Document xORwmG7vOJq7VvKVeJz1Ew6m

March 15, 1957 Mr, J. E. Smart furohcslng Department BucyruB-Eria Company South Milwaukee, Wisconsin Dear Mr, 8martj Confirming our telephone conversation this morning, I am forwarding two (2) copies of the toxicity -data furnished us following animal studies with our fluid, Pydraul 150,' The reports from Scientific Associates indicate that the fluid investigated was "OS-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 praotically innoouous 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 skin of rabbits and caused no serious effeots slnoe animals survived a dose up to 9,5 grams per kilogram of body weight. With this dosage we normally find that animals display discomfort and loss of appetite due to being restrained and the large body surfaoe area covered by the test material. The numerical soores for irritation to the skin and eyes are less than we experience with a 10 per cent aqueouB soap solution when tested under similar conditions, Ve know from experience in hiimans, however, that the animal test does not indicate the pain which humans experience if there 1b accidental splashing in the eyes. We have had reports of severe smarting and pain when this has occurred with workers. In all oases reported, however, they responded to the use of an ointment or solution containing an anesthetic such as 1 per oent pontocaine and there have been no reports of damage to any eye tissues. Of oourse, in case of acci dental eye oontaot, there should be immediate flushing with obplous quantities of water as with any foreign body or industrial ohemical. 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. DSW 018557 STLCOPCB4005101 Mr. J. g Smart -- Pag 2 -- March 15, 1957 In regard to vapor Inhalation, It appears that sixrhour exposures to heavy atmospheric concentrations are not lethal. Several of us In the Medical Department and our Research Department recently had occasion to Inhale a mist of Pydraul 150 atomised with the equipment common In medical offices for nasal-and throat sprays. Although our exposure was not prolonged, it was acute and our eubjeotlve response was as mild as that experienced with a petroleum or mineral oil fluid of similar viscosity. The toxicity data and industrial experience lead to our conolusion that Pydraul 150 introduces no serious toxicity problem when substituted for petroleum base or other fire-resistant fluids. Xn something over three hundred pillion hours of industrial use of Pydraul fluidB there have been no reports of serious toxic effeots* As X told you on the telephone, we have heard of perhaps a dozen oaseB where workers have accidentally gotten the fluid in their eyes. Except for painful irritation which might persist for 48 to 72 hours If the eyes are not Immediately washed with copious quantities of water and treated, there have been no difficulties. Xn no case has there been any permanent damage to eye tissues. If X can be of any further assistance, please let me know. Very truly yours. BPWlSMB Enclosures Elmer P. Wheeler Assistant Director Medical Department DSW 018558 STLCOPCB4005102