Asthma-inducing potential of 28 substances in spray cleaning products-Assessed by quantitative structure activity relationship (QSAR) testing and literature review.

Exposure to spray cleaning products constitutes a potential risk for asthma induction. We set out to review whether substances in such products are potential inducers of asthma. We identified 101 spray cleaning products for professional use. Twenty-eight of their chemical substances were selected. We based the selection on (a) positive prediction for respiratory sensitisation in humans based on quantitative structure activity relationship (QSAR) in the Danish (Q)SAR Database, (b) positive QSAR prediction for severe skin irritation in rabbits and (c) knowledge on the substances' physico-chemical characteristics and toxicity. Combining the findings in the literature and QSAR predictions, we could group substances into four classes: (1) some indication in humans for asthma induction: chloramine, benzalkonium chloride; (2) some indication in animals for asthma induction: ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), citric acid; (3) equivocal data: hypochlorite; (4) few or lacking data: nitriloacetic acid, monoethanolamine, 2-(2-aminoethoxy)ethanol, 2-diethylaminoethanol, alkyldimethylamin oxide, 1-aminopropan-2-ol, methylisothiazolinone, benzisothiazolinone and chlormethylisothiazolinone; three specific sulphonates and sulfamic acid, salicylic acid and its analogue sodium benzoate, propane-1,2-diol, glycerol, propylidynetrimethanol, lactic acid, disodium malate, morpholine, bronopol and benzyl alcohol. In conclusion, we identified an asthma induction potential for some of the substances. In addition, we identified major knowledge gaps for most substances. Thus, more data are needed to feed into a strategy of safe-by-design, where substances with potential for induction of asthma are avoided in future (spray) cleaning products. Moreover, we suggest that QSAR predictions can serve to prioritise substances that need further testing in various areas of toxicology.

Chemicals inhaled from spray cleaning and disinfection products and their respiratory effects. A comprehensive review.

Spray cleaning and disinfection products have been associated with adverse respiratory effects in professional cleaners and among residents doing domestic cleaning. This review combines information about use of spray products from epidemiological and clinical studies, in vivo and in vitro toxicological studies of cleaning chemicals, as well as human and field exposure studies. The most frequent chemicals in spray cleaning and disinfection products were compiled, based on registrations in the Danish Product Registry. The chemicals were divided into acids, bases, disinfectants, fragrances, organic solvents, propellants, and tensides. In addition, an assessment of selected cleaning and disinfectant chemicals in spray products was carried out. Chemicals of concern regarding respiratory effects (e.g. asthma) are corrosive chemicals such as strong acids and bases (including ammonia and hypochlorite) and quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs). However, the evidence for respiratory effects after inhalation of QACs is ambiguous. Common fragrances are generally not considered to be of concern following inhalation. Solvents including glycols and glycol ethers as well as propellants are generally weak airway irritants and not expected to induce sensitization in the airways. Mixing of certain cleaning products can produce corrosive airborne chemicals. We discuss different hypotheses for the mechanisms behind the development of respiratory effects of inhalation of chemicals in cleaning agents. An integrative assessment is needed to understand how these chemicals can cause the various respiratory effects.

Vocational training courses as an intervention on change of work practice among immigrant cleaners.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to examine how knowledge and skills from vocational training courses on working techniques modified for immigrant cleaners are applied in practice and to identify factors that influence the implementation. The modifications of the standard course included language support with possibilities for translation and an extension of the duration of the course. METHODS: The study is a prospective intervention study based on qualitative data. Data were collected as structured interviews and observations were carried out at the workplaces before and after the course. The study population included 31 immigrant cleaners from five different workplaces. RESULTS: Changes were observed in the use of working techniques (i.e., positioning of hands when using the floor mop). In some cases the use of the taught techniques was incorrect, partial, or only used part of the time. Interactions between individual factors (i.e., knowledge, awareness, capability, or work orientation) and environmental factors (i.e., equipment, time, workload, or physical surroundings) influenced the use of the techniques in practice. CONCLUSIONS: The course provided the participants with new working techniques through which some were able to reduce work related pain. However, with regard to incorrect and partial use of the working techniques, follow-up and post-training support is recommended.