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.

[The safety data sheets of the paint and coatings sector: analysis of the items of most interest to health and safety in the workplace]. / Le schede di dati di sicurezza del comparto vernici e rivestimenti: analisi degli elementi di maggior interesse per la salute e sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro.

INTRODUCTION: The interlinked REACH-CLP regulations promote the sharing of knowledge regarding the risks and hazards of chemicals throughout the supply chain. The safety data sheet (SDS) is the main instrument to achieve this goal. OBJECTIVE: to study 100 SDS of paints and coatings sector in order to highlight major criticisms related to health and safety of workers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the criteria prescribed by Regulation 453/2010/EC and preparing a suitable check list, some items of the sections 1 "Identification of the substance/mixture and of the company", 2 "Hazards identification", 3 "Composition/information on ingredients", the first part of section 7 "Precautions for safe handling", sections 8 "Exposure controls/personal protection" and 16 "Other information", were therefore evaluated for their appropriateness. RESULTS: Seven SDS were written in a foreign language and were excluded from further analysis. Of the remaining 93 SDS, only 23% had a proportion of adequate items greater than 80%, 49 % had adequate items between 60 and 80%, and 28% had less than 60% adequate items. The most critical sections were those relating to workers' safe handling and exposure controls and protection. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, from the analysis of SDS we found high percentages of inadequacy, especially in sections 7 and 8, the most relevant for the protection of the health and safety of workers.

Accuracy of reported flash point values on material safety data sheets and the impact on product classification.

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) are the foundation of worker right-to-know legislation for chemical hazards. Suppliers can use product test data to determine a product's classification. Alternatively, they may use evaluation and professional judgment based on test results for the product or a product, material, or substance with similar properties. While the criteria for classifying products under the new Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) are different, a similar process is followed. Neither the current Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) nor GHS require suppliers to test their products to classify them. In this project 83 samples of products classified as flammable or combustible, representing a variety of industry sectors and product types, were collected. Flash points were measured and compared to the reported values on the MSDSs. The classifications of the products were then compared using the WHMIS and GHS criteria. The results of the study indicated that there were significant variations between the disclosed and measured flash point values. Overall, more than one-third of the products had flash points lower than that disclosed on the MSDS. In some cases, the measured values were more than 20°C lower than the disclosed values. This could potentially result in an underestimation regarding the flammability of the product so it is important for employers to understand the limitations in the information provided on MSDSs when developing safe work procedures and training programs in the workplace. Nearly one-fifth of the products were misclassified under the WHMIS system as combustible when the measured flash point indicated that they should be classified as flammable when laboratory measurement error was taken into account. While a similar number of products were misclassified using GHS criteria, the tendency appeared to be to "over-classify" (provide a hazard class that was more conservative). So the transition to GHS may potentially decrease the possibility of "under-classifying" flammable and combustible products where no test data on the product are available.