A Simple Workplace Based Approach
To Dermal Risk Assessment and Risk
Management
A Simple Workplace Based Approach
To Dermal Risk Assessment and Risk
Management
Helen Packham
Enviroderm Services, UK
www.enviroderm.co.uk
Tools for dermal risk
assessment
?
THINK!
2
LISTEN!
Risk assessment in perspective
A qualitative approach
Workplace situations
Hierarchy of risk management solutions
Risk management problems and possible
solutions
Control through PPE
Assess Risk
What is a ‘Risk Assessment’?
Assess . . .
Source:-
… to estimate the size or
quality of ...
The Concise Oxford Dictionary
Estimate . . .
… an approximate
judgement of ...
Judgement . . .
… an opinion ...
A “risk assessment” is our opinion of a given situation
Calculate Risk Factor
Urgent, immediate
LOOK!
2
1
ASK!
Serious, needs resolving quickly
Risk Rating
Less serious, can be dealt with as soon as
possible
=
Hazard Rating x Exposure Rating x Probability
Not serious, needs to be dealt with, but
when convenient
Insignificant - no action required
1
Hazard
The intrinsic properties and ability to cause harm
Sensitizer
Irritant
Systemic toxin
Hazard
Health effect from dermal exposure
1. Irreversible
Acute, potentially lethal
Acute, serious
Chronic, potentially lethal
Chronic serious
Acute, minor
Chronic, minor
2. Reversible
Acute, potentially lethal
Acute, serious
Acute, minor
Chronic, serious
Chronic, minor
The what if factor
Assess effect of Exposure
One way of approaching this could be to assign a rating value, e.g.
Hazard rating
16
14
14
12
8
2
16
14
6
6
1
But what if a truck drives past…
Hazard
–
–
–
–
–
Form
Concentration
Life, volatility etc.
Bioavailability
Mixtures, contaminants, changes in use
Exposure
–
–
–
–
Extent
Duration
Location
Frequency
Assess effect of Exposure
Ambient conditions
– Temperature
– Humidity
– Open/restricted
Control measures
– Present
– Operational
– Effectiveness
– Safeguards
2
Assess effect of Exposure
People
–
–
–
–
–
Workers tell you what they think
they do
It may not be what they actually do
Probability
Consistent Approach
Numbers involved/exposed
Duration in location
Frequency in location
Awareness and attitude
Supervision
History
– Reported incidence and prevalence of skin problems
– Observed incidence and prevalence of skin problems
– Skin health monitoring and results
Classify Exposure
The following factors should be evaluated
Extent of exposure
Light
Medium
Heavy
Extreme
Factor
2
4
8
16
Short
Medium
Long
Continuous
Frequency of exposure
Seldom
Occasional
Regular
Frequent
Factor
1
2
4
8
D er m a l R isk A sse ssm e n t
A ctivity /L oc atio n :
Duration of exposure
Factor
1
2
4
8
Location of exposure
Adding
these
together will
give you an
exposure
rating
Hands
Arms
Torso
Face
Factor
1
2
4
8
What is the potential for exposure to occur
– Reliance upon PPE
– Local exhaust ventilation failing
– Spillage when decanting chemicals
D es c rip tio n :
C h em ic als u s ed :
C h em ic al
H aza rd
R atin g
1
2
3
4
5
R atings are:
Irre ve rsib le , a c ute , po te ntia lly l eth a l
16
R e ve rsib le , a c ute , po te nti al ly let ha l
16
Irre ve rsib le , a c ute , se rio u s
14
R e ve rsib le , a c ute , se riou s
14
Irre ve rsib le , c hro nic , po ten tia lly le th a l
14
R e ve rsib le , c h ro nic , se ri ou s
6
Irre ve rsib le , c hro nic , se rio us
12
R e ve rsib le , a c ute , m i no r
6
Irre ve rsib le , a c ute , m in o r
8
R e ve rsib le , c h ro nic , m in o r
1
Irre ve rsib le , c hro nic , m in or
2
T ak e th e m o st sign ifi ca n t h az a rd ra tin g for a p plic a tio n into th e fo rm u la a nd for a sse s sin g e x po su re , un le ss
e xp os ure to a le ss ha z a rdo us ch e m i ca l is p a rtic u la rly s ev e re .
E xp os u r e:
Virtually excluded
Improbable but possible
Possible
Highly probable
Actual exposure normal
0.1
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
E x ten t
L ig h t
M ed iu m
H eav y
E x trem e
2
4
8
16
D u ra tio n
S h o rt
M e d iu m
Long
C o n tin u o u s
1
2
4
8
F re qu en cy
S eld o m
O ccas io n al
R eg u lar
F req u e n t
1
2
4
8
L o c a tio n
H an d s
A rm s
T o rs o
F ace
1
2
4
8
T o ta l ex po su re ra ting (s um o f a bov e):
P ro b a b ility
ility::
Pro
in g ex p o su re v irtu ally ex
tuaa l,
P ro b ab ility w ill ran
ra n ggee fro m 0 – 1 , w ith 0 b eein
e x clu d ed an d 1 b ein g ac
actu
o b serv ed eex
xpp o ssuu re.
C alcu late
la te rrisk
is k rratin
atin g:
F o rm u la is:
is :
R isk = hhaazard
o s u re ratin g x p ro ba
b ility
zard ratin g x ex
e x ppo
b ab
H aazzard
ard ratin
ra tingg x
Ex
xppos
os ure
ra ting
u re rating
= x
P roba bility
= R isk rating
Fo rm co m p le ted b y:
O n:
© E nviroD e rm S e rv ice s, 20 00
3
Calculate Risk Factor
Risk Rating
=
Hazard Rating x Exposure Rating x Probability
Risk Rating Action priority
>200
Urgent, immediate
150150-200
Serious, needs resolving quickly
100100-150
Less serious, deal with as soon as possible
5050-100
Not serious, can be dealt with as convenient
<50
Further action
Introduce Controls
You may wish to consider specialist advice.
National organisations
Concentrate upon controlling the
process, not the person.
Occupational Physician
Topic Specialist
Insignificant, no action required
Strategy for risk management
1. Design workplace and equipment to eliminate
exposure
2. Select chemical(s) for minimum hazard
Capstan Lathe
Suffering from dermatitis on one hand.
Due to dede-fatting effect of the metalworking fluid.
Capstan Lathe
Solenoid valve - the fluid is redirected to tank
every time the machine was stopped
3. Install engineering controls
4. Provide handling equipment
5. Establish safe working procedures
6. Control exposure with personal protective
equipment
7. Minimise effect by limiting exposure and
monitoring effect.
4
Paint sprayer
Paint sprayer
Controlling the process
Developing solutions requires an understanding
of the process.
Usually requires a team approach involving
production and design engineers.
May need supplier involvement
It will require a knowledge of what equipment and
methods are available.
Control of exposure using PPE
Personal protective equipment = “last resort”.
Ways in which gloves can fail
Misuse
Engineering controls should always take
precedence.
Relies upon the individual to use it correctly
Effectiveness of Personal Protective equipment
can vary widely depending upon conditions of
use
Usually fail-to-danger
Usually the most expensive answer.
Assessing the Safe Maximum Use
Time (SMUT
(SMUT)) for chemical protective
gloves is complex!
Physical
damage
Degradation
Permeation
There are
many
factors
which affect
how long a
glove may
be used
with safety.
Decrease
Degradation
High temperature
Mechanical damage
Mixtures
Abrasion
Flexing and stretching
Ageing
Poor maintenance
BTT
Increase
Volatility
Intermittent contact
Incomplete contact
Low temperature
Mixture strength
Frequent glove
washing
5
Risk Assessment and Management
is never finished
Monitor system to:
Ensure your workers are remaining
healthy
Detect any changes that may occur, that
could affect your risk assessment or
control measures.
Questions?
6