I'm due to review / do the company's COSHH assessments, and yesterday I thought I would try the HSE COSHH essentials. I was a little under whelmed by the output. It does seem to be intended for small / medium size organisations, so I did keep this in mind, but considered it quite unhelpful.

I thought I would put something easy into it - engine oil for topping up company cars. Obviously entered task duration etc and the "R" codes, and it decided that it was middle of the range for nastiness and pointed me to some leaflets on PPE etc. So really nothing that useful, for instance the PPE leaflet had a line drawing of a man in full protective overall with hood, visor, gloves and safety boots and no specific advice for this substance.

Ok I only did it out of curiosity, but what I entered would have been the same for a owner mechanic of a back street garage with say two employees, who would not have a clue what to do next. I'm ok with R code meanings, I'm happy looking at EH40 and say glove manufacturers glove data ( I can sort of guess Chris.P's comments, but it is all us mortals have to go on). The guy in the back street garage would be struggling, probably panic at the picture on the PPE sheet and would just end up employing someone else to do it ( therefore COSHH Essentials would be a complete waste of time).

What are others views on this, do you use them get the output and job done; use them as a starting point; or do you see little benefit and just go straight to doing your own.

Chris

I think you are vastly underestimating the knowledge of a mechanic if you think he would not have a clue what to provide to his employees for transferring synthetic motor oil.

The HSE guidance on PPE linked to by COSHH Essentials is simply that,guidance on PPE, it is not specific to any particular chemical or process and uses the word appropriate many times.

Having looked at the guidance on COSHH essentials I am concerned that it still appears to rely largely on the hazard data as indicated by risk phrases or hazard statements. For skin exposure this is not acceptable, since the hazards that a chemical represents will almost always change as the chemical is used for the purpose for which it was purchased.

The sixth edition of the ACoP for COSHH recognises this.

Paragraph 10
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.

and

Paragraph 74
Where a work activity may expose employees to more than one substance hazardous to health, the employer must consider the possible enhanced harmful effects of combined or sequential exposures.

Paragraph 57
The risk assessment should consider the work activity, including:
all the substances hazardous to health (including biological agents, and simple asphyxiants) arising from the work (used, produced, synthesised, created as waste or by-products, or released from processes or during accidents, incidents and emergencies);
work done by sub-contractors, at the workplace, that may exposure employees to substances hazardous to health.

Paragraph 67
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
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 lungs.
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 due 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 occupational 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.

Perhaps I am missing something, but I see nothing in COSHH essentials that incorporates these particular factors. Perhaps, also, this is why I see many risk assessments for skin exposure that do not reflect the real risk.

Chris

COSHH essentials definitely has its limitations, but it is an attempt to try to give the simple COSHH assessment some validity. It has a filter for the more dangerous chemicals.

Glove breakthrough times are specific to the chemical/glove combination. Since there are hundreds of thousands of chemicals we cannot expect specific advice in the COSHH essential documentation. You do need to make some enquiries before choosing a material.

Even when you have found a suitable glove, I would still not trust it. Gloves can have holes in them.

More training might help. However in the case of chemicals that are filtered out as more hazardous, you may need an experienced chemist to be able to unravel what the MSDS really means and how dangerous the chemical really is, in the circumstances in which you are using it.

Just to add to my posting, the British Occupational Hygiene Society have a proficiency module, P801, 'An introduction to the control of dermal exposure'. The syllabus covers some of these issues.

Chris

The risk phrases/hazard statements are based on classification thresholds and COSHH Essentials does take into account "how" the substances/mixtures including quantities and potential for inhalation exposure.

I accept that the skin is a complex tissue, but is also a robust barrier and by means of decent training in skin care and more so by the correct selection of gloves, PPE can be more easily used for skin protection compared to the much higher risks of exposure via inhalation. Last but not least. appropriate handling techniques can and do reduce the risk of skin contact. Whereever practicable gloves should only be used for accidental splash protection and disposable gloves discarded when contaminated. Wet working with gloves should be avoided.