Wet Work in

Australian
workplaces
Dr Tessa Keegel
Miss Kristen Benke
A/Prof Rosemary Nixon
A/ Prof Tony LaMontagne
Prof Malcolm Sim

Background
Wet work is one of the main
exposures for occupational
contact dermatitis (OCD)

Background
Information regarding patterns of
exposure to wet work is required
by workers, unions, employers &
policy-makers for the
development of work health and
safety policy

Project summary
The Wet Work project will look at:
1. Wet work exposure
2. Diagnosed disease
3. Successful workers
compensation claims

Occupational contact dermatitis: wet work

exposure and disease pyramid.

Study question
What are the patterns of exposure to
wet work, occupational contact
dermatitis, and accepted workers
compensation claims amongst
Australian workers?

Methods

The first dataset has information about self-reported

Australian wet work exposure data

The second dataset consists of de-identified diagnosed

disease data from a Victorian dermatology clinic

The final dataset consists of de-identified Victorian

Workers Compensation claims data

We will compare the patterns across

these three datasets

Preliminary findings

Study design &

sample
In 2008, Safe Work Australia
conducted the National Hazard
Exposure Worker Surveillance
(NHEWS) study

Wet work
exposure
Two separate outcomes:
1) frequency of hand washing at
work
2) time spent with hands in liquids
at work

Wet work
exposure
Workers were also asked what
types of liquids they were
exposed to at work
Workers could nominate more
than one liquid

Wet work exposure

For hand washing:
Less than/=20 times= unexposed/ low
More than 20, less than/= 100 = high
More than 100 = v high

Wet work
exposure
For duration of hands in liquids:
Less than 1 hr = low
1 hr up to 2 hrs = medium
More than 2 hrs = high

Co-variates
Employment arrangements
Number of employees at
workplace
Occupational skill level (5 levels)
Industrial sector
Self-reported chemical exp
Age group
Gender

Results

Overall the NHEWS survey had:

4500 Australian workers
Across 17 industries (5 priority)
42.3% response rate

When asked to nominate the types

of liquids:
Water 64%
Detergents, disinfectants,
cleaning products
Oils, solvents, thinners,
degreasers
Concrete/cement
Paint
Fuel, petrol, kerosene
Bodily fluids

Handwashing
Overall, 9.8% (95% CI: 8.9-10.7%)
washed their hands more than 20
times/day at work

5.4

Electricity/gas/water supply (37)

Construction (655)

0.2

1.8

Medium/High
Very high/Unsafe

Handwashing

Transport & storage (391)

3.6

0.3

Manufacturing (714)

0.8

4.8

Wholesale & retail trade (237)

0.8

5.1

Agriculture, forestry & fishing (317)

5.7

1.3

Cultural, recreational & personal

Mining (38)

2.1 4.2

2.6

Health & community services (956)

6.3

Accommodation, cafes & restaurants

6.6

23.8

17.6

10
15
20
% workers exposed to hand-washing

25

Handwashing
Odds ratio
(95% CI)
Gender
Females
Number of emps at wrkplce
Less than 5 (ref)
20 to 199
200 or more
Chemical Exposure
High exposure
Occupational skill level

1.97 (1.49-2.61)
-1.49 (1.05-2.11)
1.44 (1.00-2.08)
3.68 (2.91-4.66)

Level one (highest) (ref)

--

Level five (lowest)

Industry
Transport & storage (ref)

0.58 (0.37-0.92)

Health & Comm service

6.02 (3.38-10.70)

Accommodation, cafes &

restaurants
Observations

5.70 (2.71-12.02)

--

4309

Hands in liquids
Overall, 7.3% (95% CI: 6.5-8.0%)
hands in liquids more than 1 hr
4.5 % (95% CI: 3.9-5.1%) more
than 2 hrs

Property & business services (262)

2.7
2.3

Mining (38)

2.6

Electricity/gas/water supply (37)

2.7

5.3

Medium

Hands in liquids
1.3

Transport & storage (391)

3.1

2.3

Construction (655)

4.1

Manufacturing (714)

4.9
3.5

Agriculture, forestry & fishing (317)

High

Cultural, recreational & personal services (95)

6.3
4.5

Health & community services (956)

7.4
7.7
9.9

Accommodation, cafes & restaurants (91)

0

10

% workers exposed to hands in liquids

14.3
12

14

16

Hands in liquids
Odds ratio
(95% CI)
Occupational skill level
Level one (highest)

--

Level two

2.03 (1.07-3.88)

Level three

4.07 (2.37-7.00)

Level four

2.40 (1.48-3.89)

Level five (lowest)

6.41 (3.78-10.88)

Industry
Transport & storage (ref)
Health & community
services
Accommodation, cafes &
restaurants
Chemical exposure
High exposure
Observations

-2.92 (1.46-5.84)
2.97 (1.24-7.15)
4.09 (2.92-5.74)
4337

This study is one of the first to

suggest differences in the
profiles for:
frequency of hand washing
and
hands immersed in liquids

Exposure to chemicals & exposure

to wet work was highly
correlated:
3 and a half times for hand
washing
Four times for immersion of
hands in liquids

Preliminary findings

Study design &

sample
Compensation Research Database
Victorian workers compensation
data from 1986-2009

Results
14, 709 unique claims, from 13,980
workers
Includes 729 repeat claims
Many more males than females,
76% vs 24%

Employer segment
Females

Males

Government

17 %

11%

Large

40%

25%

Medium

33%

50%

Small

10%

14%

Selected
occupations

Meat processing 524

Poultry processing 27
Smallgoods 52
Seafood 3
Printing 62

Selected
occupations
Motor vehicle manufacturing 354
Automotive repair 166
Construction 781

Plumbing 75

Selected
occupations

Psych hospitals 95
Dental services 55
Ambulance 215
Building and industrial cleaners 77
Hospitals 760

Selected
occupations
Aged care 204
Other res care 50
Other social assistance 145

Discussion

Policy implications
Success of the German policy
Technical standards1 and
Technical Rules 530
Hairdressing2

1. BAuA German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Technical standard for hazardous
substances: Skin damage from work in wet environments (TRGS 531: wet work). Translation jointly prepared by
NIOSH and BAuA,1996. Available at:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/skin/recommendations.html (last accessed 08 April 2011)
2. Dickel H, Kuss O, Schmidt A, Diepgen TL. Impact of preventive strategies on trend of occupational skin
disease in hairdressers: population based register study. BMJ 2002 15 June 2002:324:1422-3.

Annual incidence ( 95% confidence intervals) of hairdressers with

a stated occupational skin disease 1990-1999. From BMJ 2002;
324:1422-1423 (Dickel et al. 2002)

Questions
1. Is wet work an issue for your
members?
2. Do employers think wet work is a
potential OHS problem?
3. What liquids are workers exposed
to in the workplace?

Questions
4. Do your members have access to
MSDS in the workplace?
5. Are your members consulted
before new liquids are used in the
workplace?
6. Are there any workplace
interventions for wet work that
you would like to see in your
workplace?

Questions
7. What sort of policy interventions
for wet work would you like to see
in your workplace?
8. Are your members involved in
OHS decision making?

Acknowledgements &
publications details
Safe Work Australia, Dr Fleur Champion de Crespigny, Prof
Thomas Diepgen, Prof Tove Agner, Ms Stella Gwini
NHMRC Post-Doctoral Fellowship to TGK (#540114)

Keegel T, Nixon R, LaMontagne AD.

Exposure to wet work in working Australians.
Accepted for publication 2/8/2011
Contact Dermatitis