Occupational diseases caused by physical agents, chemical

Prof. Eng. Antonio Fernando Navarro[1]

antoniofernandonavarro@gmail.com

A workplace is a local that brings risks to workers, some layout-related company, adopted by other

factors, lighting or ventilation, the associated to the characteristics of the operation and

functioning of the equipment, and not running out the reasons, to the inadequacy of the

individual protection equipment, chosen often because of costs and the efficiency of risk

prevention. Are the so-called environmental risks. Environmental risks are caused by agents

dispersed in the work environment, which may cause damage to the health of the workers. Agents

may be physical, chemical or biological.

To understand the reasons for workers on many occasions do not use properly your individual

protection equipment – IPE, and even so, begin to be exposed unnecessarily to risks, we

conducted a survey with interviews of type "closed", with direct approaches, in individual

conversations, obtaining the results presented below:

Period : Sep to Dec 2007

Objective : Identify the reasons or preferences of workers and not to use or employ certain IPE.

Sample :345 workers

In this research, random, without considering the source (company) where workers were sought,

with the support of three professionals of safety, environment and health – HSE, with at least 15

professional experience in supervision of services and in Behavioural Audits, identify the reasons

and or preferences of workers do not use or employ certain IPEs, who were making Detours

(Unsafe Acts), suffering near-accidents (Incidents) and Accidents without Spacing, i.e. in this

sample were not included workers who have suffered lost-time accidents. As in the period of the

research there were no deaths, the research was not restricted to the analysis of reports of

accidents, promoted by commissions of investigation of accidents (contractually required in the

case of fatal accidents or with removal of the activities, whether for the recovery of the worker or

promoted by a permanent disability or not by accident), but interviews with employees. After

these have been addressed in the Behavioural Audits (Audit-field Inspections) with analysis of

behaviors and or postures assumed by employees while conducting their activities that could

expose them unnecessarily to be victims of accidents.

The individual interviews lasted 10 to 15 minutes (depending on the receptivity of employees),

with the use of questionnaires with closed questions directed to understanding the reason

workers are not employing the PPE required for the performance of activities.

Where services were collected the answers workers had an obligation to enter the construction

site already porting and or using the IPE. The boots, helmets and goggles were required at the

entrance of the desktops. The ear protectors were to be required in the vicinity of service

activities. The safety gloves, facial guards, aprons, leggings, among others they could be required

before the start of activities.

Table – Recognition of the use or lack of use and occurrences of diversions (AFANP)

Questions Answers

Yes No

The IPE provided by the company are of good quality? 68% 32%

The company provides the correct IPE's to each activity to your

activities? 64% 36%

You have knowledge of the IPEs that should be used in carrying out the

services? 63% 37%

The IPEs bother performing the professional activities? 62% 38%

You think important use the IPE to protect against the risks of

accidents? 61% 39%

You complained to your Manager about the bad quality or inadequacy

of IPEs? 59% 41%

The IPE can cause you to suffer labour accidents? 55% 45%

You use spontaneously the IPE required for execution of the services? 52% 48%

Do you believe that the IPE the protect of the industrial accidents? 51% 49%

Do you believe his activities at work can cause accidents to you 23% 77%

You were able to employ the IPE correctly necessary for their tasks? 17% 83%

When it tackles the issue of equipment or individual protection devices, workers employed to

avoid or mitigate the damage resulting from industrial activities, it is observed that there are

recurrences among the research. The IPEs annoy more than necessary because they are not suited

to the Brazilian worker biotype. This is perceived in most polls. Aside from that, even by the fact

that they are mandatory shall be rejected by the workers (said by 28% of respondents).

Becomes common thought the fact that the accumulated professional experience are enough to

prevent workers from accidents. But the results, obtained in an environment where there was a

level of requirement for IPEs issues well rigorous, aside from the fact of the specialized services on

safety and occupational medicine of the companies being scaled always above the required in this

legislation very little met and understood by businesses, brought us new information, as for

example:

1a. 68% of respondents said that the IPE provided were of good quality, contradicting the concept

more disclosed that companies used to save on purchase of IPE.

Of course it seems to us that the quality can be associated with the degree of risk and the level of

contracting companies requirement. Must be considered as well, and even discussed the true sense

of the term – quality – expanded for durability, suitability or functionality.

2a. 64% said that the IPE were tailored to the activities, which could contribute to be used

anymore, because they own;

3a. 63% said they were aware of what type of IPE should employ to accomplish their tasks;

4a. 62% said that the IPE the bothered when performing the activities. This can be noticed in any

work and can be the cause of workers prefer to use them to not feel more inconvenienced than

employs them.

Manual activities have physical damage, as in a civil works. The activities in a civil works exhibit

stress for workers, for a number of reasons, starting with the high levels of charge to carry out the

activities.

Are not the works that must adjust to the rhythms of the workers, but rather the opposite. Often

this adjustment is not at the right time, mainly because the turnover is high, especially pose in

construction. In research it was found that for contracts with up to 9 months duration turnover was

in excess of 60%. High turnover rates don't allow the rapid adaptation of the worker to the rhythm

of the company. Aside from that, if there are fair grounds or reasons for "making things worse",

the risk of accidents is extended.

5a. 61% of respondents said being the IPEs are important for their protections;

If not entering other merits than those derived from interpretations of the search results, only 49%

of the responsibility for not understanding that the IPE are important for your protection.

Evaluating, through secondary questions, whenever possible, it was realized that this total 73% of

subjects said they "saw" his colleagues if suffer accidents even employing the IPEs. So, why make

the job even more unpleasant?

Here if you see positive numbers high, within the expectations of an environment with high levels

of demand and collection issues relating to the HSE;

6a. 59% of respondents have already said to be claimed with her handlers about the poor quality

or the fact that the IPE are not appropriate to the activities carried out.

This contradicts the previous percentages percentage may also denote that enterprises could be

defaulting a group of IPE that workers would have to use, regardless of the task performed.

Have you had the opportunity to find work environments where workers were forced to use ear

protectors regardless of whether the next or performing activities where the sound pressure levels

were high. It was enough to enter the construction site and I have to insert the plugs in the ears. In

many companies, to enter the construction site was obligatory the use of safety boots, even in

Office activities, the helmet and safety glasses. These procedures were widely questioned by

workers. For many workers, the IPE was no longer something that protected them of risks to be an

obligation without much causal, because you should only remove the helmet, for example, when

they went to the cafeteria.

7a. 55% of subjects said that the IPE could cause would suffer accidents. The answer was against

what had been said in the second question.

In a cross-sectional analysis of the matter it was noticed that there was a part of the workers who

received safety gloves-one of the items with the highest number of complaints-inappropriate for

their tasks. One of the most "bizarre" was that of a worker who wore shoes No 42, and as I was

missing that number he was given a pair of shoes number 40. Simply the worker went on to use the

shoe as a sandal. In another case, a worker opened a hole in the boots because he had a "Bunion"

on the side of the first pododáctilo right (right big toe). If these workers were interviewed were in

the Group of those who said that the IPE could cause suffering accidents. The number of cases of

workers using gloves inappropriate security is high; How to work with moist material using cotton

gloves, or providing household cleaning gloves or latex instead of gloves for industrial use.

8a. 52% of subjects employed spontaneously the IPEs.

It is believed that spontaneity was fruit of continuous charges by incumbents and professionals

from HSE.

9a. 51% of subjects believed that the IPE could protect them from accidents.

Is not entered in the questionnaire, but were asked which workers IPEs were more important,

obtaining the following answers:

· Helmet (43%);

· Safety boot (29%);

· Safety glasses (18%);

· Other IPEs (10%).

In this scenario, the percentage of responses, especially when the deviations may have been

caused by lack of use of gloves, face shield, leggings, or apron.

10a. 23% of the subjects stated that their activities could not cause injury to themselves.

For the replies it is discovered that these workers believed more in their professional experiences

than in security procedures or of IPE.

11a. 17% of the subjects claim they have been focused on employment and importance of using

all the IPEs (compatible with the risks of their tasks), as quoted in the answer to the ninth

question. This means that 83% of workers was not properly oriented.

Once again there is a repetition of the question of security professionals present in the guidelines

security briefings on the main protective equipment.

Have you had the opportunity to witness giving safety professional guidance on safety belt type

parachutist, only through slides. Workers were not informed about how to adjust the belt on the

thighs and the trunk, and much less to assess whether its hook ring was positioned correctly, or the

hooks of the lanyards were in good condition.

Cannot be considered as a specific search, since it wasn't structured for that, and yes an

"opportunity". On that occasion, October 2010, asked a group of workers who were already

observing the profile and the way you work. As the activities were workers from various parts of

Brazil, wondered why did not use "all" IPEs HSE teams recommended. The result, negative

"associated with the region of Brazil where came from workers was as follows:

1. Northern region : 8 workers

II. the northeastern region : 25 employees

III. the Midwest : 11 workers

IV. the Southeast region : 87 workers

V. Southern region : 16 workers

Total staff : 147 workers

Answers Region Qty %

1. The IPEs hinder the execution of tasks.

(I) 4 50%

II 6 24%

III 2 19%

IV 5 6%

V 3 19%

2. the IPE. (I) 5 63%

II 6 24%

III 7 64%

IV 6 7%

V 4 25%

3. Not at risk in the activity.

(I) 2 25%

II 7 28%

III 6 55%

IV 29 33%

V 11 69%

4. the person in charge is not present.

(I) 3 38%

II 3 12%

III 2 19%

IV 6 7%

V 1 6%

5. is not loading.

(I) 6 75%

II 7 28%

III 11 100%

IV 15 17%

V 1 6%

Notes:

1a. Clarified handling company acting in various areas of Brazil and in different segments, such as

construction, installation and Assembly, special works of art.

2a. It is not known whether this group of workers was already working before in the same

company or if they were hired specifically for those activities.

3a. You don't have to say that everyone had the same training program in HSE.

4a. The fact that 100% of workers from the Midwest region are not porting the IPEs doesn't mean

they're "wrong", as they may have left them in their workplaces.

5a. Advantage-if the time of departure from lunch to conduct the search, which lasted

approximately 5 minutes per person, with a maximum of 5 people per day, with three

interviewers, including AFANP.

6a. I was told the purpose of the research workers and not notified of results to the contractor,

which was not considered as a structured search. However, the results, despite some "false

negatives", inaccurate, makes it possible to pass on a portrait of a moment, obtained in a given

period and a specific work.

Interpretation of results are important considerations, following the same topics of questions

formulated:

1. Isn't it odd that the worker responds that the IPEs hinders the realization of activities. A split

sleeve prevents a better perception; the front flap of the helmet hinders the viewing that occurs

above it; a garment of a welder is heavy, uncomfortable and "sunny"; a safety glasses fogs. All

these arguments are presented by workers. Occurs that the IPE best indicated is not always the

cheapest. Thus, the choice falls on one whose cost versus benefit is more suitable to the company;

2. The second issue is complementary to the first, the assertion that an IPE cause nuisance. If this

is suitable for the worker and protects from scratches becomes more employee. The point is that

under certain circumstances the choices fall to the risk protection and the protection of the

worker. Who is the worker crashes. Again the issue is prioritized "cost" to the detriment of the

fitness for use;

3. When it mentions that there is no risk in the execution of the activity must broaden the horizon

of the evaluation. E.g.: a worker is in an open environment by constructing a wooden bench,

having to cut planks and nail them. The helmet will be an important item on prevention or as

indicated is the safety glasses, or maybe a facial shield? Does the safety boot represents an

important factor, or the seat belt with double lanyard? Questions like these are impactful, because

there are many companies that generalize the use of IPEs – all – to standardize procedures and

ensure that the worker, upon completion of that task will not be driven to perform another task

where the risks are different;

4. Unfortunately in many companies in charge is still regarded as the "Steward" or even the

"snitch", since that was a servant who has progressed to be a Mason, and further evolved to be in

charge. Employees stop to perceive it as a colleague. And him being a "snitch" take on dubious

attitudes when he is away understand that can be comfortable, even leaving aside the IPE;

5. The question did not load the IPE can is complex, depending on the activity exercised by the

worker. A welder, at the end of the service, make sure that uniform heavy and hot hanging

somewhere. The helmet that is tolerated, especially if you have the company's adhesive. Becomes

a sign of status, leaving the company with the helmet, even if it's for lunch, especially if the meal is

not the location of the work, as occurs in works in the center's of the cities.

Some physical and chemical agents are present in the workplace and are not adequately taken

into account to prevent risks to workers, such as:

Physical agents: noise, vibrations, heat, cold, abnormal pressures, ionising radiation or

not, lighting, humidity.

Chemical agents: mists, dusts, fumes, mists, gases and vapours.

Biological agents: bacteria, fungi, parasites, bacteria, viruses, and others.

1) General information about pests to humans:

· the particle diameter breathable by humans ranges from 0.5mthe 10m. Particles smaller

than 0.5 m are not retained;

· in electroplating, the mist expelled from cyanide of chromium causes respiratory cancer;

· the mist of sulfuric acid in the battery charging attack seriously constructions;

· the fumes (diameters of the order of 0.1 m) formed by heating a metal above the boiling

point it must be observed carefully, especially that of ammonia chloride (NH4Cl), highly

toxic;

· zinc, aluminium and antimony, in normal doses are toxic;

· the silica (SiO2) causes a serious lung disease called silicosis. 1 cm3 of silica pollutes 2,000

cm3 of air;

· PVC particles (dust) cause bladder cancer;

· all organic matter, finely powdered and in suspension in the air oxidizes violently, almost

always explosively.

2) occupational diseases caused by physical and chemical agents

Some of the substances that cause occupational diseases are listed below. Highlights that the

maximum tolerance should not be used as an argument of the law for the protection of workers.

Companies have an obligation to eliminate the risks before providing workers the collective or

individual protection equipment. Above the tolerance limits specified in the standards products

can cause the following symptoms, or the following evils, or act or action on the organs described

below:

a) carbon monoxide

· sudden death, when in high concentration and in exposure time consuming;

· headache;

· partial loss of the ability to colour vision;

· dizziness, nausea and vomiting.

b) ammonia, chlorine and its derivatives acids, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide

· respiratory and eye irritation of mucous membranes;

· chronic airway infections, like: bronchitis, tuberculosis and pneumonia, pulmonary

supurações.

c) hydrogen sulfide (H2S)

· irritant effect of ocular mucous membranes, particularly by means of chemical

conjunctivitis;

· affects the central nervous system.

d) Carbon sulfide (CS2)

· causes changes in the central nervous system;

· attacks the kidneys;

· affects the ocular arterioles.

e) Benzene (C6H6)

· acts directly on the bone marrow, causing anemia;

· generates euphoria;

· causes headache;

· generates hypertonia;

· produces necrosis;

· produce leukopenia.

f) Lead

· acts on the bone;

· acts on the stomach;

· acts on the central nervous system;

· acts on the neuro-muscular system.

g) Mercury

· acts on the digestive tract;

· causes the fall of teeth;

· causes skin lesions;

· generates neuro-psychic disorders;

· causes hemorrhagic enterocolites.

h) Manganese

· Cause Parkinson's disease.

i) Benzol, phosphorus and carbon sulfide

Cause in direct contact with the human body:

· skin lesions;

· anemias;

· bleeding;

· leukopenia;

· thrombocytopenia.

j) Benzopyrene, dietilsulfato, metilcolantreno, dimethyl sulfate, metilbenzilidrazina

May show prenatal carcinogenic effects.

l) Cleaning agents hypochlorite-based

· cause irritation or skin corrosion when in contact;

· pain in the mouth, esophagus and stomach; drooling; vomiting; edema of the glottis, when

ingested.

m) Agents of ammonia-based cleaning

·When in direct contact will cause:

· burns;

· severe Dermatitis, etc.

·When ingested, cause:

· pain in the mouth, esophagus and stomach;

· drooling;

· intense vomiting;

· hematemesis;

· circulatory disorders;

· chemical pneumonia.

n) Cleaning agents based on pine oil

· causes irritation and stomach pains;

· generates hemorrhagic gastritis;

· induces central nervous system depression;

· causes hypothermia;

· causes respiratory disorders.

o) Cleaning products based on hydrochloric acid or phosphoric acid, oxalates, carbonates,

silicates, phenolic compounds

Generate caustic injuries and gastrointestinal disorders.

p) Acetone

Direct contact with the substance generates:

· Dermatitis;

· headaches;

· nausea;

· hematemesis;

· narcosis;

· coma.

q) Borax

The effects of Borax on the human body are:

· Erythema;

· kidney damage;

· liver damage;

· neurological disorders;

· hypotension.

r) Camphor

Camphor, when in contact with the human body can cause:

· headache;

· dizziness;

· psychic disorders;

· muscle spaHSE.

s) Phenol

The effects that manifest themselves in the presence of phenol are:

· headache;

· anorexia;

· tremors;

· seizures;

· sweating.

t) Formaldehyde

Contact with formaldehyde can produce:

· intense pain in the mouth and pharynx;

· diarrhea;

· Vertigo;

· seizures;

· torpor;

· coma.

u) Hexane

The hexane when aspirated or in direct contact produces:

· central nervous system depression;

· suffocation.

v) Toluene

The product above the limits of tolerance, may be causing:

· bronchitis;

· pneumonia;

· nausea;

· vomiting;

· Renal lesions.

x) Carcinogens

Are considered carcinogens:

· coal (attacking the skin);

· tar (causes sarcomas);

· dibenzoantraceno and benzopyrene (causes cancer in the hands, lips, face and scrotum);

· hydrocarbons obtained between 270° C and 360 C-paraffins; heavy oils; greases;

lubricants; insulating oils;

· ether.

The company must make available to workers, when technically there is no way of avoiding the

direct contact or accidentally by workers with these products, personal protective devices that are

best suited. It is important to stress that the mere fact of the company provide the PPE does not

deprive company's liability for accidents that may occur. It is important that the employment of

EPIs is accompanied by the company's security professionals and workers know how to use them

properly.

Additional Bibliography

• Aggressive chemicals-Weyne, G.R. de Sá-Nobel-São Paulo-1982.

• Chemical Industries-Proses Shreve, N.-McGraw Hill.

• Back, C.K. & Van Stee E.W.-Toxicology of Haloalkane Propellants and Fire Extinguishants-

Pharmacol Toxicol-1977.

• Gosselin, R.E., Hodge, H.C., Smith, r. & Gleason, M.N.-Clinical Toxicology of Commercial

Products-Williams & Wilkins-1977.

• Christensen, h.e. & Cols-The Toxic Substance List-US Dept Health Educational Welf.-1974.

• Schvartsman, s.-household use chemicals-safety and Toxicological Risks-Almed-1980.

[1] Civil Engineer, Mathematician, Physicist, Expert in Risk Management, work safety Engineer,

Specialist in Protection of Electrical Systems, Master in Health and Environment, Professor of

Actuarial Science at the University Federal Fluminense.