Advertisement

Federal government regulation of occupational skin exposure in the USA

  • Mark F. Boeniger
  • Heinz W. Ahlers
Review

Abstract

There are at least 14 federal regulations and three agencies that are involved in the regulation of occupational skin exposures in the USA. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires the reporting of health effects information on chemicals, and such information is used to assess the risks of human and environmental exposure. The health effects information and any resulting risk assessments are generally available to the public. A fair amount of this information relates to skin irritation, sensitization, and dermal absorption. The EPA can require the submission of new data necessary for it to carry out its risk assessments, and has the authority to ban hazardous chemicals for certain uses. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the correct labeling of cosmetics and requires safety and efficacy data on new products that are claimed to have preventive or health benefits. Commercial distribution of topical skin-care and protection products, therefore, can be potentially scrutinized by the FDA, which can control the use of hazardous chemicals in such products. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has the most direct contact with workplaces through its field inspection compliance activity, which is directed at the reduction of workplace injuries and illnesses. Our analysis suggests that although considerable amounts of health effects information is generated and available, such information may not always be adequately conveyed to the end users of chemical products. In addition, the most effective and practical means of preventing exposure is often not apparent or generally known. Current regulations may have created a reliance on use of chemical protective equipment that may not always be the best approach to protecting workers. Lack of performance criteria that are measurable has hampered industry from objectively assessing skin exposures. This lack of performance criteria or guidance has also hindered the implementation of prevention strategies and a critical assessment of their effectiveness. Better guidance from regulatory agencies directed at performance-based control of occupational skin hazards is presently needed.

Keywords

Federal regulations Occupational Skin Control Exposures 

References

  1. AFL v OSHA (1992) American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations v Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 965 F. 2D 962 (11th Cir)Google Scholar
  2. Adams RM (1999) Occupational skin disease, 3rd edn. Saunders, pp 359–364Google Scholar
  3. Ashton P, Walters KA, Brain KR, Hadgraft J (1992) Surfactant effects in percutaneous absorption. I. Effects on the transdermal flux of methyl nicotinate. Int J Pharm 87:261–264Google Scholar
  4. Bettinger J, Gloor M, Peter C, Kleesz P, Fluhr J, Gehring W (1998) Opposing effects of glycerol on the protective function of the horny layer against irritants and on the penetration of hexyl nicotinate. Dermatology 197:18–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Birmingham DJ (1986) Prolonged and recurrent occupational dermatitis. Occup Med 1:349–355PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Boeniger M, Klingner T (2002) In-use testing and interpretation of chemical resistant glove performance. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 17:368–378CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bronaugh RL, Congdon ER, Scheuplein RJ (1981) The effect of cosmetic vehicles on the penetration of N-nitrosodiethanolamine through excised human skin. J Invest Dermatol 76:94–96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (1999) Occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States. US Department of Labor, BLS, bulletin 2518Google Scholar
  9. Cornwell PA, Barry BW, Stoddart CP, Bouwstra JA (1994) Wide-angle X-ray diffraction of human stratum corneum: effects of hydration and terpene enhancer treatment. J Pharm Pharmacol 46:938–950PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Effendy I, Maibach HI (1995) Surfactants and experimental irritant contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 33:217–225PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Effendy I, Maibach HI (1996) Detergent and skin irritation. Clin Dermatol 14:15–21Google Scholar
  12. Flyvholm M-A, Menné T (1992) Allergic contact dermatitis from formaldehyde. Contact Dermatitis 27:27–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Food and Drug Administration (2000) Personal Communication. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Office of Compliance, Division of Labeling and Nonprescription Drug Compliance, OTC Compliance Team, Rockville, MDGoogle Scholar
  14. Harvey DT, Hogan DJ (1995) Common environmental dermatoses. In: Brooks SM (ed) Environmental medicine. Mosby, St. Louis, USA, pp 263–281Google Scholar
  15. Hogan DJ (1994) The prognosis of occupational contact dermatitis. Occup Med 9:53–58PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Klingner T, Boeniger M (2002) A critique of assumptions about selecting chemical-resistant gloves: a case of workplace evaluation for glove efficacy. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 17:360–367CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kolp PW, Williams PL, Burtan RC (1995) Assessment of the accuracy of material safety data sheets Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 56:178–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krogsrud NE, Larsen AI (1992) Grapeseed oil as a safe and efficient hand cleansing agent. Contact Dermatitis 26:208PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kushla GP, Zatz JL (1991) Correlation of water and lidocaine flux enhancement by cationic surfactants in vitro. J Pharm Sci 80:1079–1083PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Leigh JP, Miller TR (1998) Job-related diseases and occupations within a large workers' compensation data set. Am J Ind Med 33:197–211CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Leigh JP, Markowitz SB, Fahs M, Shin C, Landrigan PJ (1997) Occupational injury and illness in the United States: estimates of costs, morbidity, and mortality. Arch Intern Med 157:1557–1568CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lerman SE, Kipen HM (1990) Material safety data sheets. Caveat emptor. Arch Intern Med 150:981–984CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lushniak BD (1995) Epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin 13:671–680PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Mathias CGT (1985) The cost of occupational skin diseases. Arch Dermatol 121:332–334CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (1988) National Occupational Exposure Survey, 1981–1983. DHHS (NIOSH) publication no. 88-106, Special Data AnalysisGoogle Scholar
  26. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (1993) Report on occupational safety and health for fiscal year 1990. NYIS PB-93-215-184, p 30Google Scholar
  27. National Toxicology Program (NTP) (1999) Corrositex: an in vitro method for assessing dermal corrosivity potential of chemicals. NIH publication 99-4495 (http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/home.htm)
  28. Navarro R, Lauressergues H, Etievant C (1982) How to increase tolerance to detergents in shampoos. In: Frost P, Horwitz SN (eds) Principles of cosmetics for the dermatologist. Mosby, St. Louis, USAGoogle Scholar
  29. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (1983) Hazard communication; final rule. 29 CFR part 1910, Federal Register, vol 48, no. 228, pp 52380–53348Google Scholar
  30. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (1989) Air contaminants; final rule. 29 CFR part 1910, Federal Register, vol 54, no. 12, pp 2329–2984Google Scholar
  31. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (1994) Personal protective equipment for general industry; final rule. 29 CFR part 1910, Federal Register vol 59, no. 66, pp 16334–16364Google Scholar
  32. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (1997) Assessing the need for personal protective equipment: a guide for small business employers, OSHA 3151, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (2000a) OSHA field inspection reference manual, CPL 2.103, sect 7, Chap III. Inspection Documentation, sect C.2.c. Violations of the general duty clauseGoogle Scholar
  34. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (2000b) OSHA field inspection reference manual, CPL 2.103, sect 7, Chap III. Inspection Documentation, sect C.3.f. Biological MonitoringGoogle Scholar
  35. Roder MM (1990) A guide for evaluating the performance of chemical protective clothing (CPC) DHHS (NIOSH) Pub 90–109Google Scholar
  36. Smyth HF, Carpenter CP, Weil CS (1950) The toxicology of polyethylene glycols. J Am Pharm Assoc 39:349–354Google Scholar
  37. Stockinger HE (1962) Threshold limits and maximal acceptable concentrations. Arch Environ Health 4:115–117Google Scholar
  38. Tan EL, Liu J, Chien YW (1993) Effect of cationic surfactants on the transepidermal permeation of ionized indomethacin. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 19:685–699Google Scholar
  39. Tucker SB, Key MM (1992) Occupational skin disease. In: Rom WN (ed) Environmental and occupational medicine, 2nd edn. Little, Brown, BostonGoogle Scholar
  40. Zesch A (1983) Skin irritation by topical drugs. Derm Beruf Umwelt 31:74–78PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations