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
Potential Printer Fumes for Pregnant Office Worker
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Previous Topic Next Topic
Admin  
#1 Posted : 01 October 2008 15:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By Julie72 Hi I hope someone can help. I work in an office and sit right next to a busy colour printer which is constantly in use by approx 20 people. I have found out I'm pregnant. Do you know of any potential risks? My employer wants me to complete my own risk assessment. For a previous pregnancy this was done for me and I was advised not to change printer/copier toners but at the time I wasn't sat in close proximity to the printer as I am now. Thanks
Back to top
Admin  
#2 Posted : 01 October 2008 15:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By Ian Futcher There was a study in JApan 2006 looking at printer "fumes" from toner etc. However the study was only conducted on men. I can forward you a .pdf if you contact me if you think it would be any use. Ian
Back to top
Admin  
#3 Posted : 01 October 2008 15:36:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By bill reilly julie this is a start http://www.hse.gov.uk/mothers/index.htm
Back to top
Admin  
#4 Posted : 01 October 2008 15:43:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By Ron Hunter It is not good practice to have anyone sitting too close to a high volume printer or copier. I find it very disappointing that you are left to fend for yourself here. That being the case, it would be advisable to talk direct with the manufacturers of the machine. Also find and have a read of the machine handbook. I'm not aware of any particular risks to NAEM/the unborn child from toner products, however many machines will discharge a certain level of ozone (particular problem if machine filters are not serviced)whcih is harmful. Meantime, insist that you are relocated further away from the machine.
Back to top
Admin  
#5 Posted : 01 October 2008 16:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By Eddie Julie, Congratulations! Sorry if it seems like I am hijacking your thread but could Ron explain why he thinks it is not good practice to sit someone too close to a copier/printer and also what levels of ozone would be regarded as dangerous. This isn't meant as a dig by the way it's just that I do sit quite close to a busy copier! Thanks Eddie
Back to top
Admin  
#6 Posted : 01 October 2008 16:18:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Back to top
Admin  
#7 Posted : 01 October 2008 16:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By Ron Hunter Eddie: not good practice because every manufacturer's handbook I've come across says so, and generally as a precaution against Ozone exposure - generally only a problem on poorly maintained high volume use machines. I'm not up to speed on the latest WELs, but I seem to recall that Ozone had both an 8-hour TWA OES of 0.1 ppm, and a 15 minute short-term exposure limit (STEL) of 0.2 ppm under previous EH 40 issue. For the non-technical out there: ppm = parts per million. WEL = Workplace Exposure Limit TWA = time weighted average OES = occupational exposure standard
Back to top
Admin  
#8 Posted : 01 October 2008 16:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Back to top
Admin  
#9 Posted : 01 October 2008 16:28:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By A Campbell Previos discussion regarding this ... http://www.iosh.co.uk/in...=1&thread=16418&page=361
Back to top
Admin  
#10 Posted : 01 October 2008 16:33:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By peter gotch Hi Julie Discussed at http://www.iosh.co.uk/in...iew&forum=1&thread=29666 Regards, Peter
Back to top
Admin  
#11 Posted : 02 October 2008 08:18:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By John Donaldson Could I just throw something in here. Julie has spoken about a Colour Printer not a Colour Photo copier. It could be, and I only say could be, a Ink Jet printer in which case there would be no risk.
Back to top
Admin  
#12 Posted : 02 October 2008 11:27:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By Ron Hunter It could be John, but ink-jet printers are pretty naff for the high volume work the poster describes - so I made some assumptions.
Back to top
Admin  
#13 Posted : 02 October 2008 18:20:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By John Richards Errr...the inks are dissolved in solvents.... High-volume printing equals an enlarged amount of solvent vapour.... Should not the business have an msds for the printer ink ?
Back to top
Admin  
#14 Posted : 02 October 2008 18:52:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By Sharon Hi Julie, first of all congrats!..... You say that "My employer wants me to complete my own risk assessment." I wound not complete your own risk assessment if you dont feel confident in doing so, you should ask for help and guidance from the H&S Manager or whoever is in that position.
Back to top
Admin  
#15 Posted : 03 October 2008 12:00:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By John Richards "The recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision in the case of Stevenson v J M Skinner & Co serves as a useful reminder to employers that once they are informed that an employee is pregnant or has given birth, they are required to carry out a risk assessment (or review a previous risk assessment) in order to assess whether the mother or child is placed at risk. Failure to do so is an act of sex discrimination" www.employmentappeals.go...Upload/07_0584fhLBDA.doc
Back to top
Admin  
#16 Posted : 03 October 2008 16:47:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By Ron Hunter John, not quite correct. The employer's duty is to protect the unborn child = women of child-bearing age. Waiting until someone tells you they are pregnant is too late and contrary to law.
Back to top
Admin  
#17 Posted : 03 October 2008 16:54:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By John Richards Obviously the website WORKPLACELAW is wrong then. http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg373hp.pdf http://www.workplacelaw.net/
Back to top
Admin  
#18 Posted : 03 October 2008 18:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By GeoffB4 Any links to a source showing there is a proven problem yet?
Back to top
Admin  
#19 Posted : 04 October 2008 01:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By Ron Hunter No John, nothing wrong there. To quote from your first reference: "They (employers) must also make this information known to all their female employees of childbearing age, not just those who have informed them they are pregnant. This is particularly important for expectant mothers, as it is possible for the first 4-6 weeks of pregnancy to go undetected." I trust the distinction is clear.The Assessment must be completed where women of child-bearing age work for you - regardless. Particularly important with harmful substances.
Back to top
Admin  
#20 Posted : 04 October 2008 02:29:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By John Richards All too obviously the company is not so doing. Probably on advice from their H&S consultancy.
Back to top
Admin  
#21 Posted : 04 October 2008 12:57:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By GeoffB4 What consultancy?
Back to top
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.

Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2025, Yet Another Forum.NET