Peracetic or peroxyacetic acid (PAA) is a strong oxidizing agent used for high level disinfection and sterilization at low temperatures. It is water soluble, and leaves no solid residue after rinsing and the end products are only water, oxygen and acetic acid (vinegar), making PAA a very environmentally friendly compound.
In healthcare, the demand for faster turnaround time of heat sensitive reprocessed multiple-use medical devices led to the development of PAA liquid sterilization, given ethylene oxide’s longer required aeration time at the end of the sterilization cycle to vent the gas. In addition, the food packaging and waste water treatment industries have adopted PAA as a preferred disinfectant and sterilant wash because of its environmental properties.
Health Risks of PAA Exposure
As an antimicrobial agent, PAA is broadly effective against a wide range of microorganisms; it disrupts bonds in proteins and enzymes and interferes with cell membrane transportation through the rupture of cell walls, oxidizing essential enzymes and impairing vital biochemical pathways.
The properties of PAA that make it an efficient sterilant and environmentally friendly make it potentially dangerous to any employees exposed to it in the workplace. Unfortunately the health risks to workers from PAA exposure are not known by many employers. Hospitals, food handling and processing industries commonly use PAA, in concentrations that can be harmful to workers if they are exposed.
Specifically, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances identifies PAA as a primary irritant, known tumorigen and mutagen.
The New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services Occupational Health Service released a study on the the health effects of PAA exposure. The study also found that PAA is very irritating to the skin, eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, with the potential for causing permanent scarring of the skin, cornea, and throat. Higher exposures in the short term can also cause pulmonary edema as well as liver and kidney effects.
PAA Workplace Guidelines
While there are no Occupational Saftey and Health Administration (OSHA )regulations specifically for PAA - most OSHA PELS have not been updated since their initial adoption in 1972 - the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) for PAA, specifically:
• AEGL-3 (death/permanent incapacity) 1.3 ppm: the threshold above which mortality and/or irreversible effects could be observed for an exposure of up to 60 minutes. AEGL-3 is analogous to the NIOSH Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH) chemical listing concentrations and documentation values, which are 75 ppm for hydrogen peroxide and 800 ppm for ethylene oxide.
• AEGL-2 (disability) 0.51 ppm: the threshold level above which intense lacrimation, extreme nose discomfort and transient incapacitation (inability of self protection but without residual consequences) could be observed for an exposure of up to 60 minutes.
• AEGL-1 (discomfort) 0.17 ppm: the level above which discomfort could be observed for an exposure of up to 8 hours per day. AEGL is analogous to the OSHA PEL (1 ppm for both hydrogen and ethylene oxide, calculated as an 8 hour time weighted average. See OSHA Standard 1910.1000, Table Z1 Limits for Hydrogen Air Contaminants and OSHA Standard 1910.1047 for Ethylene Air Contaminants.
PAA Continuous Monitoring Solution
Designed specifically for occupational safety, the ChemDAQ PAA monitoring system gives immediate indication of PAA concentration in the work area so that workers can protect themselves from acute and chronic exposure. The Steri-Trac® area monitor has alarm limits and a real time display of PAA concentrations in ppm to provide safety from acute exposure. The DAQ® Central Monitoring System tracks EPA AEGL-1 and AEGL-2 with alerts to provide a level of safety from chronic exposure to PAA.
The continuous monitoring of PAA can help protect employees from the acute and chronic health affects by reporting the toxic concentrations in real time and providing alarms for proactive protection. Many employers whose workers have experienced symptoms of exposure and expressed concern are looking for solutions. A continuous monitoring system along with a comprehensive education program and safe work practices are the best ways to assure worker safety and maximize productivity.
For more information, check out the ChemDAQ Steri-Trac Peracetic Acid Area Monitor.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
NIOSH Announces Upcoming Survey for IAHCSMM Members
At the end of next month, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) will launch their online Health and Safety Practices Survey of Healthcare Workers. The survey will collect data from a random sample of International Association of Healthcare Central Service Materiel Management (IAHCSMM) members concerning “health and safety practices and types of exposure controls used by healthcare workers who handle or come in contact with hazardous chemical agents,” specifically aerosolized medications, antineoplastic agents, chemical sterilants, high level disinfectants, surgical smoke, and anesthetic gases. NIOSH plans to release a report to all IAHCSMM members detailing aggregate data from all survey respondents.
We join NIOSH in encouraging all IAHCSMM members who are asked to complete the survey to do so, as the data provided will be invaluable in determining the best practices to keep employees safe from exposure to chemical agents in the workplace. The more data that is shared, the more educated in chemical safety employers and employees alike will become. As we’ve discussed on this blog before, education is the single most important component of employee safety. Surveys like this one play a key role in increasing awareness of the potential dangers of chemical agents, as well as the best ways to prevent exposure.
For more information on NIOSH and the work they are doing to keep healthcare workers safe, visit: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/
We join NIOSH in encouraging all IAHCSMM members who are asked to complete the survey to do so, as the data provided will be invaluable in determining the best practices to keep employees safe from exposure to chemical agents in the workplace. The more data that is shared, the more educated in chemical safety employers and employees alike will become. As we’ve discussed on this blog before, education is the single most important component of employee safety. Surveys like this one play a key role in increasing awareness of the potential dangers of chemical agents, as well as the best ways to prevent exposure.
For more information on NIOSH and the work they are doing to keep healthcare workers safe, visit: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/
Monday, December 6, 2010
How will the Results of the Midterm Elections affect Workplace Safety?
There has been a lot of talk over the last several weeks concerning how the Republican takeover of Congress will affect OSHA’s activity over the next 2 years. Worker safety is, should, and always will be a nonpartisan issue. However, how many tax-payer dollars are given to organizations that enforce regulations of the workplace is a partisan issue, for better or worse. Since the Obama Administration began, funding for OSHA enforcement has increased, as has the number of inspectors and overall inspections. Many fear that with the continuing economic struggles of the country, a Republican Congress will not continue the pattern of increasing OSHA’s budget as the Democrats have. Even if that is the case, it shouldn’t be anything to worry about in terms of worker safety.
Workplace safety is a matter of law, but as we have pointed out in the past, it is also a matter of employer responsibility. If an accident were to occur at a facility, the blame always falls on the employer, not OSHA, as the responsible party. The reason for this can be understood quite simply by reviewing the General Duty Clause in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. It states, “Each employer shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.” Thus, whether OSHA reduces the number of inspections they conduct or not, the employer still has a duty to ensure the safety of their workers. Decreased OSHA activity is not an excuse for decreased worker safety.
Recently, OSHA published the results of its informal survey on what chemicals should be regulated. The optional survey received a great response from employers and experts about chemicals that are not currently regulated, but should be because of their harmful effects to humans when exposed. Seeing as new information is constantly being revealed, employers have a duty to protect their workers from new threats, whether OSHA establishes a permissible exposure limit or not. Thus, education of employers about such chemicals is a key issue as well. As a government bureaucracy, OSHA moves slowly, and cannot possibly set a regulation for everything that could be potentially harmful in the workplace. Some element of responsibility needs to fall on the individual employers themselves.
The bottom line is that just because OSHA does not say an employer has to structure the workplace a certain way, establish rules to prevent employee injuries, or monitor a chemical they use, does not mean it isn’t the right thing to do, and even the lawful thing to do under the General Duty Clause. If an employer has evidence that something may cause harm to their employees, they should take the appropriate steps to prevent it.
Employee safety has nothing to do with who controls Congress.
Workplace safety is a matter of law, but as we have pointed out in the past, it is also a matter of employer responsibility. If an accident were to occur at a facility, the blame always falls on the employer, not OSHA, as the responsible party. The reason for this can be understood quite simply by reviewing the General Duty Clause in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. It states, “Each employer shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.” Thus, whether OSHA reduces the number of inspections they conduct or not, the employer still has a duty to ensure the safety of their workers. Decreased OSHA activity is not an excuse for decreased worker safety.
Recently, OSHA published the results of its informal survey on what chemicals should be regulated. The optional survey received a great response from employers and experts about chemicals that are not currently regulated, but should be because of their harmful effects to humans when exposed. Seeing as new information is constantly being revealed, employers have a duty to protect their workers from new threats, whether OSHA establishes a permissible exposure limit or not. Thus, education of employers about such chemicals is a key issue as well. As a government bureaucracy, OSHA moves slowly, and cannot possibly set a regulation for everything that could be potentially harmful in the workplace. Some element of responsibility needs to fall on the individual employers themselves.
The bottom line is that just because OSHA does not say an employer has to structure the workplace a certain way, establish rules to prevent employee injuries, or monitor a chemical they use, does not mean it isn’t the right thing to do, and even the lawful thing to do under the General Duty Clause. If an employer has evidence that something may cause harm to their employees, they should take the appropriate steps to prevent it.
Employee safety has nothing to do with who controls Congress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
