Well it doesn't do what it says on the tin. When we received barrier cream in the past, it was described as a cosmetic on the delivery note. Even had the HSE tell me to use moisturiser rather than barrier cream, so maybe that's where the third party people are coming from on this.

Found it in the HSE Managing skin exposure risks Appendix 1 HSW Act 2 The HSW Act is an umbrella Act concerned with securing the health, safety and welfare of people at work, and with protecting those who are not at work from the risk to their health and safety from work activities. An employer's main duties with respect to skin exposure are to: ■ provide adequate welfare facilities, including skin care products; I take it as barrier cream. they have RA COSHH MSDS PPE but and ongoing education, the only thing I can put it down to is due to the long duration in gloves their own sweat is causing the irritant.

Firstly there is no legal requirement to provide barrier cream. Indeed the opposite is the case. The British Occupational Health Research Forum (BOHRF) is their research report "Occupational contact dermatitis and urticaria - systematic review and recommendations" states: "...not promote that use of pre-work (barrier) creams, since this may confer on workers a false sense of security and encourage them to be complacent in following more effective preventative measures.," "Pre-work creams do not function as protective gloves. Workers should not use them in place of carefully selected gloves. Some pre-work creams appear to provide a degree of protection under the conditions for which they were designed. Others seem to give far less protection in practice than their formulations suggest. They cannot be considered a form of personal protective equipment (PPE) because: workers may not apply them properly, leaving part of the skin uncovered; there is no information available on the rate of penetration of substances through pre-work creams; they may be removed while working, without workers noticing." From: “Choice of skin care products for the workplace”, HSE publication HSG207 Consider also that legally these products are cosmetics and subject to the cosmetic product regulations. If an employer then decides to use the cream as 'protection' it can be argued that he has changed its status to that of personal protective equipment. The PPE Regulations then require the employer to ensure that the cream will provide the protection needed. Since there is no validated test for the performance of these creams how will he do this? Furthermore, there are several studies that show that most people do not properly apply the cream. In one study 84% of those applying the cream missed significant areas of the hands. So even if the cream was able to protect, these areas would have remained unprotected - akin to wearing gloves with holes. The dermatological literature is full of studies showing the ineffectiveness in practice of these products. As regards emollients, yes, these are beneficial. They serve to replace the skin's hydrolipidic layer that controls moisture loss from the stratum corneum. There are many studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of emollients. However, I would never countenance applying moisturiser if gloves are then to be donned. The purpose of the emollient is to prevent excessive moisture loss and under an occlusive glove the opposite will occur - so no benefit. Furthermore, these products will contain a preservative, i.e. a biocide intended to prevent product spoilage. Under the occlusive glove there is an increased risk of sensitisation and resultant allergy. Chris

Following my last posting I took a look at what I had put together on these products in the past. In one of our bulletins I found the following quotation. This is taken from "Essentials of Industrial Dermatology", edited by two eminent dermatologists (W.A.D.Griffiths and D.S.Wilkinson) and first published in 1985 by Blackwell Scientific Publications. In the chapter on "Industrial Dermatitis Today and Its Prevention", Prof. D. Burrows writes: "It is now generally accepted by the medical and legal professions that barrier creams have no protective function on the skin, and recent evidence would suggest that they may indeed facilitate penetration of the skin by irritants. Occasionally dermatitis has even developed to the barrier creams itself. They may, however, have some use in allowing easier cleaning of the skin where there is excessive soiling. A far more important provision is for emollient cream to be applied after washing or at the end of the day, and this is especially important where operatives are handling substances which are likely to degrease the skin." I would only add that with the emollient this should be a lotion not a cream (unless hands are already badly damaged) as the cream can be occlusive and thus render the skin more susceptible to damage from chemical exposure. Chris