INTERVIEW Q&A
Kevin Duncan is Chairman of UKLA’s Metalworking Fluid Product Stewardship group (MWFPSG) comprising of eighteen member companies with a focus on the safe handling of metalworking fluids.
What is the role of the UKLA Metalworking Fluid Product Stewardship Group (MWFPSG)? The MWFPSG was formed in the late 1990s as a means of bringing together those companies that have a commitment to the development, manufacture and marketing of safe and effective metalworking fluid products with the UK Health & Safety Executive which is the regulator for the sector.
How did you become involved in the work of the MWFPSG? Throughout my career working in lubricant blenders, chemical and additive companies I have been involved with metalworking fluids. The challenges of working with MWFs are quite different to other areas of lubrication such as the automotive sector. Our approach is to develop solutions tailored to the needs of our End Users in areas such as bacteria control in water-mix fluids, for example.
In the February and April editions of Lube, we covered the launch of the new Good Practice Guide for Safe Handling and Disposal of Metalworking Fluids. Can you elaborate on how the guide came about?
The advent of REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) has had an enormous impact on our industry. At the same time best practice in the safe handling of metalworking fluids continues to evolve. Through this guide, which is a first for the sector, we wanted to capture best practice and share this with End Users both here and in Europe.
Is there a particular area that you would say presents the greatest concern for the safe handling of MWFs and related materials? Naturally, prolonged skin contact is a key consideration, but a particular area we feel needs to be addressed is that of Metalworking Fluid Mist, because it is almost a hidden hazard.
62 LUBE MAGAZINE NO.146 AUGUST 2018
With direct skin contact, the adverse effects are immediately apparent. However, MWF mist can have serious ramifications on the health of those working in the surrounding environment through inhalation of hazardous particulates, yet a high concentration of such particles in the air can often go almost unnoticed.
We are keen to develop working practice in this area which ties into the HSE’s strategy on developing both a safe and healthy working environment so we are conducting research into a new method of quantifying MWF mist and on improving methods of mist extraction from the workplace.
What developments are you expecting to implement that will help mitigate against risk of harmful contact with MWFs in the future? Currently metalworking fluid mixtures are changing in response to REACH. We have seen some mixtures change already such as the use of formaldehyde free mixtures which are becoming increasingly available on the market.
The MHDHS 95 (boron) analytical method is used infrequently and is less likely to be used in future due to European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and Committeef for Risk Assessment (RAC) hazard classification for boric acid. Moving forward we are considering the use of alternative chemical analytical markers and whether it is also worth considering adopting other existing gravimetric / analytical methods.
LINK
www.ukla.org.uk/metalworking-fluid- product-stewardship-group/
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64
