An Approach for Risk Characterisation of

Exposure to Chemicals in Cleaning Work

Authors:
Abdulqadir Mohamad Suleiman, MEng., MBA (Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority);
Kristin H. V. Svendsen, PhD (Institute of Industrial Economics & Technology Management,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology)
Keywords: Cleaning work, exposure determinants, risk of exposure, task performance,
risk factor, risk characterization ratio

Introduction RFW =φ*ωW (for cleaning windows/glass surfaces);

Cleaning products are associated with increasing prevalence of RFF =0.5φ*ωF (for cleaning floors; not polishing).
asthma among cleaning workers. Workplace interventions to
reduce exposure to chemicals prerequisite exposure assessment in The ∑RF gives the actual total risk factor for the work
order to establish exposure levels. Different workplace assessment performed, and this is worker specific. A designed ideal situation
strategies are employed. However, most cleaning companies lack where minimal exposure level is envisaged, is used to determine
competence to conduct such assessments. The work is left to risk quotient, i.e. risk characterization ratio (RCR). RCR serves
occupational health professionals, most of whom use heuristic. here as an indicator of the relative risk of exposure to chemicals
There is clearly need for a simple, easy-to-use method that can be when the work is performed. RCR = 1 shows balanced work
used to assess cleaning work, and thence suggesting interventions. performance with reference to the designed ideal. RCR<1 and
RCR>1 show lower risk and higher risk than the ideal
Aim respectively. Ideal RF can be designed for different work stations
The aim of this study was to propose a simple, straight-forward and be used as an internal standard for the cleaning company.
methodological approach for determination of potential risk of
exposure to chemicals based on determinants of exposure in
Results
Outcome of application of the approach at different work places
cleaning work. The approach was applied at a few workplaces to
was as shown in table 3 below:
elaborate on it usability.
Materials and methods Table 1: Presentation of tasks’ RFs, ∑RF and RCR of the different work situation
Cleaning tasks in which chemicals are used were identified through assessed using the characterization approach
NP5 RF T RF K RF W RF F ∑RF RCR
interviews with cleaning workers. Determinants of exposure to (%)
chemical were then used to define a conceptual assessment factor Travel 9 1.00 0 0.13 0.13 1.26 7.41
(AS) as ω = ν*θ*δ*σ*ξ, where, ν = frequency of task performance; terminals (12.7)
θ = frequency of use of PPE; δ = whether product is diluted or Shopping 6 0 0 0.25 0.03 0.28 1.65
not; σ = use of spray bottle; and ξ = workplace ambiance Centre (8.5)
(open/confined). The determinants were assigned numerical Offices 24 0.50 0.13 0 0.06 0.69 4.05
values as shown in tables 1 and 2. (33.8)
Kindergarten 6 0.50 0.13 0.06 0.13 0.82 4.82
(8.5)
Table 2: The numerical values assigned different scenarios that can be actual in relation to
Hospital 26 0.50 0 0.13 0.13 0.76 4.47
cleaning work at different work stations
(36.6)
Task Dilution SB1 WE2
Performed φ Done δ Used σ Ambiance ξ RCR values were obtained by comparing the respective ∑RF to
No 0 No 1 No 1 Open 1 an all-task-performed designed ideal ∑RFI (∑RF I = 0.17) in
Yes 1 Yes 0.5 Yes 2 Closed 2 order to allow comparison between the different work stations.
1
Spray bottle; 2 Workplace environment The results show that all the work stations had RCR >1, with
Shopping Centre having the lowest at 1.65. Cleaning of travel
Table 3: Scenario bands and the factors assigned for frequency of task performance and the terminal showed highest risk ratio, almost twice that of hospitals,
extent of use of PPE. which had relative risk closely similar to kindergartens and
Frequency Use of PPE offices. This is due to the fact that, in travel terminals, workers
cleaned toilets ≥10 times/shift, and the cleaners use spray bottles
No. of times νD3 νW4 Extent of use θ in all the tasks. On the contrary, in hospitals, toilets are cleaned
1-3 0.25 0.25 All the time 0.25 ≤10times/shift, and spray bottles are not used at all, thus lower
4-6 0.5 0.5 ≥50% 0.50 risk of exposure.
7-9 1 1 <50% 1 Conclusion
≥10 2 -- None 2 The method allows for evaluation of cleaning work and provides
3
For Cleaning tasks performed on daily basis. a systematic assessment of potential risk of exposure to
4
For task which are not performed on daily basis, but only a number of chemicals. It is apparent that use of determinants of exposure
times per working week such as cleaning windows, max. 7-times/week instead of risk of chemicals makes the approach a versatile tool
for determination of risk of exposure. The outcome of the
With AS and weighting coefficients (based on the type of chemicals approach depends on the tasks performed, how the tasks are
used and whether a given task involves multiple tasks), task risk performed and the measures taken, and not the chemical risk.
factor (RF) was designed as shown below: Publication: Suleiman A, Svendsen KVH. Presentation of an approach
for risk characterization of exposure to chemicals in cleaning work. Safety
RFT =2φ*ωT (for cleaning toilets/bathrooms); Science 91 (2017): 148–153.
Corresponding author’s contacts: Abdulqadir Mohamad Suleiman,
RFK =2φ*ωK (for cleaning kitchen); ams@arbeidstilsynet.no; Tel.no. +4797462054