspect the control measures applied will not have been adequate.

Thanks for your help
Kay
chris.packham  
#2 Posted : 24 June 2010 19:22:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

Kay,

Not an uncommon product. In fact, if you go into your local DIY store you will find paint stripper comprising dicholoromethane and methanol on sale to the general public. Yes, the container does warn of possible irreversible effects -as if the general public (a) read the label and (b) would understand what this means. It also recommends suitable gloves. The only gloves that work with this mixture are from Viton (at about £70 per pair) and these have a permeation breakthrough time, in theory, of around two hours! I have not yet seen Viton gloves stocked in our local DIY store!

As far as I am aware there have been alternatives, but no chemical alternatives have ever achieved any significant following.

My first question would be: What are they removing the paint from? Is it something that heat would affect? If not then hot air guns can be quite effective. If not, then the risk assessment will need to indicate what precautions and control measures are needed to use this product safely.

Chris
firesafety101  
#3 Posted : 24 June 2010 19:33:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

Chris.Packham wrote:
Kay,

Not an uncommon product. In fact, if you go into your local DIY store you will find paint stripper comprising dicholoromethane and methanol on sale to the general public. Yes, the container does warn of possible irreversible effects -as if the general public (a) read the label and (b) would understand what this means. It also recommends suitable gloves. The only gloves that work with this mixture are from Viton (at about £70 per pair) and these have a permeation breakthrough time, in theory, of around two hours! I have not yet seen Viton gloves stocked in our local DIY store!

As far as I am aware there have been alternatives, but no chemical alternatives have ever achieved any significant following.

My first question would be: What are they removing the paint from? Is it something that heat would affect? If not then hot air guns can be quite effective. If not, then the risk assessment will need to indicate what precautions and control measures are needed to use this product safely.

Chris


Is this the flaw in the plan?

Why isn't the DIY store obliged to have the appropriate PPE on display for sale, alongside the hazardous product?

Having said that I don't suppose they would sell many gloves at £70.00 a pair.

Kay  
#4 Posted : 25 June 2010 09:57:37(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Kay

Hi guys

Thanks for your posts, and I totally agree that the masses probably do not use the product in a manner that would be considered 'safe' for an employee. I've used it myself - a long time ago!

They use it to remove paint from large steel objects e.g. Jacks and powerpacks. I'm not sure if a heat gun would be suitable bearing in mind the equipment involves hydraulic seals (might distort?), fuel, and oils (fire hazard?) etc but I'll ask the question.

Regarding the expensive gloves, does leather not have any resistance to the stripper?
Thanks, Kay
chris.packham  
#5 Posted : 25 June 2010 11:40:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

Kay

Leather will absorb the chemical and simply hold it in contact with the skin, thereby increasing the potential for damage.

As I stated, only Viton gloves offer any real protection, and then permeation breakthrough will occur in between 120 and 240 minutes in a laboratory test. In reality the breakthrough when used will actually be shorter, depending upon the extent of contact between the chemical and the gloves.

Whky have you diecided against needle guns? Given what they are doing I would have thought that these represented the best option.

Chris
Kay  
#6 Posted : 25 June 2010 12:01:49(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Kay

Hi Chris (& anyone else reading)

Some old forum posts made me think Needle guns wouldn't be a good idea, cos the paint probably contains lead and this would necessitate "environmental monitoring and assessments of blood/lead levels before and during the work" (http://forum.iosh.co.uk/default.aspx?g=posts&t=72027) not to mention the fact we don't have any guns, and would presumably need to train people plus I reckon they must be noisy and involve vibration hazards.
Basically I'm thinking the stripper would be the lesser of two evils?

With the guys painting it on and only needing protection against accidental splashes or spills, do you think the viton gloves would last longer if they wash off any stripper that gets on them?

The MSDS also says use sealed goggles, and RPE if there isn't adequate ventillation, so I wondered - if we use it outdoors, would RPE still be necessary?

Any other comments welcome.
Many thanks
Kay
chris.packham  
#7 Posted : 25 June 2010 12:03:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

Chris

Re your comment - I could quote you many more substances on sale to the general public that, in a workplace we would be risk assessing as potentially hazardous. If I looked at the chemicals in the average house, with what I could probably find I would be able to gas the inhabitants. If I were to include the garden shed I might be able to blow the roof off! As I say when speaking on skin management, I don't need to go anywhere special for my weapons of mass destruction, Tesco and B&Q will provide me with all I need!
(Yes, and it is Friday!)

Chris
Mick Noonan  
#8 Posted : 25 June 2010 12:08:07(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Mick Noonan

It sounds like it's getting more complicated and costly, have you considered external contractors. If you're only doing a small ammount of this type of work then it might be advantageous due to the nature of the work.

Outside is fine and it does solve your problem of ventilation, however I have found that extraction fans can also be used and they are reasonably cheap to buy of hire and can be directed acurately at the working area. Just a thought.
bob youel  
#9 Posted : 25 June 2010 14:49:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bob youel

You can still buy many products for public use that have been banned for employment/professional use - one thing that comes to mind is the most effective cat flea spray on the market which is very dangerous and extreamily hazardous to the nervious system! I am lead to believe that its available only through Vets at this time? - Funny is it not that its OK for a Vet to sell the stuff but nobody else!
MaxPayne  
#10 Posted : 25 June 2010 14:58:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
MaxPayne

I'd suggest looking at the whole process from a sensible risk management point of view. There isn't enough detail here for some of the suggested controls to be determined as proportionate to the risk. Using hot air guns can create hazards with fumes so whichever path you choose to follow you will still need to assess potential exposure and apply suitable controls.

Follow the 5 steps...
alan_uk  
#11 Posted : 25 June 2010 15:35:36(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
alan_uk

Well considered responses to this post - but I think it highly irresponsible of any manufacturer to use terms like "suitable" in their recommendation for PPE etc. as this lack of knowledge in itself presents a hazard. I would contact the manufacturer and ask what type / grade of gloves they recommend and ask the question as to why this is not clearly specified on MHDS for the product. In my experience, a well prepared data sheet will have considerd issues like breakthrough, chemical resistance etc. and will specify exactly what is required.
chris.packham  
#12 Posted : 25 June 2010 19:03:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

Alan

If you read the Directive and the UK regulation re safety data sheets you will find that it is actually a requirement to stipulate the type of glove to be worn, i.e. the material. Just stating "suitable" or "impervious" does not meet the regulation.

Begs the question how many safety data sheets have you seen that are therefore legal?

Chris
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.