Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gordon
Hello all,
I was hoping someone could explain 'in real simple terms' understanding WEL for the purpose of a COSHH assessment.
So for the purpose of helping me understand: Substance A carries a maximum safe value of 200ppm / 1080 mg/m3 air. Im told manufacturers calculate WEL at an average of an 8hr working day.
Would I be correct in saying I shouldn't be trying to work out how many ppm the person is exposed to just as long as the substance is used in the correct manner with the appropriate control measurements and that the exposure is less than 8 hours other wise after 8 hours they would be exceeding the 200ppm?
If the person had used the substance for 4 hours, would they have been exposed to only 100ppm?
Thank you for your guidance in this matter.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By prads
Hi Gordon,
WEL will have values for both long term exposure limit (LTEL) calculated over 8 hrs exposure as well as STEL (Short term exposure limit) which is calculated for 15 mins exposure. Taking into consideration that each 15 mins exposure is followed with atleast 1 hour gap/ break. STEL will be always be more than LTEL (obvious). By no means one must exceed the STEL, though.
Well the WEL is calculated on the basis of airborne concentration. Hence, it does not take into consideration the other routes of entry (contact, ingestion, injection etc).
Prads
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Leadbetter
Hi, Gordon
The concentration is independent of exposure time, all things being equal. If the concentration is 200 ppm, then the exposure will be 200 ppm, regardless of exposure time. However, concentration x time = dose; so, if the exposure time is halved, the dose is halved.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By jg sayle
I hope this makes sense, this is taken from EH40/2005 Workplace Exposure Limits;
The 8-hour TWA may be represented mathematically by:
C1T1+C2T2+…CnTn
8
C1 is the occupational exposure and T1 is the associated exposure time in hours in any 24-hour period.
The following example is given to bring the equation to life;
An operator works for 7 hours 20 minutes on a
process in which he is exposed to a substance hazardous to health. The average exposure during that period is measured as 0.12 mg.m-3.
The 8-hour TWA =
7h 20 min (7.33h) at 0.12 mg.m-3
40 min (0.67 h) at 0 mg.m-3
That is;
(0.12 x 7.33) + (0 x 0.67)
8
= 0.11 mg.m-3
Hope that helps
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By jg sayle
I maybe should have justified that TWA is an abbreviation for Time-Weighted Average Exposure
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Coshh Assessor
The WEL is nothing to do with the manufacturers, and it isn't a guide to the concentration in the air in normal use, it is a statutory limit based on how dangerous the chemical is to breathe in. Some are over 8 hours and some over 15 minutes depending on whether the effects are long-term or short-term.
For an 8 hour WEL of 200 ppm, you will be exceeding this if:
- the concentration in the air is above 200 ppm and the exposure is for 8 hours
- the concentration in the air is above 400 ppm and the exposure is for 4 hours,
and so on.
So you can't just consider exposure time, the concentration in the air is equally important.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter F.
Gordon,
I bet you're delighted that you asked people to simplify WEL.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jay Joshi
There is a summary explanation of how these are "decided", how GB previously ended up with a two tier system of OEL's (i.e. MEL's & OES's) and the proposal for WEL's.
"OELs and the effective control of exposure to substances hazardous to health in the UK (Version 3) by Dr Mark Piney -HM Principal Specialist Inspector (Occupational Hygiene)-this is a 2001 publication.
Please note that this was before the amendment of COSHH Regs that consolidated the two tier system of OEL's (i.e. MEL's & OES's) and the in to WEL's--but the principle is the same.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/coshh/oel.pdf
http://www.hse.gov.uk/consult/disdocs/dde19.pdf
http://www.hse.gov.uk/consult/condocs/cd189.pdf
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By garyh
If you study EH40 it explains WELs and also tells you about calculating time weighted averages.
My understanding is that the WEL is the limit to which you can be exposed to without any ill effects on your health.
However, my experience is that if people's exposure is more than 50% (some say 30%) then this is unacceptable and you need to get exposure down.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Coshh Assessor
That's most definitely not my understanding, in fact I've never heard this suggestion before that there are supposed to be no harmful effects below the WEL - can I ask where this comes from?
Bear in mind that harmful effects are often not obvious at the time. You don't have to feel ill for a toxic chemical to be harming you.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By garyh
See page 8 of EH40. I teach this at NEBOSH dip level. Basically the 'No-Observed Adverse
Effect Level' (NOAEL) is used as the basis for a WEL.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Coshh Assessor
I'm afraid that's not what my copy of EH40 says, Gary ...
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By garyh
COSHH assessor......... Page 36 of EH40........."If a NOAEL (or LOAEL) can be identified, then this value is taken as a starting point for estimating the highest level of occupational exposure at which no adverse health effects would be expected to occur in workers or their progeny following exposure over a working lifetime."
Granted, this is not neccessarily the only basis (eg, other factors such as toxicological, epidemiological, socio economic factors etc) used by ACT / HSE, but is usually what determines the WEL.
If you know different, please expand on this.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Coshh Assessor
That's my point, Gary, it's not the only basis and therefore you cannot assume that an exposure below the WEL is supposed to have no effect on health. "If" - a small word with an important meaning.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By DaGuru
Ahh, Dontcha love COSHH!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
Remember also that there can be no inhalation exposure without exposure of the facial skin. It is possible for a sensitising chemical to elicit a skin reaction in an already sensitised person at levels of exposure well below the WEL.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bill01
Good point Chris.
If inhalation occurs then you may have other routes to consider e.g skin, mucous membranes, ingestion etc. Chemicals may well behave very differently depending on the route of entry.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
This is one reason why a half-mask, whilst adequate as protection against inhalation, may not be sufficient protection if the chemical is a sensitiser since it leaves a substantial area of facial skin exposed.
Re chemical behaviour in some people enzymes in the stratum corneum can result in a chemical metabolising. The metabolite may have quite different properties from the original chemical. Another reason why the safety data sheet may not tell you what you need to know.
Chris
|
|
|
|
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.