Industry's perception and use of occupational exposure limits

Comparison of ConsExpo estimated exposure levels to glycol ethers during professional cleaning work to existing regulatory occupational exposure limit values

Objectives. Researchers have shown that cleaning workers have an increased risk of asthma and rhinitis, mainly due to exposure to chemical substances present in the cleaning products they use. Among the important substances are glycol ethers, increasingly used as components in cleaning products. This study aimed to assess exposure levels of glycol ether in professional cleaning products and compare them to existing regulatory exposure limit values. Methods. Information from safety data sheets of the products is used to identify the glycol ethers present in the cleaning products and their respective concentrations. Other sources were used to obtain the relevant data required for use in the tool to generate exposure assessments. Exposure levels for various cleaning work exposure scenarios were estimated using the ConsExpo Web tool. Results. The estimated exposure values are significantly lower than the existing regulatory occupational exposure limit (OEL) values for the different glycol ethers. Conclusions. The study showed that the risk of exposure to glycol ethers by inhalation from professional cleaning products is minimal as exposure estimates were much below the regulatory OEL values.

Experimental Application of Semi-Quantitative Methods for the Assessment of Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Research Laboratories

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the application of some chemical risk assessment semi-quantitative methods and also to identify potential bias or differences originated by applying different methods to the same activities.

Methods

We collected the data related to the chemical agents used in three different activities of three laboratories of an Italian university; the methods we compared were: MoVaRisCh, COSHH Essentials, LaboRisCh and Datarisch.

Results

The input parameters requested by each method are shown for each activity and for each used chemical. We collected the results obtained since the application of the four different tools in three tables. The use of some chemicals (especially of the activity n° three) shows a not irrelevant risk for the users.

Conclusion

Our findings show that COSHH Essentials, MoVaRisCh and Datarisch tools are consistent in the identification of a risk level; the small differences are related to risk rating, to be considered in relation with the specific structure of the method applied. The differences detected in the risk rating may be overcome by applying, for each working activity we want to assess, two or more different semi-quantitative tools. This strategy can allow to reduce the exposure to chemicals of the workers.

An Assessment of the Robustness of the COSHH-Essentials (C-E) Target Airborne Concentration Ranges 15 Years on, and Their Usefulness for Determining Control Measures

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in Great Britain (GB), in association with its stakeholders, developed the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH)-Essentials (C-E) control banding tool in 1998. The objective was to provide a simple tool for employers, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), to help select and apply appropriate measures for the adequate control of exposure to hazardous substances. The tool used hazard classification information (R-phrases) to assign substances to one of five health hazard groups, each with its respective 'target airborne concentration range'. The validity of the allocation of substances to a target airborne concentration range was demonstrated at the time using 111 substances that had a current health-based Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL) in GB. The C-E control banding approach remains an important tool to complement exposure assessment/monitoring and the selection and use of suitable control measures for hazardous substances. These include engineering controls and personal protective equipment (PPE). The C-E based control banding approach has been adopted around the world. This paper extends the original validation exercise, using a greater number of chemical substances, to establish whether the target airborne concentration ranges remain appropriate. This is of particular interest in light of the introduction of the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) for classification, in which R-phrases have now been replaced by hazard-statements (H-statements). The validation exercise includes substances with OELs published by nine bodies internationally; and the Derived No-Effect Levels (DNELs) assigned by registrants under the European Union-Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Regulations. When compared against 8-hour TWA OELs for 850 substances drawn from nine bodies and a limited number of DNELS, the C-E target airborne concentration ranges remain valid. This comparative work also informs a wider consideration around the practicality and the applicability of the C-E generic approach to facilitate the implementation of good practice control for a wide range of substances (more than 95%) which do not have any recognized OEL.

Evaluation of RPE-Select: A Web-Based Respiratory Protective Equipment Selector Tool

This article describes the evaluation of an open-access web-based respiratory protective equipment selector tool (RPE-Select, accessible at http://www.healthyworkinglives.com/rpe-selector). This tool is based on the principles of the COSHH-Essentials (C-E) control banding (CB) tool, which was developed for the exposure risk management of hazardous chemicals in the workplace by small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and general practice H&S professionals. RPE-Select can be used for identifying adequate and suitable RPE for dusts, fibres, mist (solvent, water, and oil based), sprays, volatile solids, fumes, gases, vapours, and actual or potential oxygen deficiency. It can be applied for substances and products with safety data sheets as well as for a large number of commonly encountered process-generated substances (PGS), such as poultry house dusts or welding fume. Potential international usability has been built-in by using the Hazard Statements developed for the Globally Harmonised System (GHS) and providing recommended RPE in picture form as well as with a written specification. Illustration helps to compensate for the variabilities in assigned protection factors across the world. RPE-Select uses easily understandable descriptions/explanations and an interactive stepwise flow for providing input/answers at each step. The output of the selection process is a report summarising the user input data and a selection of RPE, including types of filters where applicable, from which the user can select the appropriate one for each wearer. In addition, each report includes 'Dos' and 'Don'ts' for the recommended RPE. RPE-Select outcomes, based on up to 20 hypothetical use scenarios, were evaluated in comparison with other available RPE selection processes and tools, and by 32 independent users with a broad range of familiarities with industrial use scenarios in general and respiratory protection in particular. For scenarios involving substances having safety data sheets, 87% of RPE-Select outcomes resulted in a 'safe' RPE selection, while 98% 'safe' outcomes were achieved for scenarios involving process-generated substances. Reasons for the outliers were examined. User comments and opinions on the mechanics and usability of RPE-Select are also presented.

Training health and safety committees to use control banding: lessons learned and opportunities for the United States

Control banding (CB) is a control-focused risk management model that has received international attention. CB strategies are designed to control workplace chemical exposures after the completion of a qualitative risk assessment. Connecticut was one of the first states to provide training on how to use this control-focused tool. Joint labor/management teams and individuals from 34 workplaces attended a control banding workshop and learned how to use one CB model, the United Kingdom (UK) Health and Safety Executive's Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Essentials Toolkit. After the initial training program the investigators used follow-up workshops, questionnaires, site visit data, and case studies to evaluate the training curriculum and assess the utility and effectiveness of this CB strategy. We found that the model is easily learned, although several areas for improvement were identified. Participants from 10 workplaces used COSHH Essentials to evaluate at least one task. The training curriculum was effective in that the agreement between the exposure variables coded by these workplaces and one of the workshop instructors, a certified industrial hygienist (CIH), were highly concordant. The training curriculum and the model promoted a discussion of risk between workers and managers and resulted in the implementation of improvements in the work environment. The model agreed with both the CIH's and the worksites' qualitative risk assessments 65% of the time, and likely over-controlled for 71% (5/7) of the cases of nonagreement. Feedback from workshop participants benefits the current dialogue on the implications of implementing CB in the United States.

Risk management measures for chemicals: the "COSHH essentials" approach

"COSHH essentials" was developed in Great Britain to help duty holders comply with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations. It uses a similar approach to that described in the new European "REACH" Regulation (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals; EC No. 1907/2006 of the European Parliament), insofar as it identifies measures for managing the risk for specified exposure scenarios. It can therefore assist REACH duty holders with the identification and communication of appropriate risk-management measures. The technical basis for COSHH essentials is explained in the original papers published in the Annals of Occupational Hygiene. Its details will, therefore, not be described here; rather, its ability to provide a suitable means for communicating risk-management measures will be explored. COSHH essentials is a simple tool based on an empirical approach to risk assessment and risk management. The output is a "Control Guidance Sheet" that lists the "dos" and "don'ts" for control in a specific task scenario. The guidance in COSHH essentials recognises that exposure in the workplace will depend not just on mechanical controls, but also on a number of other factors, including administrative and behavioural controls, such as systems of work, supervision and training. In 2002, COSHH essentials was made freely available via the internet (http://www.coshh-essentials.org.uk/). This electronic delivery enabled links to be made between product series that share tasks, such as drum filling, and with ancillary guidance, such as setting up health surveillance for work with a respiratory sensitiser. COSHH essentials has proved to be a popular tool for communicating good control practice. It has attracted over 1 million visits to its site since its launch. It offers a common benchmark of good practice for chemical users, manufacturers, suppliers and importers, as well as regulators and health professionals.

Controlling exposure to chemicals: a simple guide

Controlling exposure to chemicals in the workplace has been made easier by the use of a guide published by the U.K. Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Known as COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations) Essentials, the guide is a simple five-step procedure to devise appropriate control strategies to reduce exposures to various substances under different conditions. U.K. health and safety law requires risk assessments prior to use of hazardous substances and installation of appropriate control strategies before work commences. A 1996 survey of 1500 safety managers and trade union safety representatives revealed that the majority had little understanding of occupational safety limits for chemicals. Small- and medium-sized companies had little understanding of limits, and most could not develop control strategies. A new approach was required. COSHH Essentials is it. Developed over 3 years by a working group of hygienists and toxicologists representing HSE, industry, trade unions, and independent experts, the guide is now available in both paper-based and internet versions. It applies a hazard banding approach validated by data for 111 substances that have well-founded U.K. occupational exposure limits. New users select an appropriate hazard band for chemicals based on risk phrases. Details about dustiness for powders or volatility for liquids are inserted, and the guide allocates substances to one of four exposure bands linked, in turn, to specific control strategies. Now accessible through the HSE web site, COSHH Essentials will offer control strategies for both single chemicals and whole processes. To date over 300,000 risk assessments have been carried out using the internet version of COSHH Essentials.

Occupational exposure limits for chemicals

Occupational exposure limits (OELs) are tools to help employers protect the health of those who may be exposed to chemicals in their workplace. Under the United Kingdom Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations they define adequate control by inhalation. OELs are set by the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) on advice from its Advisory Committee on Toxic Substances (ACTS) and after public consultation. Thus they are consensus limits which have the support of both sides of industry. COSHH uses two types of occupational exposure limit-the occupational exposure standard (OES) and the maximum exposure limit (MEL). OESs are set for substances for which it is possible to identify a concentration at which there is no significant risk to health. Employers are required to meet the limit, there is no requirement to go below it, and it can be exceeded provided steps are taken to meet it as soon as reasonably practicable. MELs are set for substances which have serious health implications and for which an OES cannot be set. Most of the substances with MELs are either carcinogens or causes of occupational asthma. Employers must not exceed an MEL and must reduce exposure as far below it as is reasonably practicable. MELs are set at concentrations achievable by good occupational hygiene practice such that risks to workers are judged to be reduced to a tolerable level. The HSC consider that this approach is preferable to the use of mathematical models to generate risk estimates, which inevitably gives a spurious appearance of accuracy. The MEL/OES system is poorly understand by many employers who use chemicals, is not comprehensive as some substances meet neither the OES nor MEL criteria, and does not mesh well with indicative occupational exposure limit values which will increasingly be set under the European Union Chemical Agents Directive. COSHH essentials: easy steps to control chemicals provides the practical help that firms need to control chemicals. It takes users straight from hazard and exposure considerations to benchmark standards of good practice. The problems with the current system have prompted ACTS to set up a subgroup to review the OEL framework.