Posted By Chris Packham Aggi The simple answer to your question is: "No!" All the evidence indicates that these products do not protect and some studies show increased skin absorption with the cream compared with untreated skin. Furthermore, these products are legally cosmetics. If you use them as 'protection' then arguably you are reclassifying them as personal protective equipment. The requirements for product testing are very different for the two different classifications. So the onus will be on you to ensure that the product does actually protect. How will you do this? When you consider that the only glove that provides anything other than short term protection for methylated spirit has to be made from Viton rubber at a cost of around £70 per pair and that vinyl and natural rubber will let the chemical through as a vapour in less than 10 minutes, how much protection do you imagine a cream could give? Instead of rags, why not use something such as a paint pad? These come in a variety of sizes and I have had clients use them for this very purpose. This eliminates the direct contact between skin and chemical. Chris

Posted By Chris Packham Aggi Take a trip down to your local DIY store. You will find that paint pads come in all shapes and sizes, usually as kits. I even have one specially designed to get into corners that solved a customer's problem. Once you have found one that suits, possibly as part of a kit, then you can almost certainly contact the manufacturer/importer and get a supply of this particular type in bulk. I know that some of my other customers have. Chris

Posted By Chris Packham Warren What evidence have you that this product is preventing skin uptake of the solvent? It may be preventing the pigment from attaching itself to the skin and thus make cleansing easier, but as for the solvent there is little evidence that any of these types of product will prevent uptake. Indeed, as I have said, several studies have shown increased uptake of solvent compared with untreated skin. You cannot see this, but biological monitoring might surprise you. An additional point to consider is that a product like this could only work if the whole skin is covered. Evidence from several studies shows that, for example, as many as 85% of people do not cover the entire hand. For me this is the equivalent of providing gloves with holes! I will never allow my clients to rely on these products. They are legally cosmetics and should not be used as personal protective equipment. If they are, then the onus is on the employer to demonstrate that they are providing adequate control. You would need at a minimum regular biological monitoring to be able to demonstrate this. Quoting from HSG205 (Assessing and managing risks at work from skin exposure to chemical agents), "Pre-work creams cannot be relied on for primary protection of the skin as there is no information on the rate of penetration of chemicals through creams. Also, people habitually miss areas of their exposed skin whien applying creams and so complete skin cover cannot be guaranteed." Chris