I am reviewing certain aspects of our hearing protection policy and have one item I am trying to research. When using in ear style hearing protection that is contaminated with hydrocarbon fuel products transferred from employee’s gloved hands what are the hazards. I am thinking of skin issues or even if absorption is a possibility. Does anyone have any research or other information they could share on any hazards from any such contamination to help me. I have done a Google search (other providers are available) but can’t find anything, I may be using the wrong search terms.

I strongly suggest you focus on improving provision of welfare and hygiene facilities, i.e. combat this problem at source.

Fly...can't find all the references at the moment...but I did a literature review a few years ago... try googling 'Clinical and microbiological features of otitis externa' ...or references to 'otitis externa'. From memory there was some evidence and discussion around the breakdown of the skin protection in wet environments mainly with swimmers/divers..also people cleaning excessively and scoring the layers along with pressure on the ear drum.. Quick memory dump hope it helps...

How quickly things here go off at a tangent. What good will be knowledge of 'Clinical and microbiological features of otitis externa' except for a microbiologist or ENT surgeon? It's not going to help here. Irritated skin in the ear canal may induce damage sufficient to result in a secondary infection process but that is not by any means certain. One does not automatically follow the other. It would be like Googling speed cameras for information about engine performance and rates of acceleration. The link is at best tenuous. Actually, there is so much more to it than that, but not for this Forum. The suggestion that 'there was some evidence and discussion around the breakdown of the skin protection in wet environments mainly with swimmers/divers..also people cleaning excessively and scoring the layers along with pressure on the ear drum..' is about right. Otitis externa often has its foundation in mechanical trauma due to overuse of cotton buds, pen tops, fingers etc. But unless your staff are underwater while they're working with these hydrocarbon-contaminated plugs then it all seems a bit irrelevant. And I assume that they don't leave the plugs in for days at a time. A little more practical would be to question why you use ear plugs contaminated with hydrocarbons? Presumably this is from grubby hands/gloves. Use clean gloves; wash hands before inserting or removing plugs, and avoid/prevent contamination. So, change gloves and wash hands; use alternative ear defenders that can be applied/removed without contamination, or leave them in once in place and remove them only when hands are clean and hydrocarbons have been removed. And why look for an MSDS? If it gives information about application of the compound to the skin of the external ear canal or external auditory meatus via soiled ear plugs I will eat a pair of said ear plugs! I'm minded now to wonder if there might be information about the effects of these hydrocarbon residues on the tissues lining the nasal passages? There might be, but pigs might fly. Better to remove contaminated gloves and wash your hands free of hydrocarbon residues before picking your nose! With both ears and noses, and with other orifices too, these are practical hygiene issues. Avoid or prevent exposure. Job done

IanB I typed a reply and then deleted it...I don't have as much time on my hands as you. Part of my duties include remote and offshore medicine, HPC registered. I was just trying to help someone rather than be arrogant with my knowledge... Typical of this forum.

Ian Please rewrite your second paragraph about Steve's comments, you appear to be guilty of your own complaints about things being wrong, in that you have extraneous words in it and it doesn't make sense. Thanks very much

Hilary Sarcasm is unnecessary if you simply add the letter c in front of all. Then it is entirely clear, if you care to make the effort. And you know, without help, that this is a mile apart from the poor quality contribution by Stevedm who was factually wrong. Some fragile souls seem unable to distinguish sarcasm from a robust rebuttal of their errors and the poor "advice" that misinforms others. And then they kick off with unnecessary comments, as you have now done. Stevedm also falls into that category, judging by the rude and insulting pm that he sent to me, which I feel sure breaches the Forum rules.