Introduction / background / objectives

The Tattoo sector is still little addressed in the context of Occupational Health. There are many documents about Risk for tattooed clients, but the information is scarce in relation to the Tattooist. The bibliography found in this sense is not exhaustive, it just gives a general idea of ​​some Labor Risks, with no quantitative assessment, much less hierarchical.

Methodology

After conducting a Review related to Risk Assessment methods and after the elaboration of a Risk Letter from a Tattoo studio, three methods were selected: MARAT (Methodology for Assessment of Risks and Accidents at Work), William Fine (WF) and MIAR (Integrated Method for Risk Assessment), due to the ease of access to information on how to use them, suitability for the sector and facility; these were applied to 68 risk factors included in the highlighted work tasks.

Content

The main tasks considered in the Tattoo workstations observed were: making the drawing on paper or on the skin; or select the design to put on the skin, from the computer; insert the design on decal sheets; shave/ disinfect/ sterilize the skin; transfer the design of the decal sheet to the skin; prepare the workbench with the necessary utensils and products; paint the skin using the tattoo machine; wipe off uninjected and excess ink; placing various chemicals on the skin during the tattoo (variable among professionals); help the client in case of lipothymia or syncope (if necessary); as well as cleaning/ disinfecting/ sterilizing surfaces and work instruments.

Conclusions

Although the three methods value different aspects, it was very interesting to verify the homogeneity of the results, that is, the MARAT technique marked eight items as belonging to the category of highest risk; the WF methodology and MIAR highlighted seven and nine, respectively. Among the three methods, there were some risk factors that were included in the highest risk category, namely the eventual contact with chemical agents, sharp objects and blood potentially contaminated with relevant microorganisms during the act of inserting pigment in the skin, as well as during the cleaning of the skin (of the excess pigment, between injections). Only the MIAR method indicated two items that the other techniques did not include in this category (namely the eventual contact with blood during the cleaning/ disinfection/ sterilization of work surfaces and work instruments), which the MARAT and William Fine technicians both placed in the second and third category, respectively.

The method that most valued the worker's risk factors in general was MIAR (nine items in the highest risk category and thirty-seven in the lowest risk category), the opposite being William Fine (seven items in the highest risk category) and forty-six in the lowest risk).

        · abstract in Portuguese     · text in Portuguese     · Portuguese ( pdf )