Project description:Occupational use of cleaning products can cause asthma in healthcare workers but the cleaning agents responsible are not yet known. This study aimed to identify respiratory and other hazards in cleaning products on the National Health Service (NHS) supply chain online catalogue and used in the NHS. Information on cleaning products, their composition, and H-statements that identified hazard characteristics of chemical substances in them was obtained from chemical safety data sheets (SDSs). Furthermore, a quantitative structure-activity relationship model and a published asthmagen list were used to identify potential additional respiratory hazards. 473 cleaning products and 229 substances were identified. SDSs reported only 4 respiratory sensitizers but an additional 51 were suggested by the other 2 methods. In contrast, 25 respiratory irritants were identified using SDSs and only one from the asthmagen list. This comprehensive overview of cleaning agents' hazards has potential use in future risk assessment and epidemiological studies.
Project description:BACKGROUND:In recent years, cleaning has been identified as an occupational risk because of an increased incidence of reported respiratory effects, such as asthma and asthma-like symptoms among cleaning workers. Due to the lack of systematic occupational hygiene analyses and workplace exposure data, it is not clear which cleaning-related exposures induce or aggravate asthma and other respiratory effects. Currently, there is a need for systematic evaluation of cleaning products ingredients and their exposures in the workplace. The objectives of this work were to: a) identify cleaning products' ingredients of concern with respect to respiratory and skin irritation and sensitization; and b) assess the potential for inhalation and dermal exposures to these ingredients during common cleaning tasks. METHODS:We prioritized ingredients of concern in cleaning products commonly used in several hospitals in Massachusetts. Methods included workplace interviews, reviews of product Materials Safety Data Sheets and the scientific literature on adverse health effects to humans, reviews of physico-chemical properties of cleaning ingredients, and occupational hygiene observational analyses. Furthermore, the potential for exposure in the workplace was assessed by conducting qualitative assessment of airborne exposures and semi-quantitative assessment of dermal exposures. RESULTS:Cleaning products used for common cleaning tasks were mixtures of many chemicals, including respiratory and dermal irritants and sensitizers. Examples of ingredients of concern include quaternary ammonium compounds, 2-butoxyethanol, and ethanolamines. Cleaning workers are at risk of acute and chronic inhalation exposures to volatile organic compounds (VOC) vapors and aerosols generated from product spraying, and dermal exposures mostly through hands. CONCLUSION:Cleaning products are mixtures of many chemical ingredients that may impact workers' health through air and dermal exposures. Because cleaning exposures are a function of product formulations and product application procedures, a combination of product evaluation with workplace exposure assessment is critical in developing strategies for protecting workers from cleaning hazards. Our task based assessment methods allowed classification of tasks in different exposure categories, a strategy that can be employed by epidemiological investigations related to cleaning. The methods presented here can be used by occupational and environmental health practitioners to identify intervention strategies.
Project description:Little is known about the cleaning products used by early care and education programs that contribute to childhood asthma, particularly in Oklahoma where rates of uncontrolled asthma are higher than national rates (60.0% vs. 50.3%, respectively). We conducted a cross-sectional study of cleaning products used by Oklahoma-licensed family child care homes (FCCHs) (n = 50) to characterize and identify potential respiratory-health risks associated with chemical contents. Overall, 386 chemicals were abstracted from the 132 reported products. Of these, 100 unique chemicals were identified. Four percent (4.2%) of providers used a product with a sensitizer that may cause allergy or asthma symptoms if inhaled and 35.4% used a product with an irritant that may cause irritation to the respiratory tract. Most (62.5%) reported using a product with a chemical that had a C=C double bond in its molecular structure that may make it highly reactive with other substances in the air and produce secondary air pollutants and 83.3% reported using a sodium hypochlorite containing product. Twenty-three percent reported products that contain carcinogens. Policy, educational, and technical assistance interventions are needed to promote the use of safer products and reduce respiratory and other health risks posed by chemicals in Oklahoma FCCHs.
Project description:Exposure to spray cleaning products constitutes a potential risk for asthma induction. We set out to review whether substances in such products are potential inducers of asthma. We identified 101 spray cleaning products for professional use. Twenty-eight of their chemical substances were selected. We based the selection on (a) positive prediction for respiratory sensitisation in humans based on quantitative structure activity relationship (QSAR) in the Danish (Q)SAR Database, (b) positive QSAR prediction for severe skin irritation in rabbits and (c) knowledge on the substances' physico-chemical characteristics and toxicity. Combining the findings in the literature and QSAR predictions, we could group substances into four classes: (1) some indication in humans for asthma induction: chloramine, benzalkonium chloride; (2) some indication in animals for asthma induction: ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), citric acid; (3) equivocal data: hypochlorite; (4) few or lacking data: nitriloacetic acid, monoethanolamine, 2-(2-aminoethoxy)ethanol, 2-diethylaminoethanol, alkyldimethylamin oxide, 1-aminopropan-2-ol, methylisothiazolinone, benzisothiazolinone and chlormethylisothiazolinone; three specific sulphonates and sulfamic acid, salicylic acid and its analogue sodium benzoate, propane-1,2-diol, glycerol, propylidynetrimethanol, lactic acid, disodium malate, morpholine, bronopol and benzyl alcohol. In conclusion, we identified an asthma induction potential for some of the substances. In addition, we identified major knowledge gaps for most substances. Thus, more data are needed to feed into a strategy of safe-by-design, where substances with potential for induction of asthma are avoided in future (spray) cleaning products. Moreover, we suggest that QSAR predictions can serve to prioritise substances that need further testing in various areas of toxicology.
Project description:Previous studies investigating the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) have relied on a number of tasks which involved cognitive control and attentional demands. In this fMRI study, we tested the model that ACC functions as an attentional network in the processing of language. We employed a paradigm that requires the processing of concurrent linguistic information predicting that the cognitive costs imposed by competing trials would engender the activation of ACC. Subjects were confronted with sentences where the semantic content conflicted with the prosodic intonation (CONF condition) randomly interspaced with sentences which conveyed coherent discourse components (NOCONF condition). We observed the activation of the rostral ACC and the middle frontal gyrus when the NOCONF condition was subtracted from the CONF condition. Our findings provide evidence for the involvement of the rostral ACC in the processing of complex competing linguistic stimuli, supporting theories that claim its relevance as a part of the cortical attentional circuit. The processing of emotional prosody involved a bilateral network encompassing the superior and medial temporal cortices. This evidence confirms previous research investigating the neuronal network that supports the processing of emotional information.
Project description:During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an increased reported use of chemical cleaning, sanitizing, and disinfecting products (CSDPs), which created public concerns about negative health consequences for both children and adults in public schools. A subset of newer teachers shared experiences regarding safety and health (S&H) while working in school-based settings through a series of online surveys. Surveys were provided to teachers who completed work-based learning supervisory trainings provided by the New Jersey Safe Schools Program between October 2021 and June 2023. The participants answered questions focusing on CSDPs purchased for school use, their attitudes towards CSDPs, their use of personal protective equipment, and symptoms employees may have had due to CSDPs. A total of 205 teacher participants successfully completed the surveys. Over 25% of the teachers did not know where their CSDPs originated from, as they were provided by the school. Most participants "sometimes", "not often", or "never" read labels for CSDP ingredients or looked them up on healthy product apps. The participants (60%) tended to wear gloves while cleaning/disinfecting but did not wear masks. A third of the participants experienced respiratory health problems after working at school. Overall, the data suggest that more education on S&H regarding CSDPs needs to be provided to New Jersey teachers.
Project description:ObjectiveTo describe the frequency of work-related asthma (WRA) and characteristics of individuals with exposure to cleaning products 1998 to 2012, compared with 1993 to 1997.MethodsCases of WRA from products used for cleaning or disinfecting surfaces were identified from California, Massachusetts, Michigan (1998 to 2012), New Jersey (1998 to 2011), and New York (2009 to 2012).ResultsThere were 1199 (12.4%) cleaning product cases among all 9667 WRA cases; 77.8% women, 62.1% white non-Hispanic, and average age of 43 years. The highest percentages worked in healthcare (41.1%), and were building cleaners (20.3%), or registered nurses (14.1%).ConclusionsThe percentage of WRA cases from exposure to cleaning products from 1998 to 2012 was unchanged from 1993 to 1997 indicating that continued and additional prevention efforts are needed to reduce unnecessary use, identify safer products, and implement safer work processes.
Project description:Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are used in a wide range of products of all day life. Due to their toxicological potential, an emerging focus is directed towards their exposure to humans. This study investigated the PFAS load of consumer products in a broad perspective. Perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acids (C4, C6-C8, C10-PFSA), carboxylic acids (C4-C14-PFCA) and fluorotelomer alcohols (4:2, 6:2; 8:2 and 10:2 FTOH) were analysed in 115 random samples of consumer products including textiles (outdoor materials), carpets, cleaning and impregnating agents, leather samples, baking and sandwich papers, paper baking forms and ski waxes. PFCA and PFSA were analysed by HPLC-MS/MS, whereas FTOH were detected by GC/CI-MS. Consumer products such as cleaning agents or some baking and sandwich papers show low or negligible PFSA and PFCA contents. On the other hand, high PFAS levels were identified in ski waxes (up to about 2000 μg/kg PFOA), leather samples (up to about 200 μg/kg PFBA and 120 μg/kg PFBS), outdoor textiles (up to 19 μg/m(2) PFOA) and some other baking papers (up to 15 μg/m(2) PFOA). Moreover, some test samples like carpet and leather samples and outdoor materials exceeded the EU regulatory threshold value for PFOS (1 μg/m(2)). A diverse mixture of PFASs can be found in consumer products for all fields of daily use in varying concentrations. This study proves the importance of screening and monitoring of consumer products for PFAS loads and the necessity for an action to regulate the use of PFASs, especially PFOA, in consumer products.