Airborne exposures to monoethanolamine, glycol ethers, and benzyl alcohol during professional cleaning: a pilot study

A growing body of epidemiologic evidence suggests an association between exposure to cleaning products and respiratory dysfunction. Due to the lack of quantitative assessments of respiratory exposures to airborne irritants and sensitizers among professional cleaners, the culpable substances have yet to be identified.Purpose: Focusing on previously identified irritants, our aims were to determine (i) airborne concentrations of monoethanolamine (MEA), glycol ethers, and benzyl alcohol (BA) during different cleaning tasks performed by professional cleaning workers and assess their determinants; and (ii) air concentrations of formaldehyde, a known indoor air contaminant. METHODS: Personal air samples were collected in 12 cleaning companies, and analyzed by conventional methods. RESULTS: Nearly all air concentrations [MEA (n = 68), glycol ethers (n = 79), BA (n = 15), and formaldehyde (n = 45)] were far below (<1/10) of the corresponding Swiss occupational exposure limits (OEL), except for ethylene glycol mono-n-butyl ether (EGBE). For butoxypropanol and BA, no OELs exist. Although only detected once, EGBE air concentrations (n = 4) were high (49.48-58.72mg m(-3)), and close to the Swiss OEL (49mg m(-3)). When substances were not noted as present in safety data sheets of cleaning products used but were measured, air concentrations showed no presence of MEA, while the glycol ethers were often present, and formaldehyde was universally detected. Exposure to MEA was affected by its amount used (P = 0.036), and spraying (P = 0.000) and exposure to butoxypropanol was affected by spraying (P = 0.007) and cross-ventilation (P = 0.000). CONCLUSIONS: Professional cleaners were found to be exposed to multiple airborne irritants at low concentrations, thus these substances should be considered in investigations of respiratory dysfunctions in the cleaning industry; especially in specialized cleaning tasks such as intensive floor cleaning.

Sensitivity analysis, dominant factors, and robustness of the ECETOC TRA v3, Stoffenmanager 4.5, and ART 1.5 occupational exposure models

Occupational exposure modeling is widely used in the context of the E.U. regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorization, and restriction of chemicals (REACH). First tier tools, such as European Centre for Ecotoxicology and TOxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC) targeted risk assessment (TRA) or Stoffenmanager, are used to screen a wide range of substances. Those of concern are investigated further using second tier tools, e.g., Advanced REACH Tool (ART). Local sensitivity analysis (SA) methods are used here to determine dominant factors for three models commonly used within the REACH framework: ECETOC TRA v3, Stoffenmanager 4.5, and ART 1.5. Based on the results of the SA, the robustness of the models is assessed. For ECETOC, the process category (PROC) is the most important factor. A failure to identify the correct PROC has severe consequences for the exposure estimate. Stoffenmanager is the most balanced model and decision making uncertainties in one modifying factor are less severe in Stoffenmanager. ART requires a careful evaluation of the decisions in the source compartment since it constitutes ∼75% of the total exposure range, which corresponds to an exposure estimate of 20-22 orders of magnitude. Our results indicate that there is a trade off between accuracy and precision of the models. Previous studies suggested that ART may lead to more accurate results in well-documented exposure situations. However, the choice of the adequate model should ultimately be determined by the quality of the available exposure data: if the practitioner is uncertain concerning two or more decisions in the entry parameters, Stoffenmanager may be more robust than ART.