Document aBbrV9zq1dv5L3damJV0L2ggM

5 0 0 SOUTH MAIN SIR The B. F. Goodrich Company * AKRON. OHIO 4 4 31 8 ADDRESS REPLY TO: OEPT. 0020 BLOG. 5-H July 22, 1974 Charles E. Kupchella, Ph.D. Administrative and Scientific Coordinator University of Louisville Health Sciences Center Louisville, Kentucky 40201 Dear Dr. Kupchella: I have reviewed the Vinyl Chloride Protocol Form A and I have just a few questions and suggestions. I have one general question about the history form and that is whether or not it is intended to be selfadministered or be administered by a nurse or physician. It appears to me that in some cases, the language has been deliberately simplified so that the questionnaire could be self-administered and in other cases as for example, question 30, where the employee is asked whether he has taken anabolic steroids, the employee would obviously need some help in understanding the question. The only area I noticed in which the questionnaire might be a bit more detailed in in regard to peripheral circulation. Since Raynaud's phenomenon has been described in employees exposed to vinyl chloride and indeed there have been some cases at Louisville, it might be well to go into this area in some detail. Going through the questionnaire item by item, I would have the following comments: Item 34. Since date of birth and date of examination are already recorded, the computer already knows the age at the time of the exam and I don't think this question need be included, although it may be an added convenience to have it. Items 48 thru 59 concern themselves with the employee's exposure, and in each case reference is made to PVC processing. As generally used, this would mean the handling of PVC after it has been manufactured and indeed some employees do have this exposure. We generally tend to differentiate between PVC manufacture which is the conversion of monomer to polymer and PVC processing which would be the further handling of PVC after its manufacture. Since the PVC manufacture involves more exposure to vinyl chloride, I would think it might be well to distinguish between these kinds of exposure in the questionnaire. tn V* 2 b*g6327 2. Charles E. Kupchella, Ph.D. University of Louisville Under Item 60 I think it might be well to ask specifically about chemical exposures involved in hobbies since many people who build models, refinish furniture, etc. may have significant solvent exposure which they might not think to mention under the present question. Item 71 asks whether the employee has ever experienced any "consumption" symptoms from eating seafood. To me this seems to be an awkward way to ask about any allergic respiratory symptoms, but it may well be that this is a locally well understood word and the question is fine as it is. On the physical examination, the only suggestion I would have would be that it might be well to ask some specific questions referable to the peripheral circulation such as peripheral skin temperatures and quality of peripheral pulses. In general, I think it is a good protocol which is not burdened with unnecessary detail and should form a good basis for the ongoing medical surveillance of these employees. Sincerely, /y si / '/)? /U 'V 7^ M. N^/ Johnson, M.D. Director, Department Health of Environmental cc: R. W. Strassbyrg A. Vittone W. C. Becker 25J.2504S BFG63271