Posted By Tracey C Hi Ian If you ring your office supplies where you usually purchase from they will either e-mail it to you or fax it. I have done this before with other products. I was quite surprised at the immediate response really! T

Posted By Ian Cook Hi Tracy Thanks for the advice :) cheers Ian.

Posted By Dave West http://www.opinfo.net/code/index.asp

Posted By Ian Cook Tracey/Dave/Mike... Superb response, it will go a little way to helping my NEBOSH assignment... thanks again :) Ian.

Posted By IOSH Moderator All, As none of us has the full picture of why the info is required, please can we refrain from adding commentary unless the original poster requests it. Ian, - Are you happy with the info you have received? - Are you willing to shed any more light on the situation you are assessing, in order to focus the commentary a bit? Regards Jonathan Breeze

Posted By James365 I'd agree with the previous comments that it does not pose a significant risk as far as COSHH is concerned, assuming it's an office type environment. The presence of kids, for example, might change that. And you'll be aware that on its own, flammability does not warrant a COSHH assessment. Greater chemical risks in an office type environment would typically be derived from materials used by cleaners and chemicals used in old-school CAD printers and the like (ammonia based). You might also have dosing chemicals for water tanks. I have had people deem the risks from laser printer fume as significant in the past (can contain ozone, apparently), but suspect that's worthy of a discussion on its own ;) Good luck

Posted By James365 "As none of us has the full picture of why the info is required, please can we refrain from adding commentary unless the original poster requests it. Johnathan Breeze" What a proposterous assertion. The heading of this forum includes the word "discussion" and I was actually quite interested in how this particular "discussion" was evolving. This forum has always been, at worst, an interesting distraction and, at its best, an invaluable resource. Such inappropriate moderation will only serve to detract from the site. Can I suggest you have a wee think about what this board actually means and the purpose it serves before you interject next time. Unless you would care to point out what was inappropriate about the unfolding discussion above and what rules - implied or other - were being broken by the contributions of others. The kind of approach adopted here is what gives "the health and safety man" a bad name. Poor show.

Posted By holmezy Peter, I have watched this post with interest as, I think, I was the one to whom the "flippant" accusation was aimed. I wasn't being flippant, sarcastic or anything else for that matter, I just cant understand why people spend time doing coshh assessments on Tippex, especially now its trich free. Also, the reason for the query was an assignment for the Diploma.....I'd be reluctant to include tippex as the guidance for the diploma suggests that "substances which offer substantial content value" or something like it. I dont think that it would be worth wasting time or words on correction fluid, and I dont think the examiners would be to impressed either. Now, if there was a brief comment saying, "correction fluid was considered to be an in-substantial risk and therefore no coshh required",,,,,,that might be different. Sorry if I upset anyone, yours humbly Holmezy

Posted By J Knight As one poster has already said outright and others have hinted; the reason old style tippex carried a warning was because of trichloroethylene; RAs were (and are) required for significant (bulk) quantities of this stuff, but the amount present in a tippex bottle was always regarded as a trivial risk. I know of somebody who almost died from fairy liquid (inhaled his vomit after drinking a cupful of it) and somebody else who ended up in ITU after a minor cut to his finger. I don't do COSHH assessments for fairy, and I don't ban paper, scissors, kitchen knives and so on, John

Posted By Jane Blunt The bottle on my desk has a highly flammable sign on it. I think there is more than one formulation in use.

Posted By Peter Leese Holmezy - actually I thought it was aimed at me! I once joined TPA (The Paranoids Association), but soon found out they all had it in for me (or is infamy?). I do despair at people who insist on wasting time and paper on trivia.

Posted By Mick154 Class 3 Flammable Liquids Criteria The heading of Class 3 covers substances and articles containing substances of this Class which: - are liquids according to subparagraph (a) of the definition for "liquid" in 1.2.1; - have at 50 °C a vapour pressure of not more than 300 kPa (3 bar) and are not completely gaseous at 20 °C and at standard pressure of 101.3 kPa; and - have a flash-point of not more than 60 °C The heading of Class 3 also covers liquid substances and molten solid substances with a flash-point of more than 60°C and which are carried or handed over for carriage whilst heated at temperatures equal to or higher than their flash-point. The heading of Class 3 also covers liquid desensitized explosives. Liquid desensitized explosives are explosive substances which are dissolved or suspended in water or other liquid substances, to form an homogeneous liquid mixture to suppress their explosive properties.. then The substances and articles of Class 3 are subdivided as follows: F Flammable liquids, without subsidiary risk: F1 Flammable liquids having a flash-point of or below 60 °C; F2 Flammable liquids having a flash-point above 60 °C which are carried or handed over for carriage at or above their flash-point (elevated temperature substances); FT Flammable liquids, toxic: FT1 Flammable liquids, toxic; FT2 Pesticides; FC Flammable liquids, corrosive; FTC Flammable liquids, toxic, corrosive; D Liquid desensitized explosives. Substances and articles classified in Class 3 are listed in Table A of Chapter 3.2. Substances not mentioned by name in Table A of Chapter 3.2 shall be assigned to the relevant entry of 2.2.3.3 and the relevant packing group in accordance with the provisions of this section. Flammable liquids shall be assigned to one of the following packing groups according to the degree of danger they present for carriage: Packing group//Flash point (closed cup)//Initial boiling point I//--//=35°C IIa//23C//> 35°C IIIa//= 23°C = 60C//> 35°C The dependant of the volume or quantity per package it may or may not be hazardous for transport??? Hope it helps to find out more follow http://www.unece.org/tra...adr2007/07ContentsE.html the 2007 ADR regulations

Posted By Mike Palfrey Phew 25 replies and nearly 1600 views on Tippex!