Document RjnjEdewgabRYvw52p4j581kX

BCC F. J. Camargo-GO 0. F. Hessel-GO A. T. Hlnaon-GO D. F. Smith-GO October 5, 1959 AIR MAIL Btabllssements Oaterrieth S.A. 64, Longue Rue Neuve Antwerp, Belgium Oentlemen1 Your letter of September 23 requesting toxicity information on our product Tydraul 150 has been forwarded to me for reply. Animal toxiolty studies with this produot lndloate that it is practically innocuous when fed orally to rats since ani mals survived doses of 28.5 grains per kilogram of body weight. The only observable symptoms of the animals were loss of appetite and severe diarrhea. When applied to the unbroken akin of rabbits, the animals survived doses up to 9-5 grams per kilogram of body weight indicating that the fluid is not readily absorbed through the skin. In rabbit skin and eye Irritation studies, the fluid was no more irritating than a 100 soap solution tested similarly. The animal eye test does not measure the pain which results If there is aooldental splashing In the eyes of humane, in the case of worlonen, the degree of pain has been out of proportion to the degree of actual irritation to eye tissues. There Is no evldenoe of any permanent damage to eye tissues or sight. In acute inhalation experiments, rats survived a six-hour exposure to an atmosphere saturated with, vapors of the fluid. We reoonsend that prolonged breathing of vapors or mists and eontaot with eyes or prolonged oontaot with the skin be' avoided. If there is aooldental splashing in the eyes, the MOMS 090884 Etabllaaamenta Oatarrleth A.A,--Page 8--Ootober 5, 1959 eyee ahould ba lanadlately flushed with attar and tha worker ahould ba rafarrad to a phyalolan. If olothlng beccmea eoaked with fluid. It ahould ba laundarad bafora wearing again. If I can be of any furthar aaalatanoa, plaaae lat me know. Vary truly youra. \ v '' lUKtdh R. tenet Kelly, M.D. Medical Director MOMS 090885