Monopoly

You can't assess the likely exposure (let alone start measuring it) until you know what the use of the product is.

The Safety Data Sheet will also have guidance on use. In this case, it's probably a spray can (hence the liquefied petroleum gas carrying xylene, an organic solvent), so the SDS probably says something along the lines of "Use in a well ventilated place", then what to do if that's not practical.

With the right people on board, you might be able to hazard a guess as to potential levels of the toxic, asphyxiating and flammable content of the air when the product is used. 

You might be able to hazard a guess from e.g. knowledge built up by typical users doing typical tasks.

Originally Posted by: Monopoly

Should there be information with the product that says typicallly so many parts of the product will be in a millions parts of contaminated air over a certain period time when being used? 

FFS (and just for a change I do not mean Fat Finger Syndrome) an SDS is prepared for the material as it is supplied to market.

IT IS NOT a COSHH assessment which is what you are eluding towards.

The manufacturer/supplier has absolutley NO knowledge of your facility, NO knowledge of what you are doing with it and NO knowledge of any control measures you may or may not have in place e.g. LEV.

Given this lack of knowledge HOW do you propose they can advise as you have written?

BTW we are discussing your use, in your workplace, with your controls - what about every other user of the product in their unique workplace, with their distinct controls? Get the feeling we may have wildly different numbers in such circumstances (as Peter mentioned using indoors/outdoors/well ventilated area - that is three different numbers for your individual use alone).

It was the biggest mistake HM Gov ever made by revising CHiP in the same year that COSHH launched with so many (primarily construction) fools perceiving an (M)SDS to be their COSHH assessement.

An SDS provides some but not all information. There are other sources including dare I say occupational exposure testing to determine for example if your use in your workplace exceeds the current exposure limits. From all these sources you derive your workplace assessment.

Sorry your post lit the blue touch paper of so many disagreements with self righteous consultants adamant I must provide a COSHH sheet when they actually meant an SDS. Never got an apology when they could not provide a link to the regulation they thought they were quoting.

What Chris, Pete and Roundtuit have said is spot on but I’d go further. You need to do a proper risk assessment as required under COSHH so you look at the job you are doing ( a risk assessment  is always for a process not just a substance) and taking everything into account (above and beyond just the SDS)   decide  if the substances that you are using are appropriate. To often people are told to use a product ‘X’ because they have always used ‘X’.  Then they are expected to create a safe system of work around that substance rather than selecting the right product for your process.

So what are you using? How long for? How many air changes are there in the room you are working in? Is it practicable to increase these? Can the process be enclosed? Is skin exposure an issue( that will keep Chris happy!)?

Perhaps in the context of measurements for substances in the workplace the following is relevant:

“However, there is no scientific method of measuring the results of the body’s exposure to risk through dermal contact. Consequently no dermal exposure standards have been set.” - from “Occupational skin diseases and dermal exposure in the European Union (EU-25):policy and practice overview - European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

So demonstrating ‘compliance’ when considering risk assessment and exposure management for skin in the working environment is simply not an option since there is no standard (other than the vague requirement to ‘adequately control’, whatever that means for skin) to comply with.

Although skin exposure measurement is not a realistic option, skin condition measurement is and can be used to detect skin damage due to damage from irritant chemicals in contact with the skin whilst this is still asymptomatic.

Kate,

In the context of a risk assessment for workplace skin exposure totally irrelevant. It is to complex an issue to explain on this forum but if you would like a detailed explanation PM me your e-mail address and I will send you a document explaining why.

SDS are not totally useless but you have to understand what they are about.

To a large extent, for suppliers they are a tickbox exercise, which is why alcohol is described as harmful to the skin, which of course it is, but then so is repeated exposure of the skin to water. They only describe hazards, not the risk, so it does not tell you what is the risk of using a substance for your processes, with your people, in your location?

Neither does it distinguish between someone who is storing a 100 tonnes of alcohol wipes and someone who is only using them a couple of times a day to sanitise their hands.

Finally the suppliers rely on information that is provided to them by third parties. If that is poor, out of date or just none existent, it is not surprising that the SDS is of limited use.

Kate - your example of a test is what is done to measure glove performance. It is a requirement under REACH that the safety data sheet specifies the type of glove suitable for the chemical (including, would you believe the manufacturer) and the length of time before permeation ( transfer of chemical through glove at a molecular level, invisible and undetectable by the wearer) occurs. What you describe is exactly how the test is done to determine this so that it can be shown on the safety data sheet. The measurement of the amount found on the inner glove is needed as part of the test.

As it happens this test is also meaningless when deciding which glove to wear and how long it will work for as in the first place the EN test is flawed as it measure performance at the wrong temperature and many other factors will affect the glove's performance when it is actually used. There is a technique available to measure gloves under actualy conditions of use. You would be surprised what one finds when this is done!

Kate

With the additional information this is exactly what I mentioned when I wrote of  'in-use testing'. However, as a measure of skin exposure it does not really provide any useful information. To explain why I state this would require a far more lengthy explanation that I could give on the forum. As I wrote earlier, if you would like more on this just PM me an e-mail address and I will send you a more detailed explanation about skin exposure measurement that I am sure will satisfy you. 

Chris

Thank you all for the responses. 

I am fairly new to health and safety and lack practical on the job experience.I  have passed the NEBOSH cert. and currently studying for the diploma, but have sometimes struggled to get a "how to apply this in the real world" answer from the course. 

I am aware that an SDS is not a COSHH risk assessment but was just trying to get my head around introducing control measures where WELS and STELS are included in the saftey information  

With a very small list of exceptions a COSHH risk assessment has to be specific to the task. To start with, the chemical hazard will depent on the way in which the chemical(s) is/are used and the changes that may occur that can affect the real hazard as used. Note what the current ACoP for COSHH states:

“Employers should regard a substance as hazardous to health if it is hazardous in the form in which it may occur in the work activity. A substance hazardous to health need not be just a chemical compound, it can also include mixtures of compounds, micro-organisms or natural materials, such as flour, stone or wood dust.” - COSHH ACoP (6th edition), para. 10

You may need to combine more than one of the three routes of exposure (inhalation, ingestion, skin) in order to properly assess the total risk of damage to health.

If you need more PM me with an e-mail address and I will send you more on this.

The COSHH risk assessment  has to be task based. This might mean if you use a substance differently in two separate tasks then you need two assessments. As you are likely to be using more than one substance in a task they should all be part of the assessment. But there might also be circumstances when you are using a class of similar compounds/substances and the effective controls are the all same so one assessment might be sufficient. 

Pay attention to the safety data sheets from the company sdsmanager.com, it helps me in working with petroleum products, perhaps this is one of the most convenient tools I have ever worked with for the efficient and safe management of chemicals

Reported - blatant exhumation of an old post for advertising purposes

I don't believe that

What's more, neither will anyone else

Captcha: BUHa

Employers must ensure that employees have access to safety data sheets for all of the hazardous chemicals they handle - Sevice providers really need to understand the regulations of the market they choose to serve.

A thread started two years ago by a poster last on-line 14 months ago

CAPTCHA sshH

Understanding Safety Data Sheets (SDS) is crucial for maintaining a safe working environment with hazardous chemicals. SDS provide essential information on chemical properties, hazards, and handling procedures, helping to prevent accidents and ensure proper response in emergencies. Effective sds management involves keeping these documents easily accessible, regularly updated, and well-organized to ensure compliance with safety regulations and facilitate quick reference when needed. Proper management of SDS not only protects employees but also supports overall workplace safety and regulatory adherence.

REPORTED - Quantum Compliance obviously has issues reading rules such as no commercial advertising