“(e) which, not being a substance falling within sub-paragraphs (a) to (d), because of its chemical or toxicological properties and the way it is used or is present at the workplace creates a risk to health” - COSHH Regulation 2 (1) Interpretation Paragraph 10 of the 6th edition of the Approved Code of COSHH states: Employers should regard a substance as hazardous to health if it is hazardous in the form in which it may occur in the work activity. A substance hazardous to health need not be just a chemical compound, it can also include mixtures of compounds, micro-organisms or natural materials, such as flour, stone or wood dust. Paragraph 35 includes the following concerning what substance hazards are come under these regulations: When deciding whether the substances used or produced in the workplace are covered by COSHH, employers should also consider the following: Different forms of a substance may present different hazards, eg substances may not be hazardous in solid form but may be hazardous when ground into fine powder or dust that can be breathed into the lings. Nanoparticles (ie particles less than 100 nanometers) may be more toxic than larger particles of the same chemical substance. Impurities in a substance can make it more hazardous, eg crystalline silica is often present in minerals which would otherwise present little or no hazard. Some substances have a fibrous form which may present a potentially serious risk to health if the fibres are of a certain size or shape. Some substances have a known health effect but the mechanism causing it is unknown, eg certain dusts of textile raw materials cause byssinosis. Exposure to two or more substances at the same time or one after the other may have an added or synergistic effect Epidemiological or other data eg reports of illness to new and emerging agents, indicate that a biological agent that does not already appear in The Approved List of biological agents could nevertheless cause a hazard to health. One-off emergency situations arising out of the work activity, such as a dangerous chemical reaction or fire, could foreseeably produce a substance hazardous to health. 'Wet work' is one of the most frequently and consistently reported causes of irritant contact dermatitis. 'Wet work' is the term used to describe tasks involving prolonged or frequent contact with water, particularly in combination with soaps and detergents Paragraph 67 states: “It may be necessary to collect information on the properties and attributes of substances hazardous to health from a variety of sources to fully inform the assessment process.” This makes it clear that relying on the safety data sheet for a COSHH risk assessment is not the correct approach. So anyone whose risk assessments for COSHH are based solely on the safety data sheet should urgently consider whether they might be of questionable validity! Chris

My point is very simple. I frequently encounter employers where the risk assessments have been based exclusively on the safety data sheet. Indeed, there are several organisations which purport to provide COSHH risk assessments via the Internet. You send them your safety data sheets and they provide you with your risk assessments (note - no reference to how used, factory visit etc.). Several of these (including some large, well recognised health and safety consultants) exhibit at health and safety exhibitions offering this type of service. And how often do we see reference, even on this forum, to COSHH Safety Data Sheets. Furthermore, the previous ACoPs for COSHH have indicated that the risk assessment can be based on the safety data sheet, this new edition has undergone a significant change. So whilst many involved with COSHH and risk assessment may recognise that the risk assessment should not be based exclusively on the safety data sheet, there are still many out there that do not! Chris

Example: Epoxy impregnated carbon fibre mat used in aerospace. Claim for allergic contact dermatitis due to handling the mat Investigation showed no release of the sensitiser (R43) from the mat Further investigation showed a different cause (non-occupational) for the skin condition However: When for a different process the mat was softened with a solvent the sensitiser in the mat did become bioavailable. Incidentally, precautions for protection against the solvent had adequately controlled this potential exposure. Client had not identified that different uses presented different hazards and this was also not covered by the safety data sheet as it dealt only with the mat as supplied. Often the most difficult part of any risk assessment for skin exposure to chemicals is determining the real hazard arising when the chemical(s) is/are used. In many cases it is difficult to establish this as reference works usually only cover individual chemicals and not consequences when used/moxed. reacted etc. Chris.

Chris Further to the point you made at #5, would REACH use scenarios have highlighted the differing risks from the two uses of the same material? LB

Chris For those of us who do not have your erudite knowledge on COSHH, sensitisers and so on, we tend to rely on the warning labels on the substance to identify whether it's a COSHH substance - that was your original opening gambit BTW. Unfortunately this approach tends to have identify almost everything as a COSHH product including Tippex, which I have never done a COSHH assessment for and don't intend to either. Ray

Get a life. Its been known for ever and a day that the safety data sheet will only provide information on the hazardous properties of the substances, any health effects associated with its use, how likely it is to get into the air or onto the skin, and what risk reduction measures should be used to control exposure to an acceptable level. The SDS doesn't.take into consideration how it is used, what quantities, what it is mixed with etc and therefore can only be used as an aid to the coshh assessment.