Should I mix bleach in my house wash?

[CannonW 14]

I did my first house last Friday. It had dirt, grime, mold & rust on it. First, I hit it with Pressurtek's 6136... that worked pretty good... got all of the dirt and grime (used hot water too)... but the mold and rust remained. Next, I hit it with Bleach... That took care of the mold. Then I hit the rust stains with Oxalic Acid... which took care of the rust.

The house looks great... but now I want to speed up the process. Can I mix the Bleach and 6136? Will that give me the desired results? Is there a shelf life after mixing?

Is there a better way to apply? I downstreamed the 6136 and the bleach with a chem nozzle and extend-a-wand. I sprayed on the Oxalic Acid with a pump sprayer. Is there a Shurflo setup that would work better? How about an X-jet... is it time to buy one?

Thanks for all the help...

[Aplus 525]

Rob,

If it weren't for the fact you are dispensing poor advice to lots of people on this board, I'd just say you crack me up.

And since lots of people read this and may not know your lack of experience and understanding of chems, I have to say it may be in everyones best interest if you not continue dispensing poor advice.

Nothing personal, really, you're just on low side of experience and need to learn. Whatever or whoever tells you these things about PPE is wrong, simply put.

I hope you have a long life and prosperous business. Everybody makes mistakes and learns from them, it's part of the process of growing. Just don't kill yourself in the process.

Of course we all handle harsh chemicals, and there is nothing wrong with that if safety concerns are addressed. Wise up man.

[Guest rfitz]

Sorry Tony, Wrong Again, If you think pressure washing chemicals are dangerous, ? go work with printing inks, dies, and solvents for 18 years, Like I did, these chems are childs play compared to those, you should really have your facts staright before passing judgement, and also, absorbtion thru the skin is much worse than thru the lungs, your lungs act as a filter, your skin doesnt, I happen to have 3 very close relatives that are chemical engineers that gave me this foolish information, a combined 15 years of PHD's and 35 years of government research, but I guess you know more than them..?

[Everett Abrams 501]

I will offer my opinion. It is simple, when handling ANY chemical you should use all safety precautions necessary. Each of us will determine what is necessary for us. Safety precautions are on the MSDS and on labels. For anyone to get on any communication device or means and suggest an irresponsible and care free attitude toward there exposure ans risk is absurd. To debate uses and effectiveness is one thing but, there can never be "too much" safety.

[Guest rfitz]

This is my point, wearing gloves and a vapor mask, while being covered in chems all day long is a little weird..? Here is a good article on skin penetration by chemicals, Im not saying wearing protection is bad, Im just saying how much actual good will it do us...?

Under your skin

What You Don’t Know About Dermal Exposures Can Make You Sick

Imagine trying to shield your workers from airborne chemicals without the benefit of air monitors, permissible exposure limits, ventilation designs, or certified, fit-tested respirators. No way to detect noxious fumes. No values by which to gauge safe levels. No assurance that workers’ equipment is actually protecting them. Talk about making your job difficult! Respiratory protection would be near impossible. Yet this is just what you’re up against trying to detect and control hidden hazards that get at workers through their skin.

More than 100 chemicals with OSHA permissible exposure limits for inhalation hazards are also known skin permeants. Like the effects of breathing toxic fumes, when one of these substances is absorbed into the blood stream through the skin, the result can be serious -kidney or liver disease, neurological or reproductive disorders, or cancer.

For instance, about a teaspoonful of styrene (3 milliliters) splashed on a worker’s skin can deliver the same dose as the eight-hour inhalation exposure limit -50 parts per million. Just touching a surface contaminated with 1.5 micrograms per square centimeters of the suspected carcinogen acrylamide -a quantity about one-millionth the weight of a paper clip- could equal inhaling one day’s permissible exposure limit, 0.03 milligrams per cubic meter.

But other than a "skin notation" alongside the PEL for permeating chemicals OSHA offers nothing to help safety and health pros trying to deal with dermal exposures. No limits tell you how much of a chemical can safely contact workers’ skin. And even if skin exposure levels were established, no tool like an air monitor exists to measure them. Likewise, no NIOSH standard -like the one the agency recently updated for respiratory protective equipment- exists to help managers sort through the variety of glove materials available.

NIOSH researcher Mark Boeniger calls the inattention to dermal exposures "one of the greatest failures of OSHA and NIOSH." Other skin experts accuse universities of contributing to the problem by glossing over dermal absorption when training young health and safety professionals.

"If you talk to 100 industrial hygienists, 95 percent of them will know what their plant’s airborne exposures are," says dermal absorption expert Tom Klingner. "But ask them whether they’re protecting workers from dermal exposures and they have no idea." Industrial hygiene graduate students have told Klingner they learned more about dermal exposures during a half-hour conversation with him than they did during their grad school career.

The price of ignorance is that many workers are left with only Mother Nature’s thin line of defense. Little more than their skin’s own stratum corneum -a protective layer no thicker than a strand of hair- comes between them and the toxics they touch. What’s worse is that some common ways to protect skin -wearing gloves, applying barrier creams and scrubbing clean after work- don’t always do the job. In fact, they can raise the risks of dermal absorption.

To help you out until science lends more support, Industrial Safety & Hygiene News talked to experts about dos and don’ts for dealing with dermal exposures.

Help is on the way

There’s no question industry needs help protecting workers’ skin. The health effects of dermal absorption are so difficult to trace and can take so long -sometimes a lifetime- to detect, that illness data is impossible to collect. OSHA doesn’t know how many people are exposed to skin permeating chemicals at work. But the fact that dermal diseases and disorders like dermatitis were long the most oft reported job illness in the U.S. (only recently displaced by cumulative trauma disorders) indicates that skin protection is overlooked in more than a few workplaces.

Dermal issues are starting to come under government scrutiny: ·

* In a document announcing plans to begin new research on skin irritants and allergens, NIOSH pointed out the need for "improved field methods for measuring permeation of skin by individual substances and mixtures." A source there says at least six scientists will be hired to assist the meager staff of three now dedicated to dermal research. ·

* In April, EPA asked chemical manufacturers to test dermal absorption rates for 80 skin-permeating substances. If manufacturers don’t volunteer the data, EPA can, under the Toxic Substances Control Act, demand it. ·

* That information will be useful to OSHA when the agency updates its permissible exposure limits or establishes quantitative methods for limiting dermal exposures -a possibility made remote by the many variables that would have to be taken into account, according to two government researchers.

Detecting dermal exposures

Until NIOSH findings, EPA data gathering, or OSHA standard setting offer any real guidance, you’re on your own. Your task is indeed daunting: dermal dangers can be as obvious as a chemical splash on a torn glove, or as inconspicuous as contaminated safety glasses rubbing the thin skin behind the ears.

Just getting workers to comprehend dermal absorption can be difficult. Inhalation exposures are easy enough to understand: Everyone knows a sneeze can pass a cold through the air. Most people recognize the dangers of breathing cigarette smoke. So it’s not a stretch to make the case that chemical-contaminated air can be bad for you. But good luck convincing a worker that holding a carbon disulfide-contaminated tool in a bare hand day after day can damage his sperm.

Tom Klingner recalls the irony of watching a gardener spray pesticides on flowers outside an industrial hygienists’ convention in Anaheim, Cal., two years ago: "The guy wore hip boots and gloves while he sprayed. When he was done, he went to his truck, pulled off a glove, then yanked off the other glove and both boots with his bare hands." Providing protective clothing isn’t enough, Klingner says. Educating workers and changing their behavior is the other half of the battle.

Trickier still can be the task of tracking the source when employees are dermally exposed. In the polyurethane industry, where the suspected bladder carcinogen methylene bis chloro aniline (MOCA) is a common hazard, the Polyurethane Manufacturers Association has long supported voluntary urine monitoring to detect exposures. Klingner’s firm, Colormetric Laboratories in Des Plaines, Ill., runs urine tests for several polyurethane clients who he says have "set the standard for all industries." Consider a few of his sleuthing stories: ·

* Urine tests at a California maker of cast polyurethane wheels -the sort that make in-line skates skate- revealed that office workers were suffering MOCA exposures. Traces of the chemical appeared in the urine of secretaries who never stepped near the manufacturing floor. Surface swipes identified the source: paperwork. Workers in the plant who signed paperwork with contaminated gloves passed along the MOCA to the front office. ·

* At another plant, Klingner was puzzled to find that among maintenance workers tested for MOCA exposures, the two with the highest exposures didn’t even work in contaminated areas. Eventually he discovered they were snitching -with their bare hands- tools from the contaminated toolbox of a co-worker whose exposure level was much lower, and who always wore gloves. ·

* An employee whose job at another cast polyurethane plant was to meter material out of a mixing head and hand pour it into molds changed from street clothes into protective clothing before work. When tests showed high exposure levels, Klingner discovered the worker’s boots had been splashed with chemicals: The man was contaminating himself every morning pulling on his boots, and compounding the problem by wearing gloves over his dirty hands all day.

Solutions for these cases were simple: Encase paperwork in plastic folders that get removed before passing along from the plant to the office; paint tools used in contaminated areas red as a warning to don gloves; and keep reusable PPE clean and use disposable shoe covers for chemical splashes. The real challenge is educating workers to prevent the exposures in the first place.

These dos and don’ts can help minimize risks to the skin:

Do: ·

* Keep skin clean and healthy. Abraded, irritated, or even sunburnt skin is more susceptible to dermal absorption. Use products tailored to the industrial market, not just cosmetic moisturizers, says Eleanor Fendler, Ph.D., product development manager for skin care company Gojo Industries. ·

* Keep hands and skin dry. Moisture on the skin, like sweat, can enable permeation, as can high temperatures. ·

* Choose gloves and protective materials carefully. Some chemicals, like lacquer thinner, can permeate just about any glove when microscopic molecules break through individual molecules of the protective film on the glove. But beware, too, of over protecting. A glove that is too thick or bulky only contributes to exposure risks when workers remove it to perform jobs requiring dexterity or tactility. ·

* Watch out for glove degradation. Don’t rely on a glove once its physical property changes, says Nelson Schlatter of glove maker Ansell Edmont. "Degradation is easy to spot," he says. "The glove will either swell up and get soft, or shrink and harden." Flexing a glove can increase the permeation rate and breakthrough time by ten, according to NIOSH’s Boeniger. And, of course, chemicals can penetrate visible holes in gloves.

Don’t: ·

* Don’t use solvents to clean chemicals off hands. Solvents can damage the skin, making it more readily permeable, says Fendler. ·

* Don’t put gloves on contaminated hands. Gloves can force penetration of chemicals already on the hands and increase the likelihood of dermal penetration up to five times, according to Boeniger. ·

* Don’t apply moisturizer or barrier cream to contaminated skin. "If an auto mechanic puts barrier cream on his hands after he changes the oil, he can be causing himself really serious damage by forcing penetration," Fendler says. ·

* Don’t use barrier creams in the place of gloves. Barrier creams can be an addition to a skin protection regime, but studies recommend against substituting them for gloves.

Sidebar: 12 steps to reducing dermal exposures

Initial exposure survey:

1. Locate areas and jobs in the facility where hazardous chemicals are used.

2. Check work surfaces, tools, production equipment, chemical storage and transfer areas with "swypes"* to verify the need for PPE and requirements for personnel entering contaminated areas. Mark regulated areas and equipment.

3. After determining areas where potential for skin exposure exists, survey outside areas and surfaces for contamination transfer. Observe the process flow:

4. Check the product with "swype."

5. Check equipment leaving the regulated area to verify that materials are contamination-free.

6. Decontaminate all materials that carry contamination with "decon" solutions before removing from regulated area.

7. Mark all equipment that can become re-contaminated during normal use. Tag or paint equipment to signify the potential for chemical contamination and the need for PPE. Secondary exposure sources:

8. Observe the flow of people entering and leaving regulated process areas.

9. Check water fountains, telephones, wash and change rooms, lunch and break rooms with "swypes" for contamination that may be transferred via workers’ hands, clothing or shoes.

10. Check office area floors and aisles leading out of regulated areas, doors, door knobs and handles, phones, copiers, pencils, and other equipment that may be contacted by contaminated PPE, clothing, or shoes.

11. Decontaminate all safety glasses, respirator face pieces, gloves, and other reusable personal equipment worn in the process area. Replace equipment that cannot be thoroughly decontaminated.

12. Check surfaces, tools and equipment in quality control labs that may carry contamination. Decontaminate all surfaces and materials that indicate the presence of contamination.

Source: Colormetric Laboratories, Inc.

*Swypes are surface contamination detectors made by Colormetric Laboratories. They have been evaluated by OSHA for use in exposure assessments and PPE training. Contact Colormetric at 847-696-3036.

Sidebar: Pointers for picking protective clothing

Keep in mind these points from the National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health when choosing chemical protective clothing (CPC) to protect workers from dermal exposures: ·

* "Impervious" clothing does not exist. All commercially available CPC tested will allow some chemicals to permeate in relatively short times. ·

* All CPC is vapor resistant, which prevents evaporative cooling and increases skin temperature and moisture. Under these conditions, detecting a permeated chemical is difficult unless sensory effects such as itching, discoloration, or burning result. Even when CPC is removed, an exposure might not be recognized if an odor is not noticeable or the skin appearance has not changed. Furthermore, the warm, humid conditions under the CPC can increase the permeability of the skin. ·

* When the CPC being used has not been tested under the expected conditions, the CPC may fail to provide adequate protection. Wearers should observe the CPC during use and treat any noticeable change (e.g., color, stiffness, chemical odor inside) as a failure until proved otherwise by testing. If the work must continue, new CPC should be worn for a shorter exposure time, or CPC of a different generic material should be worn. ·

* The same thickness of a generic material, such as neoprene or nitrile, supplied by different manufacturers may provide significantly different levels of protection because of variations in the manufacturing processes or in the raw materials and additives used in processing. ·

* Most permeation data have been produced by testing the CPC material while in continuous contact with the chemical. This method of testing is considered the "worst case" condition that produces the quickest breakthrough time. Although it appears this breakthrough time could be safely increased if intermittent contact is expected, researchers have shown that, in some cases, breakthrough times for intermittent exposure are similar to continuous contact. Breakthrough times for intermittent exposure can be estimated during the testing of candidate CPC by using intermittent chemical contact with the candidate CPC to simulate expected use. ·

* Published permeation data of CPC tested against pure chemicals do not correlate with data for the same chemicals in mixtures, and cannot be used to reliably predict breakthrough times for mixtures. Unfortunately, chemical mixtures are usually encountered in the industrial setting. When data are not available for specific mixtures, use the worst-case data for any component of the mixture to select the candidate CPC. Source: NIOSH, 1990.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Rob, did you say YOU have the Phd or someone else does....?

Safety gear is important. One simple fact, is if you have goggles on, you can't get a splash of chem into your eye, which can save your vision. Chemical respirators do help you to keep your lungs free from harmful substances. PVC suiting ...well, if you are dry how can you be drenched in chems? And if your hands were not covered with gloves they would be burning.

Beth

[Guest rfitz]

Beth, By reading the artcile, you now know that all the microscopic penetration to our skin is doing much much more damage than the little bit than might be getting into our lungs,, trust me, if you are washing houses, decks etc.. every day, your skin is absorbing gallons and gallons of harmful chems, and you can stay bone dry, but dont get fooled by that, unless you wash in a sealed mobile bubble,(similar to what the Pope rides in when on Parade) your body is drenched in chems, Thats why gloves and masks offer very little protection if any, if you truly look at the big picture, AND read the article in a earlier post...

Let's face facts...:) Wearing gloves and masks is similar to someone going to a non-smoking resaraunt, so as to not get second hand smoke while eating, then consuming food that is soaked in DIOXIN.... Crazy, yes, but basically the same situation..

[One Tough Pressure 580]

Sorry Folks, Im not buying any of this, I am from the show me state, MO. and if anyone took all these precautions, wore mask's, etc.. why not just wear a moon suit,? let's face facts, YOU are in a business with alot of harsh chemicals, you will be drenched in it after a full days work, gloves, respirator, vapor mask whatever, none of these will help, all of this is absorbed thru your skin, hair etc.. if you are handling these chems with all this protection, you arent getting alot done in a day, who has the time to be competetive when putting on all this nonsense gear...? Im washing 3-5 houses a day, and 2-4 decks, and yes I accept the risk, but gloves, and masks will not prolong your life, if you are indeed succeptable to cancers, or ill affects from using these chems, and If I saw a guy washing my car, house, carpets, whatever, in a mask, gloves, respirator etc.. I would tell them to get lost, It puts too much fear into people, if on the other hand, they see me washing with nothing on but my shades, guess what..? they now feel safe, Sorry folks, but I just dont buy in to all this...

Hope this helps....

Rob,

What you do in your business and how you monitor your workers is one thing, but to say what you did is foolish.

I have worn many things on jobs that you say you would tell the contractor to "get lost". Most people have not asked, but for the few that have, I just explain that being exposed to something on a daily basis may be hazardous to my health and that I will do my best to prevent any injury or illness from my working environment.

You have no idea what people get done in a day. After wearing certain items all day long, you get accustomed to them and forget they are even there.

So you were in the printing biz for years, and say that the chems used for Pressure Washing are "childs play". That could get someone killed. Hopefully they read more than that part, and avoid serious injury.

Each person needs to determine what PPE they need to wear and just get used to it.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

But the effect would be far worse if you don't wear the gear and get exposed and drenched directly, right? If you are sticking your hands in to SH or an acid and having it rain on you unprotected, the effects will be greater faster. Why not use the gear and live a longer life? Let's just say someone downstreams SH and doesn't wear any gear, then has touble breathing, their skin is read and blotchy and burning, and then have to be hospitalized. The guy working next door wore gear and at the end of a long day felt fine and took his family out for dinner at that restaurant you mentioned. Seems to me one is in better health than the other, and might live longer. That's what I'm talking about. Safety gear is very important. I don't care how stupid it looks. I don't care if it's uncomfortable. And as for what the homeowner thinks, there is a good reason they are not doing this themselves and in my opinion they should respect that you take precautions, on both property and person.

Beth :groovy2:

[Guest rfitz]

I guess it is whatever makes someone feel better about safety, each person has to use, wear, whatever he/she feels is best, and go from there, I have watched probably 30-40 presure washing companies, painting companies, etc.. work, and probably in all 50-100 workers, and not 1 was ever wearing any type of protective gear, and these were fairly large operations, so I guess most in my opinion and what I have seen, might think it is a good idea, most dont use precaution.. Just the facts, Me, yes I wear safety sun glasses, and gloves, and hats when applying chems, but that is about it, dont see much use for much else, But I do offer all the neccesary gear for my sub contractors, and guess what, they all sign waivers, they wont use them, they dont like all the gear, they say it is too restricting...? Go Figure..

[R. Williamson 14]

Rob,

I see your points. But any measures you can take to limit your exposure is a good thing.

A couple of years ago I had a pump sprayer filled with a mixture of soduim hydroxide. I thought I had relieved the pressure from the container. Unscrewed the top and caustic blew all over my eyes, face, hair, clothes.

You do not know when a accident will happen, that is why you need to wear safety gear. I am guilty myself of not taking every precaution that I should, but would never tell anyone else not to.

Bob

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Rob you make an excellent point. Safety practices are hard to enforce. Many employers have policies and the employees are supposed to use gear and follow them, but don't. This is a huge problem in our industry and other related ones. You know who takes it seriously? Window washers do. I can guarantee you, that you won't see a guy skimp on the repelling gear if he is hanging 60 stories up. His harness will be secure, and the best one out there if he is that serious about the work, or his employer is a good one.

Beth

[Dale 16]

Rob...give up gracefully...no one is going to buy it.lol What does peoples tendency towards laziness..i.e. not wanting to be restricted by safety gear have to do with physics? Heres an experiment.. Mix up some SH. on one hand wear a glove...on the other hand wear your skin...place both hand in the SH for 1 min....remove hands....wait 5 min.....notice any difference?..if you think safety gear is worn to feel good about it but in fact is useless..why wear glasses, gloves, etc.

[One Tough Pressure 580]

Please note that anyone taking Dale up on his offer to experiment with and without gloves, does so at their own risk. Obviously this is dangerous, but there just may be some kamikaze out there who may try it.

One of the many goals for people in this business and others, should be to have a success in what they do. Protecting ourselves from potentially dangerous substances should be a top priority. It may take years for effects to show up, but when they do, it may be to late to do anything about it.

Quoting Paul B again, "Safety first & make it last"

[Mike Williamson 198]

As far as respiratory chlorine exposure not being as bad as exposure through the skin, I can only say this...I've read more than one post on the boards by guys who have developed severe respiratory sensitivity to chlorine after several years of daily use, to the point where they can't be around chlorine without a respirator without severe coughing fits. I don't know of anyone who has developed long term or permanent problems due to contact of chlorine to the skin. Maybe exposure through the skin is bad, but so is respiratory exposure. Why say that you need no respiratory precautions simply because other types of exposure may cause more severe problems long term?

Rob: Here's an experiment for you...Stick your hand in 12% chlorine for 10 seconds, then wash it off. Then stick your head in a bucket of 12% chlorine and breath the fumes for 10 seconds. Which do you think is worse now? (and of course, I'm not seriously suggesting you do this, you wouldn't be that stupid....would you?)

[squirtgun 122]

My question is.

What do you use to brighten decks??

I know oxalic will take your breath away just being within 10ft of it.

If you are using brightener like oxalic without a respirator,I imagine your lungs won't hold out to many years.

[Aplus 525]

Not only that, but oxalic causes damage to your liver and kidneys. And if you plan on having kids, you may cause your children to have birth defects from your exposure to oxalic acid. That is the reason why I have switched to citric acid.