Document K8ekEBqRmk0Od7dKNnBzxL7w

.. Cor.vieil - ;i', : G. Horlock; - lie.' .ji.iitl; - G. / July 18, 1961 Mr. John Hoopea Maintenance Superintendent Phillips Chemical Company Plains Plant Borger, Texas Dear Mr. Hoopea: Our Houaton Qffioe haa asked me to forward toxloity information on our hydraulic fluid Pydraul AC. Animal toxloity screening studlea with Pydraul AC indicate that the oral lethal dose to rata la greater than 52.0 grama per kilogram. In the oaae of rabbits, the minimum lethal dose waa found to be 3.5 to 4.5 grama per kilogram. The difference in toxloity to varioua animal apeoiea is not unuaual in the caae of our hydraullo fluida. Baaed on the lethal doae in rabbits, we conolude that Pydraul AC may be considered only ''slightly toxio from the standpoint of accidental Ingestion of single doses. When applied to the unbroken skin of rabblta, the skin pene tration lethal dose waa found to be between 4.0 to 5.0 grams per kilogram. Again, this indicates a relatively low order of toxicity in terms of accidental exposure to large areaa of the skin surface. Skin and eye irritation potential studies in animals Indicate that irritation is not a serious hazard. We do recommend, however, that prolonged and repeated skin contact bo avoided. In relation to eye irritation, animal studies do not refleot the pain which haa been reported when the fluid has accidentally splashed in the eyes of workers. Significant pain and moderate irritation have resulted in the case of suoh accidonta. Aa would be predicted from experience in animals, no permanent damage to eye tissues or to sight has resulted. Rats survived six-hours' continuous exposure to an atmosphere saturated with vapors of Pydraul AC. This indicates that accidental exposure to massive vapor concentrations presents no serious acute hazard. moms 091057 Mr. John Hoopes - Page 2 - July 10, 1961 Wa believe that any Pydraul AC carried over In compressed air or gases presents no significant toxicity hazard to humans breathing the air or gas. The limited series of samples taken from a compressed air line used for such purposes Indicated that no measurable quantities of the components of the fluid were present. Certainly, single or limited repeated Inhalation exposures oauae no effeot In Industrial uses of compressed air where workers are provided with protective air-supplied respire tory equipment. Any pydraul AC vapors In concentrations to be toxlcologlcally significant would be objectionable from the standpoint of odor. Even these concentrations would not be significant In terms of possible toxic effects unless the workers were continuously exposed eight hours a day, week after week, during their working hours. Where the oompresaed air la suppllad to workman through Indivi dual alr-suppllad respiratory masks, good Industrial praotlce dictates that the system Include an air-line filter. Such e filter Is available from the Mine Safety Appllanaes Company and will remova oil, water, mists and condensation from ocapressed sir, vapors end odore.J Your application, as it was dasorlbad to ms, supplies the oompreeeed air dlreotly into a room used for sandblasting. If, aa I waa told, the oompressed air flrat paasas through ailloa gal dryers, the sllioa gal should oertalnly pick up any organic eontaminante in the com pressed air. Obviously, such dryers have a finite "life" or period of effectiveness which 1 am sure you take into account. If 1 oan be of any further assistance, please let me know. Very truly yours REKidh R. Emmet Kelly, M. D. Medlosl Dlreotor MUNS 091058