Safety Data Sheets as a Hazard Communication Tool: An Assessment of Suitability and Readability.

Background: Safety data sheets (SDSs) are hazard communication materials that accompany chemicals/hazardous products in the workplace. Many SDSs contain dense, technical text, which places considerable comprehension demands on workers, especially those with lower literacy skills. The goal of this study was to assess SDSs for readability, comprehensibility, and suitability (i.e., fit to the target audience). Methods: The Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) tool assessed SDSs for suitability and readability. We then amended the SAM tool to further assess SDSs for comprehensibility factors. Both the original and amended SAM tool were used to score 45 randomly selected SDSs for content, literacy demand, graphics, and layout/typography. Results: SDSs performed poorly in terms of readability, suitability, and comprehensibility. The mean readability scores were Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (9.6), Gunning Fog index (11.0), Coleman-Liau index (13.7), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook index (10.7), all above the recommended reading level. The original SAM graded SDSs as "not suitable" for suitability and readability. When the amended SAM was used, the mean total SAM score increased, but the SDSs were still considered "not suitable" when adding comprehensibility considerations. The amended SAM tool better identified content-related issues specific to SDSs that make it difficult for a reader to understand the material. Conclusions: In terms of readability, comprehensibility, and suitability, SDSs perform poorly in their primary role as a hazard communication tool, therefore, putting workers at risk. The amended SAM tool could be used when writing SDSs to ensure that the information is more easily understandable for all audiences.

Characterizing applications, exposure risks, and hazard communication for engineered nanomaterials in construction.

BACKGROUND: Engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) may pose health risks to workers. Objectives were to characterize ENM applications in construction, identify exposure scenarios, and evaluate the quality of safety data sheets (SDSs) for nano-enabled construction products. METHODS: SDSs and product data were obtained from a public database of nano-enabled construction products. Descriptive statistics were calculated for affected trades, product categories, and types of ENMs. A sample of SDSs (n = 33) was evaluated using modified criteria developed by NIOSH researchers. Bulk analysis via transmission electron microscopy characterized nanoparticles in a subset of products. RESULTS: Companies report using >50 ENMs in construction products. ENM composition could not be determined via SDSs for 38.1% of the 907 products examined. Polymers and metal oxides tied for most frequently reported ENMs (n = 87, 9.6%). Nano silica, graphene, carbon nanotubes, and silver nanoparticles were also frequently reported. Most of the products were paints and coatings (n = 483, 53.3%), followed by pre-market additives, cementitious materials, insulation, and lubricants. Workers in twenty construction trades are likely to handle nano-enabled products, these particularly encompass cement and brick masons, painters, laborers, carpenters, glaziers, and insulators. A wide range of exposure scenarios were identified. SDSs were classified as satisfactory (18%), in need of improvement (12%), or in need of significant improvement (70%). Bulk analyses revealed discrepancies between actual ENM composition and those in SDSs. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: There has been significant progress investigating risks to construction workers posed by ENMs, but SDSs need major improvements. This study provides new insights on the use of ENMs in construction, exposure risks, and hazard communication.

The role of European chemical manufacturing companies in promoting effective communication of conditions of safe use by workers.

In 2006, the revised chemicals management legislation mandated that manufacturers of hazardous chemical substances conduct risk assessments for the entire substance life cycle. Additionally, they must communicate use-specific safe handling advice (exposure scenarios) to their customer, as annex to the Safety Data Sheet (SDS). Despite significant efforts to develop workable solutions for chemical mixtures, this goal has not yet been fully achieved. Therefore, a Cefic research project (LRI B23) was commissioned on how to ensure meaningful health risk communication for workers across supply chains. The research project determined that risk-based safe use advice generated by manufacturers, often does not reach the intended end-user and was seen as not tailored to specific user needs. Recipients of the advice are also not prepared to act based on information developed by suppliers. From an industry perspective, the complexity of supply chains and substance life cycles are considered major barriers for effective safe use communication. Exposure scenarios for substance use in industrial work environments are often perceived as adding little value compared to existing safe use arrangements required by other health, safety, and environmental legislation applicable to employers and duty-holders. To attain meaningful use-specific safe handling advice for workers, including those at non-industrial premises who may benefit most from such advice, knowledge transfer and close collaboration between manufacturers and formulators remain key elements, supported by enhanced regulatory appreciation.

Prevalence of Accident Occurrence Among Scientific Laboratory Workers of the Public University in Lebanon and the Impact of Safety Measures.

Background: Workers are exposed to several risks in academic laboratories due to the presence of potentially hazardous substances. The main objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of accident occurrence and associated risk factors among laboratory workers at the scientific laboratories of the public university in Lebanon and the impact of safety measures training and availability. Methods: In this observational study, a survey was conducted for one year in scientific laboratories at faculties of the public university. Results: Among the participants (N = 220), 45.0% have had accidents; the main cause was exposure to chemicals (73.7%) and more specifically by inhalation (45.4%). Females (85.9%) were more exposed to accidents than males. Laboratory workers with a master's degree, a full-time schedule, and more than ten years of experience were significantly more exposed to accidents (p < 0.05). A significant association was found between accident occurrence and training on management of hazardous products (p = 0.044), risks related to workplace (p = 0.030), eyewash and emergency shower (p < 0.001), first aid (p = 0.012), and facial protection availability (p = 0.019). In spite of the lack of safety culture and efficient training on laboratory safety, participants have shown a very good perception regarding safety measures to be applied in case of work accidents. Conclusion: Based on our findings, the prevalence of accident occurrence is elevated among lab workers at the public university. The impact of regular training on laboratory safety preventive measures is of great importance to ensure the efficiency of occupational health and safety in scientific laboratories.

Setting priorities: Testing a tool to assess and prioritize workplace chemical hazards.

BACKGROUND: Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) training is obligatory for Ontario workplaces. The purpose of this training is to help workers understand the health and safety issues associated with using chemicals, including how to understand the information contained in the Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) that come with all chemicals. However, many workers still do not know how hazardous workplace chemicals can be and they find it difficult to objectively determine the level of hazard posed by the chemicals they use. OBJECTIVE: A team of researchers, unions, and health and safety associations created a tool for Joint Health and Safety Committees (JHSC) of small and medium-sized businesses to help them identify, assess and prioritize the health hazards posed by workplace chemicals using SDSs as the primary source of information. METHODS: The team recruited the JHSCs of six workplaces to pilot the usefulness of the Chemical Hazard Assessment and Prioritization (CHAP) tool. The CHAP tool helps workplaces rank their chemicals within one of five hazard levels using information contained in SDSs. RESULTS: Despite a difficult recruitment process, the participating JHSCs thought the CHAP process of assessing and prioritizing their workplace chemicals was useful. It raised their awareness of chemical hazards, increased their understanding of SDSs, and helped them prioritize their chemicals for improved control measures. CONCLUSIONS: Small and medium-sized businesses found the tool to be useful, but suggested that an electronic version would be easier to use.

Environmental Risk Assessment of Technical Mixtures Under the European Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals-A Regulatory Perspective.

The European Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation has been in force since 2007 and is intended to ensure a high level of protection for human health and the environment. The REACH regulation is based on the principle that manufacturers, importers, and downstream users take responsibility for their chemicals. Currently about 23 000 single chemicals are registered within the REACH legislation. A large proportion of substances registered under REACH end up in technical mixtures, intentionally manufactured as such, or generated mixtures containing byproducts of processes. Such mixtures that contain a number of different components are, for example, ink, paint, lacquer, mortar, or cleaning agents. However, REACH focuses on single substances and addresses the safe use of substances as such (e.g., bisphenol A) or substances in mixtures (e.g., bisphenol A used as an antioxidant in mixtures) and in articles (e.g., bisphenol A used as a monomer for polycarbonate production from which greenhouse sheets may be made). In contrast to other substance regulations, under REACH the registrants and downstream users of chemicals are responsible for the risk assessment. According to the REACH regulation, they also have the obligation to derive and communicate safe use conditions for their technical mixtures. Currently, no guidance document and no distinct obligations for an assessment of technical mixtures exist. In light of the available evidence for the joint exposures and effects of chemicals due to co-exposures, the need for approaches for a mixture assessment and improved data communications were highlighted by various stakeholders from industry, European member states, and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). The lead component identification (LCID) methodology and the safe use of mixtures information (SUMI) tool were proposed by the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) as working tools for the evaluation of the hazard potential, derivation of safe use conditions, and data communication for mixtures along the supply chain. The present paper analyzes the workability and pitfalls of these proposed methodologies from a regulatory perspective, aiming at a safe use of technical mixtures which considers the joint effects and exposures of its components. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2021;17:498-506. © 2021 Umweltbundesamt. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Risk Perceptions and Safety Cultures in the Handling of Nanomaterials in Academia and Industry.

OBJECTIVES: Work and research with nanomaterials (NMs) has primarily focused on innovation, toxicity, governance, safety management tools, and public perceptions. The aim of this study was to identify academia and industry occupational safety and health (OSH) managers' perceptions and handling of NMs, in relation to safety culture. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were carried out with OSH managers at six academic institutions and six industrial companies. The interview statements were coded into five topics regarding NMs: risk comprehension, information gathering, actions, communication, and compliance. The statements were then coded according to a five-step safety culture maturity model reflecting increasing occupational safety maturity from passive, to reactive, active, proactive, and exemplary occupational safety. RESULTS: The safety culture maturity of the academic institutions were primarily active and proactive, whereas the industry group were primarily active and reactive. None of the statements were rated as exemplary, with the majority reflecting an active safety culture. The topics varied from a passive approach of having no focus on NMs and regarding risks as a part of the job, to applying proactive measures in the design, production, application, and waste management phases. Communication and introduction to OSH issues regarding NMs as well as compliance provided challenges in both academia and industry, given the increasing cultural and linguistic diversity of students/staff and employees. Workplace leaders played a crucial role in establishing a legitimate approach to working safely with NMs, however, the currently available OSH information for NMs were described as insufficient, impractical, and inaccessible. There was an embedded problem in solely relying on safety data sheets, which were often not nanospecific, as this may have led to underprotection. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for more structured, up-to-date, easily accessible, and user-friendly tools and information regarding toxicity and threshold limit values, relevant OSH promotion information, legislation, and other rules. The study underscores the need for politicians and engineers to collaborate with communication experts and both natural and social scientists in effectively framing information on NMs. Such a collaboration should allow for flexible deployment of multilevel and integrated safety culture initiatives to support sustainable nanotechnology and operational excellence.

An evaluation of engineered nanomaterial safety data sheets for safety and health information post implementation of the revised hazard communication standard.

In 2012, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued the revised Hazard Communication Standard to bring the US in closer alignment with the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals, and make the exchange of health and safety information more effective. To evaluate the impact of this change on the reliability and accuracy of safety data sheets, a sample of safety data sheets specific to engineered nanomaterials was obtained by using an internet search engine and subsequently evaluated. These safety data sheets were evaluated using a modified Kimlisch et al. (1997) criteria for ranking the quality of data into categories of reliability and the Eastlake et al. (2012) ranking scheme for scoring four categories. While 86 safety data sheets for nanomaterials were obtained during 2016-2017, 19 of these had no date of completion or revision and could not be evaluated since it was impossible to determine if they were pre or post 2012, when the revised OSHA Hazard Communication Standard was issued. The remaining 67 safety data sheets were ranked by the Kimlisch et al. criteria, and 28.4% (19) were found to be reliable without restrictions (excellent), 35.8% (24) were reliable with restrictions (good), and 35.8% (24) were determined to be unreliable. Evaluating the SDSs using the Eastlake et al. ranking scheme resulted in 3% (2) as satisfactory, 17.9% (12) as being in need of improvement, and 79% (53) in need of significant improvement. It is noteworthy that out of the 79% in need of significant improvement, 25.4% (17) did not have enough data to be evaluated. This evaluation of nanomaterial safety data sheets revealed that the quality of information on many still cannot be relied upon to offer adequate information on the inherent health and safety hazards, including handling and storage of engineered nanomaterials.

Cytostatics as hazardous chemicals in healthcare workers' environment.

Cytostatics not only induce significant side-effects in patients treated oncologically but also pose a threat to the health of occupationally exposed healthcare workers: pharmacists, physicians, nurses and other personnel. Since the 1970s numerous reports from various countries have documented the contamination of working areas with cytostatics and the presence of drugs/metabolites in the urine or blood of healthcare employees, which directly indicates the occurrence of occupational exposure to these drugs. In Poland the significant scale of occupational exposure to cytostatics is also confirmed by the data collected in the central register of occupational carcinogens/mutagens kept by the Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine. The assessment of occupational exposure to cytostatics and health risks constitutes employers' obligation. Unfortunately, the assessment of occupational risk resulting from exposure to cytostatics raises a number of concerns. Provisions governing the problem of workers' health protection are not unequivocal because they derive from a variety of law areas, especially in a matter of hazard classification and safety data sheets for cytostatics. Moreover, no legally binding occupational exposure limits have been set for cytostatics or their active compounds, and analytical methods for these substances airborne and biological concentrations are lacking. Consequently, the correct assessment of occupational exposure to cytostatics, the evaluation of health hazards and the development of the proper preventive strategy appear difficult. The authors of this article described and discussed the amendments to the European provisions concerning chemicals in the light of employers' obligations in the field of employees' heath protection against the consequences of exposure to cytostatics. Some modifications aimed at a more effective health protection of workers occupationally exposed to cytostatics were also proposed. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2019;32(2):141-59.

Evaluating the readability and suitability of construction occupational safety and health materials designed for workers.

INTRODUCTION: Printed materials for training and hazard communication are an essential part of occupational safety and health programs, but must be understood by their intended audience. METHODS: Researchers collected 103 safety training handouts, brochures, and Safety Data Sheets and scored them for readability and suitability using four standard health communication instruments: the SMOG test, the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Assessment, the SAM (Suitability Assessment of Materials), and CCI (the CDC Clear Communication Index). RESULTS: Some of the materials used unfamiliar and technical terms. The SAM and CCI checklists revealed several elements of design and layout known to facilitate communication and comprehension, but missing from most of the materials scored. CONCLUSION: Occupational safety and health professionals preparing curricula and handouts for distribution to workers should incorporate some form of readability and suitability assessment to help ensure their written materials are clear and comprehensible to all segments of their audience.

Quality check of safety data sheets for plant protection product co-formulants: hazard classification and coherence of the information. / Valutazione della qualità delle schede di sicurezza di coformulanti per prodotti fitosanitari: classificazione di pericolo e coerenza delle informazioni.

BACKGROUND: Hazard classification of chemicals can be defined as a logic-mathematical operation aimed at identifying the type and severity of the inherent hazards of a substance or a mixture. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate, in 134 safety data sheets (SDSs): i) the hazard classification and ii) its coherence with sections 9 (physical-chemical properties), 11 (toxicological properties) and 12 (ecological properties) of the SDSs. METHODS: Hazard classification and the information provided in sections 9, 11 and 12 of the SDSs have been evaluated against the criteria provided in annexes VI of the Dangerous Substance Directive, II and III of the Dangerous Preparations Directive, I and VI of the Regulation (EC) n. 1272/2008. RESULTS: Most of the analyzed SDSs of substances (62%) was associated to non-classified chemicals (61.4%), although 19.6% of them should have been classified. By contrast, 59.4% of classified substances (representing 38.6% of analyzed ones) were wrongly classified. Fifty-four %, 54% and 67% of suggested substances hazard classification were in line with sections 9 (physical-chemical properties), 11 (toxicological properties) and 12 (ecological properties). CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of hazard classification mistakes in SDS was significant, suggesting the need of more qualified experts to derive classification. The introduction of an ad hoc evaluation team, managed by a single, qualified specialist, could represent a solution to ensure the needed improvement of SDSs quality.

Difficulties in using Material Safety Data Sheets to analyse occupational exposures to contact allergens.

BACKGROUND: Information on the occurrence of contact allergens and irritants is crucial for the diagnosis of occupational contact dermatitis. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) are important sources of information concerning exposures in the workplace. OBJECTIVE: From a medical viewpoint, to evaluate the information available from MSDSs, and to ascertain whether MSDS are easy to obtain, whether they serve their purpose, and whether they provide sufficient information regarding allergens to enable correct diagnosis. METHODS: MSDS and ingredients labelling were collected from consecutive patients and reviewed. If it was suspected that the MSDS were incomplete, the manufacturer, supplier, salesperson or workplace was contacted to gather more information. RESULTS: Twenty-five per cent (79/316) of patients provided material for the exposure assessment. One or more shortcomings were found in 18.6% (137/738) of the MSDS. The most frequent shortcoming was 'Missing R43/H317 while known contact allergen was present', which was observed in 63.1% (84/137). Other shortcomings were 'Names of preservatives not included in section 3 despite containing preservatives', in 48.9% (67/137), and 'Nothing about allergy in sections 2, 3, 11, 15 or 16 in the MSDS despite the content of allergens', in 20.4% (28/137). The information retrieved led to additional testing of 21 patients. CONCLUSION: Systematic exposure assessment is time-consuming. The main shortcomings are errors/omissions in the MSDS.

Exploring consumer exposure pathways and patterns of use for chemicals in the environment.

Humans are exposed to thousands of chemicals in the workplace, home, and via air, water, food, and soil. A major challenge in estimating chemical exposures is to understand which chemicals are present in these media and microenvironments. Here we describe the Chemical/Product Categories Database (CPCat), a new, publically available (http://actor.epa.gov/cpcat) database of information on chemicals mapped to "use categories" describing the usage or function of the chemical. CPCat was created by combining multiple and diverse sources of data on consumer- and industrial-process based chemical uses from regulatory agencies, manufacturers, and retailers in various countries. The database uses a controlled vocabulary of 833 terms and a novel nomenclature to capture and streamline descriptors of chemical use for 43,596 chemicals from the various sources. Examples of potential applications of CPCat are provided, including identifying chemicals to which children may be exposed and to support prioritization of chemicals for toxicity screening. CPCat is expected to be a valuable resource for regulators, risk assessors, and exposure scientists to identify potential sources of human exposures and exposure pathways, particularly for use in high-throughput chemical exposure assessment.

Undisclosed chemicals--implications for risk assessment: a case study from the mining industry.

Many of the chemicals used in industry can be hazardous to human health and the environment, and some formulations can have undisclosed ingredients and hazards, increasing the uncertainty of the risks posed by their use. The need for a better understanding of the extent of undisclosed information in chemicals arose from collecting data on the hazards and exposures of chemicals used in typical mining operations (copper, platinum and coal). Four main categories of undisclosed chemicals were defined (incomplete disclosure; chemicals with unspecific identities; relative quantities of ingredients not stated; and trade secret ingredients) by reviewing material safety data sheet (MSDS) omissions in previous studies. A significant number of chemicals (20% of 957 different chemicals) across the three sites had a range of undisclosed information, with majority of the chemicals (39%) having unspecific identities. The majority of undisclosed information was found in commercially available motor oils followed by cleaning products and mechanical maintenance products, as opposed to reagents critical to the main mining processes. All three types of chemicals had trade secrets, unspecific chemical identities and incomplete disclosures. These types of undisclosed information pose a hindrance to a full understanding of the hazards, which is made worse when combined with additional MSDS omissions such as acute toxicity endpoints (LD50) and/or acute aquatic toxicity endpoints (LC50), as well as inadequate hazard classifications of ingredients. The communication of the hazard information in the MSDSs varied according to the chemical type, the manufacturer and the regulations governing the MSDSs. Undisclosed information can undermine occupational health protection, compromise the safety of workers in industry, hinder risk assessment procedures and cause uncertainty about future health. It comes down to the duty of care that industries have towards their employees. With a wide range of chemicals increasingly used, there is a balance that needs to be reached between disclosure requirements, trade secret provisions and definitions of hazardous ingredients for market needs, and the information required to protect the health of their workers.