Document vVg6qVYVrv5QM3rBEmJ4Zjbk8

March 15, 1957 Mr, J. E. Smart Purchasing Department Bueyrus-Erle Company South Milwaukee, Wisconsin Dear Mr. 8marti Confirming our telephone eonveraatlon this morning, X am forwarding two (2) ooplea of the toxicity data furnished ue following animal atudiea with our fluid, Pydraul 150,' The reports from Scientific Assoclatea Indicate that the fluid Investigated was "08-57." This was the developmental designation for the fluid before It was turned over to the Sales Department and renamed Pydraul 150, The toxicity report on this fluid Indicates that It was practi cally Innocuous when fed orally to rats. The animals survived single doses of 28,5 grams per kilogram with loss of appetite and severe diarrhea as the only toxic effects. The fluid Is apparently not readily absorbed by the Bkln of rabbits and oaused no serious effects alnoe animals survived a dose up to 9,5 grams per kilogram of body weight. With this dosage we nonoally find that animals display discomfort and loss of appetite due to being restrained and the large body surface area oovered by the test material. The numerical scores for Irritation to the skin and eyes are less than we experience with a 10 per cent aqueous soap solution when tested under similar conditions. We know from experience In humans, however, that the animal test does not indicate the pain which humans experience If there Is accidental splashing In the eyes. We have had reports of severe smarting and pain when this has oeourred with workers. Xn all oases reported, however, they responded to the use of an ointment or solution containing an anesthetic such as 1 per eent pontoealne and there have been no reports of damage to any eye tissues. Of course. In ease of acci dental eye eontaot, there should be lsnedlate flushing with odplous quantities of water as with any foreign body or Industrial chemical. This Is not to Imply that if such flushing Is not possible that there will be serious eye Injury, but only to emphasize the usual first aid procedure for such an occurrence. ' HONS 090872 Mr. J. S. Smart -- rags 8 March 15, 1957 In regard to vapor Inhalation, it appoara that slxrhour exposures to heavy atmospheric oonoantrationa arc not lethal. Several of ua in the Medioa1 Department and our Research Department recently had oooaaion to inhale a miat of ^ydraul iso atoaiaed with the equipment common in medical offices for nasal and throat sprays. Although our exposure was not prolonged, it was acute and our aubjeotlve response was as mild as that experienced with a petroleum or mineral oil fluid of similar viacosity, the toxicity data and industrial experience lead to our conclusion that fydraul 150 introduces no serious toxicity problem when substituted for petroleum base or other fire-resistant fluids. In something over three hundred million hours of industrial use of fydraul fluids there have been no reports of serious toxic effects, Ab I told you on the telephone, we have heard of perhaps a dosen oases where workers have accidentally gotten the fluid in their eyes. Bxoept for painful irritation which might persist for 48 to 72 hours if the eyes are not Immediately washed with copious rntltles of water and treated, there have been no difficulties, no case has there been any permanent damage to eye tissues. If l oan be of any further assistance, please let ms know. Very truly yours. EfWlSMB Enclosures Elmer f. Wheeler Assistant Director Madloal Department MONS 090873