The risk assessment is the employer's responsibility. But as the client you might well ask to see it. Do you have any say in which products they use or are you just paying for them?

Its really the cleaners choice what they think is best to clean the offices and toilets. Its a self employed person who employs other cleaners and the employer is the cleaner as well (family run). As long as the place is clean we dont really care what is used as its all stuff which is available to the public bought in sainsburys. Most likely they dont have a Risk assessment and it may be easier for us to do it for them. We also dont pay this person as their cleaning duties are traded for a service we offer to another company who pays the cleaner. kind of a weird set up.

Let's back up a bit here. Look at the products in question. They are all domestic products of which probably only bleach comes near COSHH application in the first place. Even the assessment for that is as simple as "we do what it says on the label". So your test of their COSHH compliance is that your dear cleaner knows not to mix bleach with anything else. That said, if you want to be COSHH-free (don't we all?) then get your cleaner to ditch the bleach for a less hazardous bog cleaner. By the way, it's not a well know fact but the caustic component in bleach attacks the glaze on most toilets so, over time, making them harder to keep clean (so you have to use more bleach, so....).

It must be Friday... as good as anyway roll on Easter. I'll leave responding to this to Chris I think..... the only way to be COSHH free is to not use ANY substances at all, how do you know they are hazardous unless you assess them? http://www.hse.gov.uk/coshh/industry/cleaning.htm

A quick true story. We have a cleaning chemical used at work designed specifically for task, COSHH assessment shows that nitrile gloves should be worn during use and a long handled brush used to avoid contact. Operator decides to substitute said cleaner for washing up liquid. In his mind this is safer and he doesn't need to faff around with gloves any more. (It's a brand you could buy anywhere!) The task takes about 30 - 40 minutes and is repeated several times a day, it also requires the washing up liquid to be quite strong. After a few months we are now dealing with a case of skin irritation caused by prolonged contact with washing up liquid! When asked by our insurers did we COSHH assess..... um not for this task. DOH! I'm not saying the COSHH assessment has to be long, just done! See the HSE risk assessment templates for an example RA for a cleaners!

Jim, I think you need to go to the supermarket and have a look at some of those products. Many of them most certainly do come under CHIP and COSHH. Oven Cleaner anyone? Mixing Bleach with well known powder cleaners anyone? All that said, the suggestion that you do the Assessments for that other employer merely adds more mines to the minefield!

Well, Ive had a lot of response and they are very good. I was thinking about it a bit more and though this is the employers responbsibility if they are under 5 persons in their employment thrn they are exempt from having written risk assessments, right? though, if we are buying and storing the cleaners on the premises then we should risk assess them if they are there to be used by people within the busines (as they potentially would be used). I think Im leaning closer to the risk assess whats on the bottle and go with the standard instructions on the bottle on our coshh form. And Jim, no Im not a goth, I just think that its a funnyGlasgow picture, goma style.

teh_boy has it absolutely right. Definitin (e) of substances hazardous to health covers everything. No exceptions! There is no chemical known to man that cannot require a risk assessment under COSHH, depending upon how it is used or is present at the workplace. Water, in the form of wet work, is the commonest cause of occupational contact dermatitis. If your employee is exposed to water to any extent as part of their work, then this will require a COSHH assessment. Incidentally, wearing occlusive gloves is equivalent to wet work, so extensive wearing of such gloves will also require a COSHH risk assessment. Chris

Chris, I personally think carrying out a specific COSHH assessment for working with water a tad OTT. Provided you have carried out a general risk assessment on the task using water, and having sensible measures in place then surely this would be suffice? I can hear the cries of 'elf n safety gone mad' in the papers tomorrow! Similalry, a general risk assessment for the use of occlusive gloves would be suffice also? I did have a read at the report you mentioned regarding using latex gloves, and correct me if im wrong (usually I am) but reading through the evidence table for switching to powder free it states that reports of NRL symptoms before conversion was 44% and dropped to 27% after conversion. 27% of a test population still reporting NRL symptoms on non powdered gloves is still significant is it not?

Guru If one is to carry out a risk assessment for COSHH, and I am concerned specifically with skin exposure, then the starting point is not the chemical(s) but the task. Chemicals are only a problem when you use them. So my risk assessment would be for a task involving exposure to water. If I felt that the exposure was of sufficient duration and frequency to represent a risk of dermatitis then this would be reflected in my risk assessment and the appropriate control measures introduced. A similar approach would apply when the task involved extensive wearing of gloves. Consider also that when we use chemicals we frequently change them. We may dilute, react, contaminate, mix, etc. This can significantly change the hazard. So the example in the other posting, where bleach was used then another cleaning product tried, could well have resulted in a chemical reaction creating chlorine gas, hence the unconscious worker! In my experience of risk assessments for skin exposure identifying the real hazard present during the execution of the task is often the most difficult part of the assessment - and crucial if the correct outcome is to be achieved. With regard to your comment on the latex report, once someone has become allergic to latex proteins, then even a minute amount can elicit a reaction. Bear in mind also that wearing the tight fitting single-use gloves causes hyperhydration and this reduces the threshold at which a sensitised person may react. Furthermore it is very difficult to differentiate between an irritant reaction and an allergic reaction (or a combination of both), so someone with a known allergy might react with an irritant reaction but the assumption could then be made that this was actually an allergic one! There have also been cases of people reacting on the assumption that they were being exposed to latex, when no actual exposure was taking place. Prof. Gieler of Giessen University, an expert in psychosomatic skin reactions, has labelled this "undifferentiated idiopathic somatoform allergy"! The German healthcare experience is probably one of the best examples of the latex allergy 'epidemic'. They banned powdered single-use latex gloves. The standard in these hospitals for single-use gloves is unpowdered low free protein natural rubber latex and, in the words of a leading German expert "latex allergy is history!" Chris

I could not agree with Jim enough. I am growing sick and tired of 'so-called' COSHH assessments. I have witnessed a situation in which ill-informed individuals request COSHH assessments for washing up liquid. The reason given for this request, by a senior auditor, was that if a person drank enough washing up liquid it could become hazardous to their health. I think we should all remind ourselves of the common sense approach to COSHH as prescribed by the HSE ACOP: that being in many circumstances we need only consult the manufacturers SDS to determine if our current control measures are sufficient. Alan Matthews

@repulse Please re-read my posts with care. 1- Currently in a difficult situation thanks to washing up liquid! 2 - the HSE example RA I pointed too shows what is expected as a minimum. It worries more and more that chemicals are regarded as so 'normal' and safe. This is in everyday life as well as safety. I don't think anyone here is saying we need a 40 page assessment for washing up liquid, but we need to risk assess the task. (see HSE example and Chris' wise words) If we can't even do that, and don't understand that washing up has dermatological consequences then are we in the right job? Yet again, I stree I am not advocating 'elf and safety' but simply that we follow the basics.

Repulse It so happens that frequent hand washing in healthcare is a common cause of occupational irritant contact dermatitis (reportable under RIDDOR). Are you suggesting that we do not need to risk assess the hand hygiene procedures in health care to ensure that hand washing does not result in an occupational skin disease? Chris

Wrong person - i'm on your side :)

teh_boy Apologies! Chris

So supermarket products are fine for the general public but shouldn't be used by commercial cleaners? Why ever not?

Safety data sheets for domestic products are normally available from the manufacturer - so this shouldn't be a problem.