Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 07 June 2007 08:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jim Erdwin
We make abrasive foam pads & blocks.Two men "squirt" polyol & isocyanate into a box,hold on a lid and the stuff rises like dough to form a 40+kg foam block.At the moment they wear face masks with A1,B1,E1 & K1 FILTERS. Can anyone tell me from this info if they need these masks as they get very hot and wet.
Admin  
#2 Posted : 07 June 2007 09:47:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Descarte
well isocyanate's can cause occupational asthma and exposure to these should be controlled. Occupational hygiene monitoring should be conducted ( I Have done in the past for an old company I worked for ) and then you would be able to determine if the masks, and filters were correct for the concentrations your workers are being exposed to.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 07 June 2007 09:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Chris Packham
Isocyanates can also cause occupational contact dermatitis and there is some evidence to indicate that respiratory sensitisation can occur from skin exposure. Have you checked on potential skin exposure to the chemicals in question and the suitability of the gloves being worn.

Note that isocyanates in foams can remain active for some considerable time after the foam has been produced. There is a simple method for monitoring for this, using colour change pads.

I have been told by HSE that their view is that anyone potentially exposed to isocyanates should be subjected to biological monitoring. (This would include your workers and anyone spray painting using two pack paints containing isocyanates.) The Health and Safety Laboratory offers a service for this. Contact there is, I believe, Kate Jones.

Chris

Admin  
#4 Posted : 07 June 2007 13:39:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Blease
Hi Jim,
not sure about the particular products you are using.

What does it say on the Material Safety Data Sheets?

We get invoved in isocyanate exposure of workers who are spraying two pack paints.
In these instances, an air fed mask or visor is used (not cartridge respirators).
Health surveillance (questionnaire and lung function testing) and annual biological monitoring (urine check)for isocyanates is also required.
Do not forget about training on the dangers of isocyanates, correct wearing of RPE maintenance of RPE, etc.
If you need further advice, please contact me.

John Blease
Admin  
#5 Posted : 07 June 2007 13:43:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Paul Leadbetter
Jim

If you think that the isocyanate is getting airborne, then you should be using air-fed RPE.

Paul
Admin  
#6 Posted : 07 June 2007 14:14:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jim Erdwin
Many thanx for the responses folks.I will take all the advice on board and look deeper into the situation here.

Jim
Admin  
#7 Posted : 07 June 2007 14:16:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Glyn Atkinson
From previous tests and advice from scientists based at HSE Laboratory at Buxton - use of air fed full face visors is required, along with medical health surveillence for sprayers, breathing air testing every 28 days by external provider who issues test certs for mask face fits as well as tests for the life of the filters within the breathing apparatus used.

Nasty stuff - isocyanates, we are endeavouring to change all of our processes to water based adhesives at the earliest opportunity, in order to remove the need for our current coating licence through the Environmental Agency.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 07 June 2007 15:39:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By mrs.seed
Glyn
Just an off hand comment.
I found it interesting that you are trying to change to water based alternatives not because of the risk involved but because of the 'hassle' (my interpretation, not your words) of getting a licence. There may be more to it than that, but as I said, just an off hand comment.
Admin  
#9 Posted : 07 June 2007 16:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Jim

I think you need to make a deeper review of the process and determine if it can be changed to do this under LEV in something like a glove box. The use of PPE makes me feel that the simple solutions without too much kit brigade have determined the method of manufacture.

Bob
Admin  
#10 Posted : 08 June 2007 16:24:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By garyh
I would say go back to first principles and do a COSHH assessment. RPE should be a last resort!
Admin  
#11 Posted : 08 June 2007 16:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Chris Packham
I agree fully with the last posting. Just consider also that if you have airborne exposure requiring RPE then as isocyanates are also a skin sensitiser you will need full face protection.

Chris
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
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.