A crew member suffered second-degree chemical burns after a concentrated fuel biocide was incorrectly used to clean fuel oil strainers, according to a safety flash.
The chemical penetrated the worker’s clothing, and the exposure continued when the contaminated coveralls were worn again the following day. The incident highlights how inappropriate chemical selection, inadequate protective equipment and delayed decontamination can turn routine maintenance into a serious injury.
What happened
During maintenance work involving fuel oil strainers, a crew member used a concentrated fuel biocide as a soaking and rinsing agent. However, the substance was intended exclusively as a fuel additive and was not suitable for cleaning equipment.
While carrying out the task, the worker wore standard cotton coveralls rather than the chemical-resistant protective clothing required for handling the substance. The chemical mixture soaked through the fabric, exposing the worker’s skin to its corrosive effects.
Unaware of the chemical’s hazardous properties, the crew member did not immediately wash the affected skin. The situation was aggravated when the same contaminated coveralls were worn again the following day, extending the period of contact with the chemical.
The worker subsequently developed second-degree chemical burns requiring hospital treatment.
According to IMCA, the crew member informed the Master when the symptoms worsened. The Master responded promptly, arranging medical evacuation to a hospital ashore.
Although the eventual medical response was effective, the injury had already developed following prolonged exposure that could potentially have been interrupted much earlier.
What went wrong
The first weakness concerned the selection of the chemical itself. A highly corrosive fuel additive was used for a purpose contrary to the warnings contained in its Safety Data Sheet (SDS).
This meant the maintenance task began with a hazardous substance that should not have been used for the intended cleaning operation.
The pre-job Toolbox Talk also failed to identify the specific chemical hazards involved. Consequently, the briefing did not provide an effective opportunity to recognise the inappropriate cleaning method or establish the necessary protective measures.
The worker’s standard cotton coveralls offered inadequate protection against chemical penetration. IMCA identified a lack of supervisory oversight to confirm that the correct cleaning method and chemical-resistant PPE were being used.
However, the consequences were not limited to the maintenance activity itself.
The failure to recognise the exposure, wash the affected skin promptly and prevent reuse of contaminated clothing allowed the hazard to persist beyond the original task.
Taken together, these shortcomings demonstrate that chemical safety depends on more than providing protective equipment. The substance must be suitable for the job, its hazards understood and the controls verified before work begins.
The big picture
The incident illustrates a wider occupational safety concern in shipping: chemicals kept onboard for one operational purpose may present serious risks when used for another.
Similar weaknesses have emerged in previous maritime incidents. In one case involving chemical exposure during purifier maintenance, an engineer suffered severe burns after spilling a carbon-removing chemical. The incident highlighted inadequate protective equipment and shortcomings in applying established safety procedures, despite the availability of a less hazardous cleaning alternative.
Another incident involving a sewage treatment chemical demonstrated the importance of responding immediately to exposure. In that case, the injured engineer removed contaminated clothing and washed off the chemical, actions that were considered likely to have reduced the severity of the injury.
The latest IMCA case introduces an additional consideration: contaminated workwear can remain a source of exposure after the original activity has ended.
For vessel operators, this raises questions about whether chemical-handling procedures adequately address the entire task, from selecting the correct product to managing accidental contact and contaminated clothing.
More broadly, the incident reinforces a recurring concern regarding the effectiveness of chemical-handling safeguards: documented precautions do not necessarily provide effective protection unless they are understood and applied during actual onboard operations.
What could have prevented the accident?
The most effective opportunity for prevention was before the cleaning work began. Confirming the chemical’s intended use against its SDS and the applicable maintenance instructions would have identified that the fuel biocide was unsuitable for the task.
Toolbox Talks should address the particular substances being handled, rather than treating chemical exposure as a general maintenance hazard. This includes identifying possible routes of contact, selecting suitable protective clothing and agreeing on the immediate response if contamination occurs.
Supervisory checks are equally important. For hazardous chemical work, supervisors should confirm that the selected substance is appropriate and that the required PPE is available, suitable and being worn correctly.
Crews also need to understand that exposure may continue through contaminated clothing. If chemical contact occurs, work should stop, contaminated garments should be removed safely, and affected skin should be washed promptly in accordance with the SDS and appropriate medical guidance.
Contaminated clothing should not be reused until it has been safely decontaminated or replaced.
The key operational consideration is whether crews know what to do when chemical contamination occurs, rather than relying on worsening symptoms to trigger action.
Ask your team
- How do we verify that chemicals selected for maintenance are approved for the intended task, particularly when alternative products are already available onboard?
- What would a supervisor check during a Toolbox Talk to establish that the actual chemical hazards and required PPE have been identified?
- If a crew member’s coveralls became contaminated, how would we ensure that exposure was recognised, appropriate first aid was given and the clothing was not reused?
- How do we assess whether crew members understand chemical exposure risks and immediate decontamination procedures in practice?
Key takeaways
- Chemical selection is a primary safety control: A fuel additive must not be treated as a cleaning agent unless its intended use specifically permits it.
- Toolbox Talks must address actual hazards: Generic maintenance precautions cannot replace product-specific risk assessment.
- Supervision should verify critical safeguards: Suitable chemical-resistant PPE must be confirmed before hazardous work starts.
- Chemical exposure can continue after work ends: Contaminated clothing must be managed to prevent prolonged skin contact.
- Early action can limit the consequences: Recognising exposure, following the SDS and promptly seeking appropriate medical assistance are essential.