Document oDKGQKn2Dpe94v1VddOQGZeVo

`rsastgasi;;..a ggisa3^asgar ^safa;^7T7T.\ SfEfi iggsgyigJTj f X 7 454 c-h" SXX. rr<*-': September^Qjctabifi. 1963 American absence episodes was fount! to be almost twice as high in t^ - control operators as it was in ' -5, " A -. 11" !v It imtates;. my.eyes."'V - - <* ,+ v * *v- ' "' the vinyl acefcile group. : Overall ahkiysis of Tables III and IV fails 3.-any dermatitis or skin to yield significant evidence that vinyl acetate operators have experienced detrimental ef fects on health attributable to exposure to vinyl acetate; . ; Employee Questionnaire ; Twentyvsisc operators from the three pro`'auction mil's involved were given, at the time :*". ; of their screening examination, a supplemen n> -. tary questir>rinair<T aimed at eliciting their persona) opinions' regarding vinyl acetate. subjects (86%) responded I'cTci': <to" answer. One subject *r,*trvm "'yes"; the second subject cited ".'tiyAcsf of heads"; and the remaining t &3iswered with a question mark. 4, A;>y other comments? .. .. Nineteen of the subject; (90%) an- ' twsr.td. "none" or did not write an an- 1 .Comments of the remaining two '.biv'.tf. were: * Production Unit C C E A B C A C A B A C . The questjfcsis used in the survey, along with a summary of responses, are detailed below: ft. `Soria like the odor of it!" V:, , v."When I breathe a lot of fumes Key: 1. XJndtA normal working conditions does visyf'lcetate bother you in any way? <S will cause hurting in chest." is. How many years have you worked with M I IhsOy please explain. o;; arcurd vinyl acetate? " Thirteen subjects (61%) responded ... Sixteen of f.he subjects (76%) had with t* direct "no" answer. Comments . ... svrt-iked with vinyl acetate for more from the other eight operators were: ihfii 15 years; six fo^.20 years or more. r`4When it is in the building it does Only three of the subjects had worked v; '".'''bother." - : m& thus chemical two years or less. h`: fOdor,after the hopper has been '`l>ere did not appear to be any positive opened." 'relationship between length of service duction ur were asked lows: a. No de b. Slight c. Mode. "The fumes from the hoppers irri- ard type of response to the questions. d. Mark< tate my throat arid nose and [ Comment: This questionnaire was an' " they need digging out when they s-hl reii by employees who have not been Observat ing the coll 'pkig up." noted for their reluctance to comment on ad '^"'-`Imtates between fingers but verse.', conditions. The questions themselves 'clears up after hands are wash- purposely leading in nature to elicit a %d." ma.`:in;>u>n response. In view of these two e7~~!Trritant when breathed." ;f:ts, the preponderance of negative answers ' T. `"Skin rash? possibly caused by 'xpXimg evidence of a real lack of any signifi f' :"-V.A." cant-problem with vinyl acetate under normal '"'gjv "Odor--at first entering the area." Hv.e hing conditions. This conclusion is borne " H. ""Yes, it gives me a rash on liquid ov . hy Medical Division records which are contact-" ' rtC tklt 'iy free of complaints, symptoms, or find arate prod' tions are su Results:' recorded th of 0.4 ppm4.2 ppm re< at that leve to 21.6 PP marked ode at which an 2. Does it irritate your eyes, nose, or throat ings referable to vinyl acetate exposure. was 7.6 ppr to any significant degree? Fifteen subjects (71%) responded Odor Threshold Comrrten termination with a direct "no" answer. Comments from the other 6 operators were as fol lows: a. "Some." b. "Some." Procedure: While air sampling was being conducted, five subjects, were asked to record whether or not the odor of vinyl acetate was distinctly present and if so to what degree. The subjects involved for a given sample in cal product the interned of odors of subject's en may interfe c. "Yes--eyes." cluded one of the authors, (DED), a labora tion under d. "It is noticeable however it is tory analyst assisting in the sampling, and one of olfactory f; worse at times." chemical operator at each of the specific pro- over long p BpG3S888 Z48> r^Is-wT -.mSfcj A ptemfrer-October, 1969 it Im itates my eyes." any dermatitis or skin ects (86%) responded )" answer. One subject the second subject cited Is"; and the remaining . with a question mark, lents? \t subjects (90%) anr did not write an an- of the remaining two the odor of it!" 'reathe a lot of fumes : hurting in chest." have you worked with cetate ? subjects (76%) had lyl acetate for more for 20 years or more. : subjects had worked al two years or Jess. >ear to be any positive ien length of service ise to the questions. .inaire was anwno have not been :e to comment on adquestions themselves in nature to elicit a i view of these two of negative answers al lack of any signifiacetate under normal is conclusion is borne n records which are ts, symptoms, or findcetate exposure. sampling was being were asked to record of vinyl acetate was so to what degree, r a given sample ins, (DED), a laboraie sampling, and one h of the specific pro- American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 455 Production Unit c c B A B C A c A B A c Table V Subjective Response to Odor and Irritant Effects of Vinyl Acetate During Air-Sampling in Production Units Concentration of Vinyl Acetate (ppm) 0.4 0.3 2.7 4.2 4.2 5.7 6.B 7.6 7.6 9.5 9.9 21.6 Odor Evaluation by Observer: XYZ 4- + 4- - 4- ++ _ -+ 4- +++ + 4- - 4* 4- 4- ++ + 4- _ _ 4* 4- 4- + + -t- MMM Eye Evaluation by Observer: XYZ ___ ___ _ _ __ __ __ 4- _ _ 4- _ _ ___ __ _- _ _ -- IiI Cough Evaluation by Observer: XYZ _. ___ ___ __ ___ __ _ __ ___ _-_ --_ --_ 4- - 4- Hoarseness Evaluation by Observer* XYZ __ ___ ___ 4- _ _ 4- _ _ <4 - _ _ *_ __ _ __ 4- 4- Key: - = None present 4* = Slight M = Marked I = Intolerable for extended period Note: Subject "X" was author (DED) Subject "Y" was laboratory* analyst Subjects "Z" were three different chemical operators, one per each unit (A, B, C) duction units being studied. The subjects were asked to record their impressions as fol lows : a. No definite odor of vinyl acetate present. b. Slight odor of vinyl acetate present. c. Moderate odor of vinyl acetate present. d. Marked odor of vinyl acetate present. Observations were recorded as above dur ing the collection of 13 samples in three sep arate production units. Recorded observa tions are summarized in Table V. Results: Three of three subjects in Unit C recorded the presence of slight odor at a level of 0.4 ppm. Four of four subjects exposed to 4.2 ppm recorded the presence of slight odor at that level. Three of three subjects exposed to 21.6 ppm agreed on the presence of a marked odor at that level. The highest level at which any subject reported no odor present was 7.6 ppm. Comment: It should be noted that the de termination of an odor threshold in a chemi cal production unit is quite difficult due to the intermittent and unpredictable presence of odors of other assorted chemicals in the subject's environment. Another factor which may interfere with odor threshold determina tion under these conditions, is the possibility of olfactory fatigue among persons exposed over long periods of time to the odors of van- ous chemicals. Data in Table V tends to bear this out since the thrye chemical operators appear to have a generally higher threshold than the two subjects not chronically exposed to odors in the ambient air. From the record ed data and personal interpretation, we con clude that in the industrial environment we have studied concentrations slightly below 5 ppm have a discemable but not particularly objectionable odor. Eye Irritation Procedure: The same subjects cited above were asked to record whether or not eye irri tation occurred during the sampling period. They were requested to give their response ac cording to the following scale: a. No eye irritation noted. b. Slight eye irritation noted. c. Marked eye irritation noted. d. Irritation of such severity as to be intol erable over an extended period. Eye irritation was defined to the subjects as any subjective avyareness of burning, itch ing, stinging, or watering of the eyes. Results: One of the five subjects recorded slight eye irritation at 5.7 and 6.8 ppm. No other eye irritations were recorded below 10 ppm. The three subjects who were exposed to a concentration of 21.6 ppm were in agree ment that the eye irritation produced at this 8001<VSVZ BFG35889 456 September-October, 1969 American Indu level would be intolerable over an extended period of time. the involved skin. No revisits were re quired. cant prob dermatitis Comment: From our data and personal ob Neither of the exposures cited above re od mentic servations we conclude that, while the eyes of some subjects may be slightly sensitive to con centrations of about 6 ppm, concentrations up to 10 ppm are unlikely to produce eye irri tation in most people. sulted in any known residual permanent dam age. Summary Tests to determine concentrations of vinyl i 8. Review o multiphas dence to : acetate z levels of 5 Upper Respiratory Irritation Procedure: Same subjects cited above were acetate in air were carried out in a chemical plant under what were concluded to be aver age working conditions. Twenty-one chemi Acknowledgmet asked to record the presence or absence of cal operators who have worked in vinyl ace The authors cough and/or hoarseness during the sampling. tate production for a mean period of more R. Feistel who Results: One subject noted hoarseness at than 15 years have been subjected to a study > pheric samples, concentrations of 4.2 and 5.7 ppm. None of of their overall health level. These operators chromatograph the other subjects recorded either hoarseness were presumably exposed to levels of vinyl assisted in data or cough except at a level of 21.6 ppm. acetate in air of approximately 5 to 10 pom Comment: From our data and personal ob for the duration of their service. From sam servation we conclude that, while one ob pling data, medical records reviews, and per server noted hoarseness at lower levels, con sonal observation, we believe that: centrations up to 10 ppm are unlikely to pro 1. The described method of analysis lor duce similar effects in most people. None of vinyl acetate in air has a high degree of the observers experienced cough at levels up to 10 ppm. The majority of subjects exposed to 21.6 ppm experienced cough and/or hoarseness at that level. Review of Accidental Exposures " specificity, sensitivity, arid facility. 2. Vinyl acetate has a distinct odor at levels of less than 5 ppm. Some persons can identity its odor at levels of 0.4 ppm. 3. Vinyl acetate is not a significant eye At tht bership Industri photo, I the Cert A search of the medical records of the 21 irritant at levels of 10 ppm. At 21.6 operators under study revealed only two epi ppm a significant subjective response sodes of acute exposure to vinyl acetate dur was elicited from three of three subjects ing the five-year study period. These are de tested. (The range between 10 ppm tailed below: and 21.6 ppm was not explored.) 1. A chemical operator (RRY) sustained a minor chemical burn of the left eye 4. Vinyl acetate is not a significant upper respiratory tract irritant at levels of 10 ' when he was splashed with a resin slur ppm. At 21.6 ppm a response of slight ry containing vinyl acetate, isopropanol, cough and/or hoarseness was experi and acetone. The exposure produced enced by observers. (Again, no obser nothing more than a slight injection of vations were recorded in the range be the conjunctiva which cleared with de tween 10 ppm and 21.6 ppm. congestant eye drops and no revisits 5. Vinyl acetate is not a serious eye in were required. 2. A chemical operator (JAS) sustained a jurant provided prompt first aid. in cluding an eye-washing procedure, is first degree burn of the skin of his neck carried out. and portions of his face when he was 6. Vinyl acetate is not a serious skin in struck by a liquid spray containing vinyl jurant when applied to uncovered skin. acetate, vinyl chloride, acetone, and a No serious skin burns due to vinyl ace catalyst known to be a strong skin irri tate have occurred among 21 operators tant. Examination revealed slight red having 320 man-years of possible ex ness of the neck and face. Treatment posure in production units. consisted of nothing more than washing 7. Vinyl acetate has presented no signifi- BFG35890 tembir-October, 1969 . No revisits were re- sur<~> cited above reidaal permanent dam- sncentrations of vinyl ied out in a chemical concluded to be aver* . Twenty-one chemiworked in vinyl acenean period of more i subjected to a study evel. These operators ed to levels of vinyl amately 5 to 10 ppm r service. From samirds reviews, and perslieve that: sthod of analysis for ' has a high degree of ity, and facility, s a distinct odor at 5 ppm. Some persons >dor at levels of 0.4 not a significant eye o. ppm. At 21.6 t suojective response hree of three subjects ge between 10 ppm ; not explored.) . ot a significant upper ritant at levels of 10 n a response of slight arseness was experis. (Again, no obserded in the range bed 21.6 ppm. lot a serious eye inirompt first aid, inashing procedure, is lot a serious skin ined to uncovered skin, ims due to vinyl acei among 21 operators years of possible ex on units. presented no signifi American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 457 cant problem as a producer of contact dermatitis during the same survey peri od mentioned above. 8. Review of medical records and recent multiphasic examinations reveals no evi dence to suggest chronic effects of vinyl acetate at the determined long-term levels of 5-10 ppm. Acknowledgments The authors express their thanks to Mr. E. R. Feistel who assisted in collecting atmos pheric samples, to Mr. Harold Zeller, Jr., the chromatographist, to Mrs. Vola Regini who assisted in data assembly and tabulation, and to Mrs. E. H. Benson who assisted in manu script preparation. References 1. Manufacturing Chemists' Association, Inc.: Chemical Safety Data Sheet SD-75, Vinyl Acetate, Manufacturing Chemists Asroc., Washington, D. C. (1959). 2. Union Carbide Corporation, Chemicals and Plastics: Bibliography of Reactive and Hazardous Chemicals Ref erences. Lnion Carbide Corp., South Charleston, West Virginia (1962). 3. E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co.: Unpublished data. 4. Union Carbide Corporation, Chemical Hygiene Fel lowship, Mellon Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Un published studies. 5. Gopmckur, V. A.: Maximum 'Permissive Concentra tion of Acetates in the Atmosphere. Cigiena i Sanit. 25: 9 (1960); Chem. Abstr. 54, 25422 d (1960). 6. Cope, R. W.: Environmental Hygiene Laboratory, Re search and Development Department/ Union Carbide Corporation, Chemicals and Plastics: Vinyl Acetate De termination in Air, per:onal communications. Received February 10, 1969 r Honorary Membership At the annual A.I.H.A. banquet during the 1969 meeting, honorary life mem bership in A.I.H.A. was bestowed on Professor Warren Cook, Department of Industrial Health. School of Public Health, The University of Michigan. In this photo, Professor Cook (right) is shown accepting from President Lewis Cralley the Certificate of Honorary Membership. > I r I 24864010 BFG35891