The problem with the safety data sheet is that it may not describe the actual chemical that has caused the injury. We purchase chemicals to use for a purpose. In the process we may well change the characteristics of the chemical and consequently the real hazard. Moreover, there are many chemicals that have not been assigned a hazard statement and thus may not even appear on the safety data sheet. Many of these could be hazardous, particularly if the contact is with the skin. Identification of the real hazard to which the injured person has been exposed should be apparent from the COSHH assessment, which should have been based on the real hazard, not the safety data sheet. (The sixth edition of the COSHH ACoP covers this!), so the risk assessment would be the better document, supported if necessary by additional information about the event. Chris

A good COSHH assessment / product label beats the SDS for a UK A&E team. The substance name, CAS No and / EC number may trigger a response when the Doctor contacts our national poisons unit (NOTE: currently NOT for the public to ring nor should the number appear on an UK SDS). The UK has kept itself distanced from the concept of formulation / SDS registration with a "National Poisons Center" as detailed under REACH (different scenario on the other side of the Channel especially France & Germany) but a new draft is doing the rounds and if adopted another TLA will soon enter chemical H&S jargon "UFI - Unique Formula Identifier" a common coding to identify a formulas 100% substance composition for emergency responders.