Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Federal government regulation of occupational skin exposure in the USA

  • Review
  • Published:
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AFL v OSHA (1992) American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations v Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 965 F. 2D 962 (11th Cir)

  • Adams RM (1999) Occupational skin disease, 3rd edn. Saunders, pp 359–364

  • Ashton P, Walters KA, Brain KR, Hadgraft J (1992) Surfactant effects in percutaneous absorption. I. Effects on the transdermal flux of methyl nicotinate. Int J Pharm 87:261–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettinger J, Gloor M, Peter C, Kleesz P, Fluhr J, Gehring W (1998) Opposing effects of glycerol on the protective function of the horny layer against irritants and on the penetration of hexyl nicotinate. Dermatology 197:18–24

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Birmingham DJ (1986) Prolonged and recurrent occupational dermatitis. Occup Med 1:349–355

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boeniger M, Klingner T (2002) In-use testing and interpretation of chemical resistant glove performance. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 17:368–378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bronaugh RL, Congdon ER, Scheuplein RJ (1981) The effect of cosmetic vehicles on the penetration of N-nitrosodiethanolamine through excised human skin. J Invest Dermatol 76:94–96

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (1999) Occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States. US Department of Labor, BLS, bulletin 2518

  • Cornwell PA, Barry BW, Stoddart CP, Bouwstra JA (1994) Wide-angle X-ray diffraction of human stratum corneum: effects of hydration and terpene enhancer treatment. J Pharm Pharmacol 46:938–950

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Effendy I, Maibach HI (1995) Surfactants and experimental irritant contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 33:217–225

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Effendy I, Maibach HI (1996) Detergent and skin irritation. Clin Dermatol 14:15–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Flyvholm M-A, Menné T (1992) Allergic contact dermatitis from formaldehyde. Contact Dermatitis 27:27–36

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Food and Drug Administration (2000) Personal Communication. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Office of Compliance, Division of Labeling and Nonprescription Drug Compliance, OTC Compliance Team, Rockville, MD

  • Harvey DT, Hogan DJ (1995) Common environmental dermatoses. In: Brooks SM (ed) Environmental medicine. Mosby, St. Louis, USA, pp 263–281

  • Hogan DJ (1994) The prognosis of occupational contact dermatitis. Occup Med 9:53–58

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klingner T, Boeniger M (2002) A critique of assumptions about selecting chemical-resistant gloves: a case of workplace evaluation for glove efficacy. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 17:360–367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kolp PW, Williams PL, Burtan RC (1995) Assessment of the accuracy of material safety data sheets Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 56:178–183

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Krogsrud NE, Larsen AI (1992) Grapeseed oil as a safe and efficient hand cleansing agent. Contact Dermatitis 26:208

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kushla GP, Zatz JL (1991) Correlation of water and lidocaine flux enhancement by cationic surfactants in vitro. J Pharm Sci 80:1079–1083

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leigh JP, Miller TR (1998) Job-related diseases and occupations within a large workers' compensation data set. Am J Ind Med 33:197–211

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leigh JP, Markowitz SB, Fahs M, Shin C, Landrigan PJ (1997) Occupational injury and illness in the United States: estimates of costs, morbidity, and mortality. Arch Intern Med 157:1557–1568

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lerman SE, Kipen HM (1990) Material safety data sheets. Caveat emptor. Arch Intern Med 150:981–984

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lushniak BD (1995) Epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin 13:671–680

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mathias CGT (1985) The cost of occupational skin diseases. Arch Dermatol 121:332–334

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (1988) National Occupational Exposure Survey, 1981–1983. DHHS (NIOSH) publication no. 88-106, Special Data Analysis

  • National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (1993) Report on occupational safety and health for fiscal year 1990. NYIS PB-93-215-184, p 30

  • National Toxicology Program (NTP) (1999) Corrositex: an in vitro method for assessing dermal corrosivity potential of chemicals. NIH publication 99-4495 (http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/home.htm)

  • Navarro R, Lauressergues H, Etievant C (1982) How to increase tolerance to detergents in shampoos. In: Frost P, Horwitz SN (eds) Principles of cosmetics for the dermatologist. Mosby, St. Louis, USA

  • Occupational Safety and Health Administration (1983) Hazard communication; final rule. 29 CFR part 1910, Federal Register, vol 48, no. 228, pp 52380–53348

  • Occupational Safety and Health Administration (1989) Air contaminants; final rule. 29 CFR part 1910, Federal Register, vol 54, no. 12, pp 2329–2984

  • Occupational Safety and Health Administration (1994) Personal protective equipment for general industry; final rule. 29 CFR part 1910, Federal Register vol 59, no. 66, pp 16334–16364

  • Occupational Safety and Health Administration (1997) Assessing the need for personal protective equipment: a guide for small business employers, OSHA 3151, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Occupational Safety and Health Administration (2000a) OSHA field inspection reference manual, CPL 2.103, sect 7, Chap III. Inspection Documentation, sect C.2.c. Violations of the general duty clause

  • Occupational Safety and Health Administration (2000b) OSHA field inspection reference manual, CPL 2.103, sect 7, Chap III. Inspection Documentation, sect C.3.f. Biological Monitoring

  • Roder MM (1990) A guide for evaluating the performance of chemical protective clothing (CPC) DHHS (NIOSH) Pub 90–109

  • Smyth HF, Carpenter CP, Weil CS (1950) The toxicology of polyethylene glycols. J Am Pharm Assoc 39:349–354

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stockinger HE (1962) Threshold limits and maximal acceptable concentrations. Arch Environ Health 4:115–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan EL, Liu J, Chien YW (1993) Effect of cationic surfactants on the transepidermal permeation of ionized indomethacin. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 19:685–699

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker SB, Key MM (1992) Occupational skin disease. In: Rom WN (ed) Environmental and occupational medicine, 2nd edn. Little, Brown, Boston

  • Zesch A (1983) Skin irritation by topical drugs. Derm Beruf Umwelt 31:74–78

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45226, USA

    Mark F. Boeniger & Heinz W. Ahlers

Authors
  1. Mark F. Boeniger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heinz W. Ahlers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark F. Boeniger.

Additional information

Paper presented at the Occupational Skin Care Management State-of-the-Art Conference, 1–3 September 2000, Zurich

Funding support: this article fits the description in the US Copyright Act of 1976 of a "US government work". It was written as a part of our official duties as government employees. Therefore, it cannot be copyrighted

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boeniger, M.F., Ahlers, H.W. Federal government regulation of occupational skin exposure in the USA. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 76, 387–399 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-002-0425-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-002-0425-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation