Rank: Forum user 
|
I have a friend who works in car body shop and has done for 20 odd years....he contacted me in some distress...he has failed the urine test 3 times that his company have sent him on....he has gone to his GP for advice who didnt know what to test for and recommended he reported them to hse and change jobs(!)...i asked him what controls his company had...he has told me they have a dedicated booth but its not very well maintained...he is given ppe...a filter mask...not face fitted...latex gloves which disintergrate on use....i have sent him some fact sheets and told him to contact hsl.....will levels drop before he has another test and how long will he have before they do.....his company will not let him work until he is clear...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Failure of the blood tests should have led to a review of protection methods and equipment. The RPE, if as stated, is insufficient to protect against absorption. It should be full head coverage and supplied by fresh air from outside the spray area. Coveralls should be worn, and changed often and all exposed skin should be covered. Personally: I would be seeking legal advice. http://www.hse.gov.uk/co...isocyanates-spraying.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
What were they testing his urine for and what showed up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Isocyanate is a skin sensitiser and there is now a considerable body of evidence that skin exposure to isocyanates can cause not only skin sensitisation but also respiratory sensitisation leading to asthma. Thus adequate skin protection should be considered mandatory. The problem then is that usually the paint contains a solvent and finding gloves that will protect adequately against the solvent is often not easy. Whilst the isocyanate may not, itself, permeate the glove if the solvent does it can take the isocyanate with it. Due to occlusion the skin's own barrier within the glove will almost certainly be compromised such that the uptake of the isocyanate once inside the glove will be facilitated. There are ways that can we minimise this. The point I am trying to make is that the all-too-often concentration purely on respiratory protection will usually not ensure adequate control of exposure. Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Originally Posted by: johnmurray  Failure of the blood tests should have led to a review of protection methods and equipment. The RPE, if as stated, is insufficient to protect against absorption. It should be full head coverage and supplied by fresh air from outside the spray area. Coveralls should be worn, and changed often and all exposed skin should be covered. Personally: I would be seeking legal advice. http://www.hse.gov.uk/co...isocyanates-spraying.htm
Agree with above and there should be LEV (which will need to comply with environmental requirements for emissions). We used to get the sprayers urine tested and lung function test every 6 months.
The employee test shows the failings of the company to provide adequate protection and controls (or ensure they are implemented properly). This seems odd as if they were not aware of the necessary controls I would have expected them not to have organised the health surveillance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Re biological monitoring for isocyanate you might find the following site helpful: https://www.hsl.gov.uk/media/412385/employers.pdf
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.