Can you use AI to write a COSHH assessment? Prompts and an SDS worked example

Yes. You can use AI to help prepare a COSHH assessment. ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini can work with uploaded documents and help organise the information into a draft. You do not need to buy The Site Book to try this. The file-upload options are explained in the providers' own guides for ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini.

The useful question is how to get from a manufacturer's safety data sheet to something that describes your work, rather than a tidy summary of the product label.

This guide gives you four copyable prompts, a worked example using a real supplier's safety data sheet, and a practical way to review and manage the result. The job details and example draft are fictional teaching examples, not an approved assessment or the results of a comparison test between AI tools.

For the wider paperwork workflow, start with our guide to using AI to write RAMS.

This article uses HSE guidance for work in England, Scotland and Wales. For Northern Ireland, check the applicable local requirements. Every assessment needs a competent review of the actual task before it is relied on.

A safety data sheet is not a COSHH assessment

A safety data sheet, usually shortened to SDS, provides information about a substance or mixture. A COSHH assessment considers the health risks arising from how people use it or encounter it at work. HSE explicitly states that an SDS is not a risk assessment. See HSE's COSHH questions and answers.

Think about a bag of powdered tile adhesive. The product information does not tell you whether the worker will open it outdoors, in a small utility room or beside an occupied corridor. It does not tell you how often they will mix it, where they can wash, or who else will pass through.

Those differences matter when assessing exposure. HSE's COSHH assessment guidance asks you to consider the people affected, exposure routes, frequency, duration and the measures needed to control the risks.

Uploading the SDS supplies part of the evidence. It does not supply the workplace. Your instructions should make the AI ask about the missing half before it writes a finished-looking assessment.

Which AI tool should you use?

Start with a tool you can access and use confidently. There is no need to change systems just to try these prompts.

ChatGPT

Upload the SDS and paste your task brief. Use a separate conversation for each clearly defined assessment. Check the file-upload guidance for account limits and supported content.

Claude

Attach the supplier document and ask it to separate source information from site assumptions. Claude's upload guide explains supported files and document handling.

Google Gemini

Use the file upload and analysis feature, then provide the job information and review the draft against the original sheet.

Microsoft Copilot in Word

Useful when your business already works in Word and has the relevant access. Microsoft explains how to draft from an existing document or template.

These are workflow options, not a claim that any model produces the safest assessment. The prompts are suggestions to try, not validated safety controls. Keep the original SDS open and check the AI's extraction, including tables, symbols and anything it says it cannot read.

Only upload information you are authorised to share. Remove unnecessary worker medical details, personal information and client security information. Check the privacy and retention settings for the account you are using. For example, turning off model training in ChatGPT is separate from deleting a conversation.

Gather the product information and the job information

For the product, obtain the current SDS for the exact manufacturer, product and variant being supplied. Keep its revision date and a copy of the original. Add the relevant technical instructions where they affect the proposed use. A sheet for a similar product is not a reliable substitute; HSE advises checking labels and SDS information and contacting the supplier when necessary.

For the job, describe what people will actually do, from opening the container through to cleaning up. Here is a brief you can fill in before using the prompts.

Job information brief — fill this in

Project and assessment reference: [details]
Country: [England / Scotland / Wales]
Exact product, manufacturer and variant: [details]
SDS filename, version and revision date: [details]
Task, including preparation and cleaning: [details]
Amount used per task and total expected use: [details]
Frequency and duration, including repeated batches: [details]
Where the task takes place: [details]
Ventilation or extraction actually available: [details or unknown]
Workers doing the task: [roles and numbers]
Other people potentially affected: [details]
Existing controls and evidence they work: [details]
Washing, storage and waste arrangements: [details]
First-aid and emergency arrangements: [details]
Known gaps or decisions not yet made: [details]
Person responsible for reviewing the assessment: [details]

“Unknown” is a useful answer. It gives the reviewer something to resolve. A guessed answer can conceal the same problem.

Prompt 1: Read and check the SDS before drafting

Use this first. Its job is to establish what the source document actually says, not to produce a COSHH assessment immediately.

AI prompt — copy and adapt for your job

Help me prepare source information for a COSHH assessment for work in [England / Scotland / Wales]. Do not draft the assessment yet.

I have attached the supplier's safety data sheet for: [exact product, manufacturer and variant].

First identify the product, supplier, jurisdiction, revision date, version and page count where visible. Tell me which pages, tables, images or sections you cannot reliably read. Do not fill unreadable content from memory.

Create a source-information table covering:
- Product classification and label information in section 2.
- Relevant ingredient information in section 3, kept separate from the classification of the whole product.
- First-aid information in section 4.
- Accidental release, handling and storage information.
- Exposure-control and PPE information in section 8.
- Relevant stability, health-effect and disposal information.

Give section and page references for each entry. Do not turn an ingredient's classification into the product classification. Keep missing information marked as missing.

Separate supplier recommendations from arrangements that would need to be selected and verified for my workplace.

List any exposure values with their substance, units, dust fraction where relevant, reference period and stated basis. Do not assume every number is a current GB workplace exposure limit. Flag the figures for checking against current HSE EH40. State clearly if you cannot access the current official source.

Identify contradictions, unclear wording and questions for the supplier or competent reviewer. Do not say the product, task or future assessment is safe, compliant or approved.

Finish by asking for my task brief.

Be particularly careful with exposure limits. HSE describes WELs as airborne concentrations averaged over a stated period, and publishes the current GB list in EH40. A number copied into a table does not show what a worker will breathe. Use HSE's workplace exposure limit guidance to check the basis, and obtain competent help where exposure assessment or monitoring is needed.

Prompt 2: Ask about the task, then draft the assessment

Paste your completed brief into the same conversation. The next prompt keeps confirmed arrangements separate from proposals. That distinction stops “we could install extraction” becoming “extraction is installed”.

AI prompt — copy and adapt for your job

Using the SDS source table and the task brief below, help me prepare a draft COSHH assessment for competent-person review.

TASK BRIEF: [paste the completed brief]

First ask the missing questions that could materially affect exposure, the controls or emergency arrangements. Ask them in manageable groups and wait for my answers.

Challenge a potentially unsafe proposed method. Do not simply write it up. Include preparation, application, cleaning, maintenance and disposal where relevant to the task.

Keep three categories throughout:
1. Confirmed information, with its source.
2. Proposed measures requiring review or implementation.
3. Unresolved questions and decisions.

Consider preventing exposure or changing the product/process before relying on engineering controls, working arrangements and suitable PPE. Do not assume substitution is technically suitable without confirmation.

After my answers, produce:
- Document reference, scope, product and SDS version.
- Activities, exposure routes and people potentially affected.
- Relevant health hazards linked to source information.
- Confirmed controls and the evidence supporting them.
- Additional measures proposed for review.
- Questions about suitable PPE, ventilation, monitoring or health surveillance that need competent decisions.
- Storage, cleaning, waste and emergency arrangements.
- Actions, proposed owners, deadlines and checks before use.
- Review triggers and a review-date field for the reviewer.

Do not invent measurements, exposure limits, glove breakthrough times, respirator specifications, training or inspection records. Do not automatically insert annual reviews or numerical risk scores. Use a supplied scoring method only; otherwise leave risk ratings for the competent reviewer.

Identify safety-critical gaps that prevent reliance on the draft. Leave reviewer and approval fields blank. Mark it: DRAFT - NOT APPROVED FOR USE.

Use plain British English. Preserve source references and explicitly list the limits of what you have checked.

Worked example: powdered tile adhesive in an occupied home

The real source document

For this example, we checked Sika's GB SDS for SikaCeram-272 Ultra Flexible White, version 1.9, revised 2 October 2026. The manufacturer describes it as a cement-based tile adhesive supplied in 20 kg bags. The product page and supplier SDS are the sources, not an AI-generated product profile.

On page 1, section 2 identifies H315, H318 and H335, covering skin irritation, serious eye damage and possible respiratory irritation. Sections 6 to 8 provide information about releases, handling and exposure controls. These are selected observations, not a replacement for reading the complete sheet. Download the current version for the actual product on your job.

We use this product to demonstrate the method, not to recommend it over another adhesive.

The fictional job brief

Imagine a contractor retiling a bathroom in an occupied house. Two workers expect to use four 20 kg bags across two days. The proposed method is to mix several small batches with water and apply the adhesive by trowel.

The initial plan is to mix in a utility room with a small opening window. The household still uses the adjacent corridor, and a plumber will be working nearby. The contractor has not yet confirmed the mixing area's exposure controls, the exact protective equipment or the cleaning arrangements.

These are intentionally incomplete planning notes. They are not a description of an acceptable working method.

What needs resolving before the draft is useful?

First, the mixing location. “A window opens” is not evidence that the controls are adequate. The reviewer needs to consider the release of powder, the actual arrangements for controlling exposure and who can enter or pass the area.

Second, the work after mixing. The assessment needs to consider contact during application, handling contaminated tools and cleaning up, not just the moment the bag is opened. HSE's cement guidance explains the skin risks associated with cement-based products and the importance of suitable protection and washing facilities.

Third, the other people. A household member or another trade does not disappear from the assessment because they are not on the tiler's payroll. The arrangements must account for anyone who could be exposed.

An illustrative draft excerpt

The following is an example of how to make the missing decisions visible. It is editorially constructed, not output from a claimed live model test, and it is not a complete COSHH assessment.

Illustrative draft excerpt — fictional job, not approved for use

Reference: DEMO-COSHH-001
Status: Draft. Not approved for use.

Scope: Opening, mixing and applying the specified powdered tile adhesive, handling tools and cleaning the work area during the fictional bathroom job. Tile cutting, substrate preparation and other products require their own consideration.

People potentially affected: The two tiling workers, the plumber and household members who may pass the proposed mixing area.

Exposure questions: How powder release will be prevented or controlled; how skin and eye contact will be prevented during handling and application; how contamination will be removed without exposing others.

Confirmed controls: No evidence has yet been supplied showing that the proposed mixing arrangement and protective equipment are suitable. Do not record them as verified.

Actions before reliance on this assessment: The responsible contractor must confirm a suitable method and location, access restrictions, exposure controls, protective equipment, washing, cleaning and emergency arrangements. The reviewer must decide whether further exposure assessment or health surveillance arrangements are needed.

Residual risk: Not rated. Assessment and control decisions incomplete.
Reviewer and issue decision: Not yet completed.

That excerpt is more honest than a page of green “low risk” boxes. It tells the contractor what information and decisions are still required.

What a reviewer would need to change

Suppose the contractor instead proposes a dedicated external mixing area. That is a new proposal to assess, not an automatic solution. The reviewer still needs to consider the method, equipment, nearby doors and windows, access by others, weather and how the materials reach the work area.

Once arrangements are selected and verified, replace the corresponding open questions with the actual controls and supporting information. Keep any unresolved matter visible. Do not let the AI mark every action complete simply because it has rewritten the document.

Prompt 3: Challenge the draft before you issue it

Use this as an additional check, not as approval. Another model agreeing with the first one is not independent evidence that the site arrangements are adequate.

AI prompt — copy and adapt for your job

Review the draft COSHH assessment against the supplied SDS, task brief and confirmed arrangements.

Identify:
- Wrong product, variant, jurisdiction or SDS version.
- Ingredient classifications incorrectly applied to the mixture.
- Unsupported site facts or controls treated as already in place.
- Missing exposure routes, tasks or people potentially affected.
- Vague instructions such as "use suitable PPE" or "ventilate".
- Invented or unverified exposure limits, measurements, glove performance or respirator specifications.
- Incorrectly weakened first-aid or emergency information.
- Cleaning or disposal arrangements not actually agreed.
- Unsupported risk scores or claims that risk is eliminated.
- Decisions about monitoring, health surveillance or review intervals that lack a stated basis.
- Inconsistencies with the related RAMS and site arrangements.

For each issue, give the section, the supporting source where available, why it needs attention and the evidence or decision required. Separate confirmed errors from possible omissions.

Do not silently change site facts or declare the document safe, compliant or approved. Finish with the outstanding questions for the competent human reviewer.

The person reviewing the assessment needs the relevant skills, knowledge and experience. That may be someone in your business; it does not automatically mean buying a consultant's signature. Where your team lacks the necessary competence, obtain suitable help. HSE explains this in its guidance on appointing a competent person.

Two decisions deserve particular care. Protective equipment needs to suit the hazard, task and wearer; a generic recommendation is not enough. Tight-fitting respiratory protection requires an appropriate face-fit test, rather than treating all respirators as interchangeable. See HSE's PPE guidance and fit-testing guidance.

Likewise, health surveillance is not a stock sentence to paste into every assessment. It depends on the risks and applicable criteria. Use HSE's health surveillance guidance and competent advice where needed.

Prompt 4: Review the assessment when the job changes

Now imagine rain prompts somebody to move the mixing operation from the assessed location back into the utility room. The product is unchanged, but the circumstances affecting exposure may not be.

Do not just replace the location in the document. Review the changed work before relying on the old assessment. The same applies when a supplier substitutes a product, another trade starts nearby or a control stops working. Our guide to when COSHH assessments should be reviewed and revised explains the distinction between a useful review and rewriting paperwork for its own sake.

AI prompt — copy and adapt for your job

Compare the current COSHH assessment with this proposed change: [describe the change and attach any new supplier information].

Do not assume the existing assessment remains suitable.

Identify what changes in the task, exposure, people affected, controls, cleaning, storage and emergency arrangements. Ask for missing information before proposing revisions.

Return:
1. A change-impact table, linked to document sections.
2. Questions and decisions for the competent reviewer.
3. Proposed revised wording, clearly marked as draft.
4. Checks needed before the changed work proceeds.
5. Related RAMS, CPP, inductions or briefings that may need review.

Keep the previous version identifiable. Do not copy previous approval, dates or acknowledgements into the new draft as if they apply to it. Do not decide the final issue status.

Record the review interval appropriate to the work, as well as the events that require an earlier review. Do not treat a future review date as permission to ignore a problem today. HSE's review guidance does not give every COSHH assessment a universal one-year validity period.

After drafting: implement, brief and keep the record

A practical DIY workflow is to keep the source SDS, working draft and issued assessment together in a company-controlled project folder. Give the assessment a reference and revision. Record the reviewer, the issue decision and any actions that still need managing.

Then make sure the actual controls are available and used. Explain the relevant precautions to workers and check understanding. A document acknowledgement is a record of an action, not proof that the controls exist or that the task has been understood. HSE's information, training and supervision guidance describes the wider responsibility.

Keep the documents consistent. The COSHH assessment should not describe one mixing area while the RAMS directs workers somewhere else. The CPP should reflect the relevant site arrangements. Our companion guide explains how to use AI to draft a construction phase plan.

Do not forget process-generated hazards. Dust from tile cutting or sanding, for example, cannot be assessed merely by uploading the adhesive's SDS. HSE includes process-generated substances in its assessment guidance. For the site arrangements, see our construction dust guide.

Will the AI store the assessment?

It may. General AI tools can retain chats and files, so it would be misleading to tell you that they cannot save your paperwork. OpenAI explains this in its chat and file retention guidance.

Saving text is different from establishing which assessment applies to which task, who reviewed it and what happened when the job changed. You can build that process around AI and ordinary document tools. You just need to run it deliberately, rather than assuming the chat history does the whole job.

Where The Site Book fits

The Site Book is not useful because nobody else can generate a COSHH draft. It is useful when you need the assessment connected to the rest of the project.

Our COSHH tools include supplier SDS upload, extracted information for review, a link back to the original sheet, site-specific substance details and a project COSHH register. You can generate a standalone assessment and use the project information in the wider document pack.

The document-control workflow adds version history and recorded confirmation before issue. Business includes additional review records and optional named-approver routing. You still need competent judgement.

One distinction matters: workers can view their site's current COSHH assessment, but COSHH documents do not currently have their own worker sign-off workflow. Acknowledgement is available for other supported documents, such as inductions and toolbox talks.

COSHH assessments are included on Pro and above. The free first project includes RAMS, a CPP and site inductions, not the Pro COSHH feature. See the current plans or explore the COSHH workflow.

Common questions

Can I use ChatGPT to turn an SDS into a COSHH assessment?

Use it to help extract the information, ask about the work and organise a draft. The SDS alone is not enough. Use the prompts above to supply the missing task information, then check the output against the source and site.

Can I use one assessment for several jobs?

You can reuse sound source information and a useful structure. Do not assume an old assessment applies just because the product name matches. Check whether the activities, exposure, people and controls are genuinely covered, and adapt the assessment where needed.

What happens when there is no SDS?

For a supplied product, ask the supplier for the relevant safety information. For a substance generated by the work, identify and assess the process using appropriate guidance. Asbestos and lead have their own specific regulations; do not treat a generic COSHH prompt as a substitute. HSE explains these distinctions in its assessment guidance.

Does the AI's approval make the document ready to use?

No. Treat a model's approval statement as text, not a completed review. The responsible people must check the assessment, implement the arrangements and communicate them before relying on it.

Use the prompts. Keep the source information. Make the assessment describe the actual work. And when the administration starts taking more time than the drafting, consider bringing the documents and project records together in The Site Book.

Related COSHH reading

• COSHH for builders: the responsibilities and practical basics

• A worked COSHH assessment example for construction

• When to review and revise a COSHH assessment

• How RAMS, COSHH assessments and toolbox talks fit together