Literature DB >> 12783236

Federal government regulation of occupational skin exposure in the USA.

Mark F Boeniger1, Heinz W Ahlers.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12783236     DOI: 10.1007/s00420-002-0425-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health        ISSN: 0340-0131            Impact factor:   3.015


  20 in total

Review 1.  Surfactants and experimental irritant contact dermatitis.

Authors:  I Effendy; H I Maibach
Journal:  Contact Dermatitis       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 6.600

Review 2.  Detergent and skin irritation.

Authors:  I Effendy; H I Maibach
Journal:  Clin Dermatol       Date:  1996 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.541

3.  Material safety data sheets. Caveat emptor.

Authors:  S E Lerman; H M Kipen
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1990-05

4.  The cost of occupational skin disease.

Authors:  C G Mathias
Journal:  Arch Dermatol       Date:  1985-03

Review 5.  Prolonged and recurrent occupational dermatitis. Some whys and wherefores.

Authors:  D J Birmingham
Journal:  Occup Med       Date:  1986 Apr-Jun

Review 6.  The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis.

Authors:  B D Lushniak
Journal:  Dermatol Clin       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 3.478

Review 7.  The prognosis of occupational contact dermatitis.

Authors:  D J Hogan
Journal:  Occup Med       Date:  1994 Jan-Mar

8.  Skin irritation by topical drugs.

Authors:  A Zesch
Journal:  Derm Beruf Umwelt       Date:  1983

9.  Allergic contact dermatitis from formaldehyde. A case study focussing on sources of formaldehyde exposure.

Authors:  M A Flyvholm; T Menné
Journal:  Contact Dermatitis       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 6.600

10.  Correlation of water and lidocaine flux enhancement by cationic surfactants in vitro.

Authors:  G P Kushla; J L Zatz
Journal:  J Pharm Sci       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 3.534

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Chemical, Electrical, and Radiation Injuries.

Authors:  Jonathan Friedstat; David A Brown; Benjamin Levi
Journal:  Clin Plast Surg       Date:  2017-04-21       Impact factor: 2.017

Review 2.  Potential health effects associated with dermal exposure to occupational chemicals.

Authors:  Stacey E Anderson; B Jean Meade
Journal:  Environ Health Insights       Date:  2014-12-17
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.