Safety data sheets as an information pathway on hazards of occupationally used cleaning agents.

To investigate consistency and accessibility of asthma and skin allergy hazard information in safety data sheets (SDSs) for cleaning agents on the Swedish market, we compiled a database of 504 SDSs and 351 therein declared ingredients. Labelling of products was compared to that of ingredients according to harmonised classification. For each ingredient, also notified classification and three additional sources on sensitising properties were compared. Product labelling most frequently indicated corrosion and irritation hazards. Only 3% of products were labelled as skin sensitisers and none as asthmagens. According to harmonised classification, 9% of products contained skin sensitisers, using other information sources increased the number to 46%. While 2% of products contained respiratory sensitisers according to harmonised classification, the number increased to 17% when using other information sources. Furthermore, sensitisers were declared across several sections of the SDSs, hampering easy access of such information. In conclusion, there are inconsistencies in hazard identification of cleaning agents and their ingredients. Hence, SDSs may not altogether fulfil its hazard information role. Improved criteria for identifying sensitisers and respiratory irritants are warranted. Additionally, we argue that all ingredients should be listed in section 3 regardless of concentration, to facilitate access of information about sensitising properties.

An Overview of Cleaning Agents' Health Hazards and Occupational Injuries and Diseases Attributed to Them in Sweden.

Using data from the Swedish Products Register, hosted by the Swedish Chemicals Agency (KemI), national occupational injury and disease statistics, and call records from the Swedish Poisons Information Centre (PIC) we characterize health hazards of marketed cleaning products and recorded injuries, disease, and incidents linked to cleaning or disinfection agents. The results show that cleaning agents pose many kinds of health hazards, although corrosion and irritation hazards dominate, in particular for the eyes (54% of all included products). Few products were recognized as inhalation hazards. The nature of the health hazards is reflected in the occupational disease and injury statistics and PIC records for eyes and skin but not for the respiratory tract. Among occupational disease cases attributed to cleaning or disinfection agents, 61% concern skin and 26% the respiratory tract. Among occupational injury cases 64% concern chemical burns. However, only a small part (<0.5%) of all reported diseases and injuries were explicitly attributed to cleaning or disinfection agents. On average, there were 11 cases of disease attributed to cleaning or disinfection agents per million workers and year. For occupational injuries the corresponding number was 8. The data concern a broad range of sectors and occupations, but notable sectors were healthcare, accommodation and food service, and manufacturing. Women were more likely to suffer from disease, men and women equally likely to suffer from injury. PIC cases were evenly distributed between men and women, but the clear risk cases more frequently involved men. Occupational diseases increased many-fold in 2020 while injuries decreased, which could be due to COVID-19 changing use patterns of cleaning and disinfection agents at work. We conclude that cleaning agents pose a variety of risks to a large part of the workforce, although particular attention for preventive efforts may need to be directed to the healthcare, accommodation and food service, and manufacturing sectors.

Chromium(III) release from chromium-tanned leather elicits allergic contact dermatitis: a use test study.

BACKGROUND: Chromium (Cr) is a common skin sensitizer. The use of Cr(VI) in leather is restricted in the EU, but that of Cr(III) is not. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether prolonged exposure to Cr-tanned leather with mainly Cr(III) release may elicit allergic contact dermatitis in Cr-allergic individuals. METHOD: Ten Cr-allergic subjects and 22 controls were patch tested with serial dilutions of Cr(III) and Cr(VI), and with leather samples. They then conducted a use test with a Cr-tanned and a Cr-free leather bracelet over a period of 3 weeks, for 12 h per day. Cr deposited on the skin from the bracelets was measured in the controls, and the diphenylcarbazide test for Cr(VI) and extraction tests for Cr(III) and Cr(VI) were conducted for the different leathers. RESULTS: Four of 10 Cr-allergic subjects developed positive reactions to the Cr-tanned bracelet within 7-21 days, whereas only 1 of 10 had a positive patch test reaction to this leather. Cr released from the Cr-tanned leather was most probably entirely Cr(III), with a quantifiable amount being deposited on the skin. CONCLUSIONS: This study strongly suggests that prolonged and repeated exposure to Cr-tanned leather with mainly Cr(III) release is capable of eliciting allergic contact dermatitis in Cr-allergic individuals.

Development, validation and testing of a skin sampling method for assessment of metal exposure.

BACKGROUND: Nickel, cobalt and chromium are frequent skin sensitizers. Skin exposure results in eczema in sensitized individuals, the risk being related to the skin dose. OBJECTIVES: To develop a self-sampling method for quantification of skin exposure to metals, to validate the method, and to assess its feasibility. METHODS: Defined metal doses (0.01-5 µg) were applied to the fingers of 5 participants. Skin areas (2 cm2 ) were sampled with 1% HNO3 , either as 0.1 ml on a swab, or as 0.5 ml on a wipe. Furthermore, 17 participants performed self-sampling by swab after 2 h of leisure activity. Samples were extracted in 1% HNO3 and analysed by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. RESULTS: The sampling efficiency by swab was 46%, as compared with 93% for acid wipe sampling, for all tested doses. Most metal from the skin dose was detected in the first swab (33-43%). Despite lower sampling efficiency by swab, skin doses of metals following 2 h of leisure activity without hand washing were quantified in all participants, and ranged from 0.0016 to 0.15 µg/cm2 , from 0.00014 to -0.0020 µg/cm2 and from 0.00048 to -0.027 µg/cm2 for nickel, cobalt, and chromium, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate a future potential of skin sampling by swab to detect and monitor metals on skin by self-sampling. This will contribute to better knowledge of metal skin exposure among dermatitis patients, workers, and the general population.

Short and frequent skin contact with nickel.

BACKGROUND: The existing EU nickel restriction does not sufficiently protect the population from skin exposure to nickel. Better understanding is needed of the extent to which short and frequent contact with nickel-releasing items contributes to nickel deposition on skin. OBJECTIVES: To quantify nickel skin exposure from short and frequent contact with nickel-releasing materials. MATERIALS/METHODS: Sequences of short contact events were assessed in (i) touch tests for measurement of nickel skin dose, (ii) wipe tests to similarly quantify the nickel release during a touch, and (iii) immersion tests in artificial sweat, for nickel-containing alloys and pure nickel. RESULTS: Nickel skin doses from a single touch were 0.024-4.7 µg/cm(2) for all materials. Touching or wiping five untouched surfaces resulted in more accumulated nickel than five repeated touches of the same surface. The released amounts of nickel were generally lower at immersion, but increased with the number of repeated immersion periods. CONCLUSIONS: Nickel skin doses were quantified after one single touch for all study materials. Touch tests, and potentially wipe tests as a proxy for skin dose measurements, are preferred to immersion tests for the assessment of short and frequent skin contact with nickel.