Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi All
Im in a debate with some colleagues regarding the requirement to wear RPE while spraying substance (or doing anything creating a WEL) if the air monitoring results show that the exposure is well below the EH40 WEL?
We are using a substance which (R42/43) can cause lung and skin sensitisation / occupational asthma. currently the operatives wear air fed breathing apparatus, as recomended by all the guidance / testing - my colleagues want to know, if the guidance states " air fed respirators must always be worn" then why is there a WEL given? if the results come back well under the exposure limit, why wear RPE?
Ive explained that the WEL's are the value at which adverse effects may occur.
You thoughts please?
Regards, Adam
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Respectfully, your explanation of what a WEL is won't have helped.
It is a limit, yes, but the overarching principles of COSHH require that we do everything practicable to reduce exposure as far below that limit which we reasonably can?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
OOI what specifically is the substance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
the substance is an Isocyanate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Isocyanate is one of the top causes of Asthma as you will probably know, have you carried out COSHH Essentials as an example for the guidelines, forgive me if you're already well up to speed with COSHH, one thing is for certain, you should be eliminating it if possible, changing to a different material if possible and reducing exposure.
I've noticed on most MSDS sheets for materials/substances, the manufacturer guideline is always to wear some kind of RPE, regardless of the WEL.
My guess is that if the COSHH has been done, and you have decided to wear Breathing Apps based on this and MSDS, then why debate it, of course Health Surveillance for your employee's will also highlight if somethings amiss?
Not much help really am I lol...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Were you aware that there is now firm evidence that skin exposure to isocyanates can lead to asthma as well as allergic contact dermatitis? Also there is evidence that airborne skin exposure, for example of the face, at levels below the WEL (which, in any event, is only for inhalation exposure) can cause such reactions. So you need to consider how much skin protection you should have in place, possibly even full face protection.
As a precaution you should consider health surveillance, including biological monitoring. This will indicate whether your control systems are adequate. If you need to talk to someone about this I recommend Dr. Kate Jones at the Health and Safety Laboratories, Buxton.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
You see to be a little confused wiht the term WEL. You don't create a WEL.
Anyway. Spraying an iscoyanate produce would most definetalty require RPE and health monitoring.
The HSE used to have guidance on such things but have no doubt binned that bit of guidance along with much of the rest of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
The WEL for 8 hour TWA for Isocyanate is 0.02 mg/m3, and you say you are spraying it and your tests show it to below this level. I find it hard to believe, we used to spray this type of paint ( in the coloured top coat).
You may want to just double check the testing carried out. Anyway the emphasis is on the word "Limit" not acceptable level.
Don't forget the lung function health survailance! as well as RPE
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
One additional thought. Your measurements may indicate that you are below the WEL, but individuals moving around in the spray boot can disrupt air flow and create localised and short term situations with a higher concentration. Also what might happen should the performance/effectiveness of the booth fall short of what is needed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.