Document o9VeknDN5Xgd9DYw1rp2GQKwg

July 1, 1964 Miss Claire Barton Poison Information Canter 4ol4 Sunset Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90027 Dear Hiss Barton Confirming the information which I gave you today on the telephone, the following data relates to the toxioity of our synthetio fluid Pydraul AC. In animal toxioity studies the minimum oral lethal dose in rats was found to be approximately 40 g/kg of body weight (in oral LD50 in rats was reported to be approximately 52 g/kg. As 1 told you on the phone, I question the reliability of an LD*q of this magnituda. Consequently, we normally make reference to the minimum lethal dose rather than the LD50 for this product). In rabbits the oral minimum lethal dose was found to be between 3.5 and 4.3 g/kg. The greater sensitivity of rabbits is typical with this type of fluid. When applied to the skin of rabbits the minimum per cutaneous lethal dose was between 4.0 and 3.0 &/kg. Although this indicates that the fluid may be absorbed through the unbroken skin, we feel that the lethal dose is suoh that aooidental massive skin exposure to man is not a serious hasard. In appropriate skin and eye irritation studies with rabbits the fluid was classified as a"mild irritant." We know from experience with humans, however, that if the fluid is accidentally splashed in the eyes, the resulting pain is out of proportion to the degree of irritation to tissues. Industrial physicians have used pontooaine eye drops to relieve the pain. In relation to the effect of the fluid on the skin of humans, we know that the product has a solvent action for the naturally occurring akin oils and thus, like many paint removers DSW 018743 STLCOPCB4005287 Miss Clair Barton July j. , 1 fajo 2 and coi.'iuon solvents, can lead to drying and chapping of the .h;ln if there Is prolonged and repeated skin exposure. In acute vapor inhalation studies with rats, the anlj.ial8 survived a six-hour exposure in an atmosphere saturated with vapors at roots temperature. five animals did not appear to be seriously affected by the vapors. Breathing remained regular and irritation was sufficient to produce only a slight degree of lacrlnation and salivation. We concluded that at normal temperatures humans v;ould not be exposed to significantly toxlo vapor concentrations, fhe low vapor pressure of the fluid does not lead to significant atmospheric concentrations. If the fluid is used in ouch a fashion that it may bs heated to several hundred degrees Farenheit and there is an accidental release to the atmosphere, the vapora will be irritating to the degree that humane would not volun tarily submit to prolonged exposure. If, for eons reason, workmen eould not escape such an exposure, the effects of inhalation of high concentrations of vapors would undoubtedly lead to irritation of the eyes and throat, nausea, vomiting and possible reversible liver injury if the exposure were prolonged sufficiently. I would be happy to try to answer any further questions that v.lght be raised by the person who directed the inquiry to you. Perhaps I could be more specific in terms of proper use and safe liandling instructions if I knew the problem which led to the query. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to let me know. Very truly yours, Elmer P. Wheeler, Manager Environmental Health Medical Department EPV'.niJb co i .'rank T. Hamits - Monsanto, hoe Angeles Note to Frank Nemits -- Miss Barton said that Union Oil Company had asked her for toxicity information on Pydraul AC. I believe she said a hr. Rich was the person who called her. EPU DSW 018744 STLCOPCB4005288