Much emphasis is currently being given to developing techniques for the measurement of dermal exposure, development of dermal occupational exposure limits and modelling of dermal exposure levels. Could all of this be a waste of time and money?

Whilst obviously there is a need to know more and to develop standards, we question whether the emphasis on these aspects is really what is currently needed. Perhaps we would achieve greater benefits for our investment if we were to concentrate upon other aspects of the prevention of damage to health from dermal workplace exposure.

In defence of measurement of dermal exposure it does give us quantitative data on the actual exposure occurring. However, all measurement techniques are complex, time consuming and frequently introduce artefacts that mean that the results may not reflect what is truly happening on a day to day basis. Interpretation of the data is also difficult and fraught with uncertainty. Certainly, dermal exposure measurement is hardly likely to be a practical proposition for most small and medium sized employers and probably also for many larger employers too.

Biodiversity among humans is enormous. The way in which each of us reacts to many chemicals is highly variable. This makes the creation of dermal occupational exposure limits extremely difficult. If we are to set these at a level that applies to everyone, then in many cases for the vast majority of the population these levels will be far too low. The increased costs to industry in achieving such levels could put the organisation’s very existence at risk, particularly in these days of the global market. On the other hand, if we put the limit at a level that is applicable to the majority we will be accepting that certain people will be harmed. The legal implications of this are fascinating. In any event, limits and regulations encourage a minimalist approach, i.e. do just enough that we are not in contravention of the law! What is needed is a much more positive attitude.

Measuring dermal exposure only indicates the level of the problem. It does not indicate what we should be doing to control the exposure such that workers do not have their health damaged. We would argue that what we should be concentrating upon is risk management, that is the control of dermal exposure to a level where practical experience indicates that damage to health is either eliminated or the risk reduced to what society considers an acceptable level.

One of the major factors in the high incidence and prevalence of occupational skin disease is the lack of knowledge of many of those concerned with worker health and safety. Skin management is rarely dealt with adequately in most health and safety training. In many cases, its complexity is simply not recognised. It is often assumed that dermal exposure management is simple. Action is taken that may appear logical but that in reality increases the probability of damage to health from dermal exposure. Thus more emphasis on education and training would probably be more effective in reducing the incidence of occupational skin damage.

A considerable amount of data exists on how people’s skin is affected by the working environment. Unfortunately, this is not in a form that is easily accessible to those concerned with the health of their workers. There is a case for some central organisation that could collect, evaluate and coordinate these data. Not only would this provide a useful resource to ensure that we direct our efforts in research to the areas where the greatest harm is being done but it would assist in providing guidance on how we should be developing our dermal exposure risk assessment and risk management techniques.