A1942 Development of the Evidence Base to Inform a GB National Intervention to Reduce Exposure to Isocyanates in Motor Vehicle Repair Paint Spraying

Wednesday, March 21, 2012: 16:00
Gran Cancun 2 (Cancun Center)

Anil Adisesh, United Kingdom
Mary Trainor, Head of Science, Health And Safety Laboratory, Derbyshire, United Kingdom
Dr John Cocker, Analytical Sciences, Health and Safety Laboratory, Derbyshire, United Kingdom
Kate Jones, Analytical Sciences, Health and Safety Laboratory, Derbyshire, United Kingdom
Dr Rachel O Hara, Human Sciences, Health and Safety Laboratory, Derbyshire, United Kingdom
Mark Piney, Field Operations, Health and Safety Executive, Bootle, United Kingdom
C. John Saunders, Occupational Hygiene, Health and Safety Laboratory, Derbyshire, United Kingdom
Introduction
The ‘Occupational Health Strategy for Great Britain’ launched in 2000 included the goal of interested parties working together to achieve ‘a 20% reduction in the incidence of work-related ill health’ by 2010. In support of this goal, the Health and Safety Executive, the GB regulator, initiated a national intervention to improve control of exposure to isocyanate-based paints in the Motor Vehicle Repair (MVR) industry. Isocyanate exposure is a significant cause of occupational asthma, and MVR paint sprayers were estimated to have an incidence rate eighty times the national average. The intervention was undertaken working with key stakeholders including the MVR industry, trade associations, equipment suppliers, occupational health providers, and training providers. It had three major elements: ‘Safety and Health Awareness Days’ (SHADs) attended by about 4000 people from MVR bodyshops; targeted regulatory inspections; and additional work with stakeholders to develop and disseminate guidance.

Methods
This presentation describes some of the scientific evidence base developed by the Health and Safety Laboratory to inform the intervention and measure its effectiveness, as well as material developed to contribute to its delivery:
• Identification of significant risk factors;
• Understanding stakeholders’ perceptions of risk;
• Assessment of the impact of SHADs including human factors analysis of uptake of key messages, and biological monitoring of worker exposure;
• Development of novel risk communication techniques including mixed-media formats with videos, stills, and working-model demonstrations.

Results
• Risk factors include clearance time of the invisible paint mist, and spray room design.
• Stakeholders had limited awareness of exposure routes and potential harm.
• Biological monitoring showed that isocyanate exposure can be largely eliminated in many bodyshops.
• 90% of attendees at SHADs intended to take action to improve exposure control, while 50% of bodyshops represented did so in practice.

Discussion
The intervention significantly improved exposure control. Further improvement is possible.