Rank: Forum user
|
Evening all,
I need your advice, when undertaking COSHH assessments I'm clear that you use the MSDS to get the information but what I can't get my head around is how you work out the PPM/MGm3?
Do you need to use equipment such as stain tubes?
Or can you work this out theory based without undertaking practical samples?
The reason I ask is the likelihood of taking samples of exposure is limited.
I'd like some guidance on how to undertake the assessments with the factors above.
Thanks
Barney#1
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Barney
Not sure if this helps, certainly not technical?
I've had similar problems in my role as H&S Adviser and merely turn it round to the user -
"How are they going to work PPM etc out in order to assure me (hence the organisations Trustees) that they are not exceeding the exposure limits?"
It's pretty easy in my job (I Advise Wildlife Trusts) as this sort of thing only crops up with the purchase and use of volatile paints/cleaning fluid etc., which mostly (and with a little nudging) can be substituted for substances with less potential to cause harm.
I know it dosen't help if you are in an industry where you are required to use certain substances, but it might?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Barney
Stain tubes may give you some idea of what the exposures are but, unless you are using long-term tubes, they will only give spot readings, when what you are usually interested in is 8-hour average exposures. Also, do read the information supplied with the tubes as they can be subject to cross-sensitivity, which can mislead you.
Depending on the situation, you may need assistance from a competent occupational hygienist; you can find one here: http://www.bohs.org/OHServices-directory/#
LB
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
When I did some air sampling a few years back as part of my training the hygienist I was with also said stain tubes are only accurate to something like +/-30%
So I wouldn't put too much faith in them, unless their accuracy has improved since the late 1990's
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Agreed, stain tubes are at best a rough indicator - indicating whether there may be something or nothing to worry about. But useless for many substances.
For some exposures, theory and observation may be adequate to assess the risk, for others a more accurate exposure assessment is necessary.
Leadbelly's link to BOHS and hygienists is good advice.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The only way you will be able to quantify the exposure is to measure it. This would normally be done by having the worker wear an instrument that collects the substance from the air (usually on an adsorbent such as carbon) and then sending the sample for analysis.
But you don't necessarily need to quantify it, just to establish whether or not the exposure is likely to be too much. So you would look at how volatile is it, is it heated (COSHH Essentials on the HSE website uses a combination of volatility and temperature to give a guide to the kind of control measures you should consider), is it contained, does it smell, is the air visibly filled with dust, do workers complain their eyes are stinging, are you using it according to the manufacturer's instructions and so on. If the msds is in the new 'extended' format with exposure scenarios on it, that might be helpful as someone else may already have done measurements in a similar situation.
No one of these things is enough by itself, they are all just indicators to help you come to a judgement. If it's not clear, and especially if the substance is highly toxic, then you would consider measurement.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thank you for your replies everyone.
This is my dilemma, I know how to work out the exposure when I've got the data but I'm just struggling on how you go about getting that data.
A good example would be cleaning products in an office environment, how would you get the exposure data in that instance?
My understanding is that there are exposure limits set out on the data sheets and also in EH 40 but it's getting the levels that are given off in a given situation I just can't get my head around.
Barney#1
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
In that instance (cleaning products in an office) you wouldn't need to get any exposure data. You just need to check that you are using the right products and using them in the way that the manufacturer recommends.
The substances that appear on the msds with exposure limits are probably very tiny components of the cleaning product and you won't get anywhere near the exposure limits if using the products in the way intended. It's very unlikely that there is any significant inhalation risk from cleaning products - reactions between them if mixed and skin exposure are likely to be more significant risks.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I agree with Kate
For office environments, I wouldn't be measuring any atmospheric substances - initially working on a number of issues
cleaning material present
when used
quantity used
history of complaints about
MSDS information
As Kate says just seek reassurance that the products are being used in the correct way.
Using the CoSHH hierarchy of controls - air sampling is way down the list.
A while since I have done much on CoSHH in an occupational sense, but doesn't the hierarchy of controls go something like*
Eliminate
Substitute
Full enclosure
Partial Enclosure
Natural ventilation
Forced ventilation
Safe system of work / use
Air monitoring etc
* other hierarchy lists are available
In my experience, even in workshops/engineering situations - unless a hazard substance is in use, then experience and design standards are used before air sampling
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I would agree with what others have said. If it is just subjects such as cleaning products in an office setting then, provided they are being used correctly, then I would be more concerned about skin exposure as this is a common issue with cleaning chemicals. There is no way you can actually measure skin exposure, so the question does not arise.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Barney, good advice from Kate, JJ and others; it's not always necessary to quantify/monitor exposure.
If it's a nasty like H2S yes, but in your environment I think you can follow the COSHH Essentials tool/method on the HSE website, which allows you make an assessment/judgement based on volatility, quantity, temperature, risk phrases etc and for your job I expect 'good general ventilation' will be the recommendation.
So a 'possible solution' might be: if the cleaning products can be smelled in the office provide better ventilation by opening doors and windows. That's a possible simple solution that might be arrived at through the COSHH Essentials tool.
COSHH Essentials might seem complicated but you can, with a bit of thought while studying that guidance, work out your own tool/flowchart on paper or spreadsheet that helps you make the decisions.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Sorry - I don;t have time for forums today
But there is a paragraph in the ACoP for CoSHH about this and when we may need to carry out monitoring... someone quote it for me :)
A
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As others have said it is unlikely that there are any volatile components in standard office cleaning products that pose any significant health risk. In a normal well ventilated office, the level of substance in the atmosphere should never get anywhere near the WEL. If you are concerned, eg the office is small and poorly ventilated, and then you can get a guesstimate using the formulas available on the HSE website.
Chris’s point about the main risk being skin exposure is a good one.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Barney,
When conducting a COSHH assessment be sure to follow the Principles of Good Practice contained with the COSHH L5 guidance – Schedule 2A.
As for the measuring I would not recommend anybody tackling this if they have not had any recognised Occupational Hygiene training. If you feel this is something you need looking at your location in Merseyside I know a very good provider in Chester (PM me if you would like the details as they also offer a consultancy service).
If there are exposure limits specified in the EH40 then remember these limits are only relevant to the inhalable fraction so personal monitoring would have to be carried out to obtain a measurement (if deemed necessary!). Personal monitoring will not measure any other routes of exposure other than inhalation. On the contrary the EH40 does contain a few limits or values for biological monitoring (BMGV). This method is particularly useful when using substances with an ingestion, inhalation and skin absorption risk, i.e. ingestion in some cases can still occur through the inhalation process.
Usually you can get a good indication of exposure using a basic survey – e.g. fully enclosed extracted processes will not pose significant risk if the controls are adequately maintained. Visual aids such as Tyndal Illumination, Smoke Tubes, Grab Samples (Colorimetric Indicators) etc can help to assess the situation and give a good indication.
Finally I stand by my number one rule before doing any COSHH Assessment – read the Principles of Good Practise and be sure you think outside the box. The MSDS will give you information for 1 part of the COSHH Assessment – you have to consider what may be generated by the process.
I.e. (Wood + Saw = Dust) (Metal + Heat = Fume)
If you would like any further information drop me an email to explain in the brief the products and application and I will have a quick look for you.
Regards
Kev
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Kev
Your last point about the hazard is very important. It is the hazard represented by the chemical (or chemicals) as used that should be the basis of the risk assessment. I can cite a case where a company had a claim for compensation for allergic contact dermatitis from handling epoxy impregnated carbon fibre mat. Investigation showed that the sensitising component in the impregnant was not bioavailable in the particular process involved and so could not have caused the skin reaction. Further investigation revealed the true, non-occupational, cause of the skin condition. In another process the same mat was softened with a solvent. Here the sensitiser was bioavailable and allergic contact dermatitis a real possibility. Same product (as supplied), different hazard (as used).
Chris
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Morning Chris,
An excellent example – it just shows in the world of chemical safety how deep a plot can thicken. Your example also states the importance of keeping the assessment to a personal level. The effected individual (although not occupational) would have had to have controls implemented to protect him / her from their identified condition as not to agitate it further.
Thanks for sharing!
Kev
|
|
|
|
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.