Thank you for adding your comments Chris.

I find this very interesting. Isocyanates are not a major concern for us but metal working fluids are becoming a real problem. Our OHP has advised that skin absorption does need lead to respiratory sensitisation and I have been looking for some evidence to the contrary. I will forward your post onto our Health and Safety team if that is ok with you.

I could sit and read your posts all day long.

Thanks

Paula

Having had a quick look at them I am seriously concerned about the quality of the advice given in these documents. They appear to ignore the effect of these paints on the skin. There is abundant evidence now that skin exposure to isocyanates can trigger sensitisation that can result in asthma. So merely providing respiratory protection – and health surveillance for respiratory effects – is inadequate. Furthermore, the recommendation that single use nitrile gloves can be worn is again completely wrong. These will have a permeation breakthrough time of at most a few minutes, after which skin uptake inside the occlusive gloves will be accelerated compared with unoccluded skin. The statement that: “Isocyanate paint mist is invisible and breathing it in can cause occupational asthma. It is not absorbed through the eyes or skin (although liquid paint on the skin can cause dermatitis)” runs counter to the presentations and documentation that I have and the presentations that I have seen at several skin conferences.

“Although respiratory exposures have been the primary concern with isocyanates, skin exposure can also occur and may contribute to sensitization and asthma.” Skin Exposure to Aliphatic Polyisocyanates in the Auto Body Repair and Refinishing Industry: A Qualitative Assessment, Liu Y et al, Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 2007, 51, 429-439

Evidence for absorption through the skin in causing (respiratory) sensitization has recently been confirmed. International Consensus Report of Isocyanates – Risk assessment and management – meeting organised by The Norwegian Labour Inspection, Norway, Nov. 2001

I have several more similar references. One of our experts in this field is Prof. Ian Kimber at Manchester University. I have heard him speak on several occasions explaining the physiology that is involved and have had a number of discussions with him on this. To my mind the evidence is clear. Indeed, skin penetration leading to systemic effects is vastly underrated by many, despite the evidence.

I have on several occasions contacted the HSE pointing out errors regarding skin management but on no occasion have I have a proactive response.

“Skin absorption can occur without being noticed by the employee and in some instances may be a more significant route than the respiratory system. This is particularly true for non-volatile chemicals that are hazardous and that remain on work surfaces for long periods of time.”  - and

“Biological monitoring results of coke oven workers coupled with air monitoring of the employees’ exposure demonstrated that 51% of the average total dose of benzo[a]pyrene absorbed by coke oven workers occurred via skin contact.”

Both the above are from the OSHA Technical Manual, Section II, Chapter 2

If anyone wishes to learn more on this drop me an e-mail off the forum.

Chris

Chris Packham

FRSPH, FIIRSM, FInstSMM, MCMI, RSP, MBICSc

EnviroDerm Services

Unit 10, Building 11, The Mews, Mitcheldean, GL17 0SN

Tel: 01386 832 311

Mobile: 07818 035 898

www.enviroderm.co.uk

******************************** Please remove this footer before replying.

OCC-HEALTH ARCHIVES: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/occ-health.html

CONFERENCES AND STUDY DAYS: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/filearea.cgi?LMGT1=OCC-HEALTH