Melchior Gerster Fabian, Brenna Hopf Nancy, Pierre Wild Pascal, Vernez David
1.IST, Institute for Work and Health, Route de la Corniche 2, 1066 Epalinges, University of Lausanne and University of Geneva, Switzerland.
1.IST, Institute for Work and Health, Route de la Corniche 2, 1066 Epalinges, University of Lausanne and University of Geneva, Switzerland
Ann Occup Hyg. 2014 Aug;58(7):846-59. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/meu028. Epub 2014 May 6.
A growing body of epidemiologic evidence suggests an association between exposure to cleaning products and respiratory dysfunction. Due to the lack of quantitative assessments of respiratory exposures to airborne irritants and sensitizers among professional cleaners, the culpable substances have yet to be identified.
Focusing on previously identified irritants, our aims were to determine (i) airborne concentrations of monoethanolamine (MEA), glycol ethers, and benzyl alcohol (BA) during different cleaning tasks performed by professional cleaning workers and assess their determinants; and (ii) air concentrations of formaldehyde, a known indoor air contaminant.
Personal air samples were collected in 12 cleaning companies, and analyzed by conventional methods.
Nearly all air concentrations [MEA (n = 68), glycol ethers (n = 79), BA (n = 15), and formaldehyde (n = 45)] were far below (<1/10) of the corresponding Swiss occupational exposure limits (OEL), except for ethylene glycol mono-n-butyl ether (EGBE). For butoxypropanol and BA, no OELs exist. Although only detected once, EGBE air concentrations (n = 4) were high (49.48-58.72mg m(-3)), and close to the Swiss OEL (49mg m(-3)). When substances were not noted as present in safety data sheets of cleaning products used but were measured, air concentrations showed no presence of MEA, while the glycol ethers were often present, and formaldehyde was universally detected. Exposure to MEA was affected by its amount used (P = 0.036), and spraying (P = 0.000) and exposure to butoxypropanol was affected by spraying (P = 0.007) and cross-ventilation (P = 0.000).
Professional cleaners were found to be exposed to multiple airborne irritants at low concentrations, thus these substances should be considered in investigations of respiratory dysfunctions in the cleaning industry; especially in specialized cleaning tasks such as intensive floor cleaning.
越来越多的流行病学证据表明，接触清洁产品与呼吸功能障碍之间存在关联。由于缺乏对专业清洁人员空气中刺激性物质和致敏物质呼吸暴露的定量评估，尚无法确定罪魁祸首物质。
聚焦于先前确定的刺激性物质，我们的目标是确定：（i）专业清洁工人在执行不同清洁任务期间空气中单乙醇胺（MEA）、乙二醇醚和苯甲醇（BA）的浓度，并评估其决定因素；以及（ii）已知室内空气污染物甲醛的空气浓度。
在12家清洁公司采集个人空气样本，并采用常规方法进行分析。
除乙二醇单正丁醚（EGBE）外，几乎所有空气浓度[MEA（n = 68）、乙二醇醚（n = 79）、BA（n = 15）和甲醛（n = 45）]均远低于（<1/10）相应的瑞士职业接触限值（OEL）。对于丁氧基丙醇和BA，不存在OEL。尽管仅检测到一次，但EGBE空气浓度（n = 4）很高（49.48 - 58.72mg/m³），接近瑞士OEL（49mg/m³）。当清洁产品安全数据表中未注明存在但实际测量到的物质时，空气浓度显示不存在MEA，而乙二醇醚经常存在，甲醛普遍被检测到。MEA的暴露受其使用量（P = 0.036）、喷雾（P = 0.000）影响，丁氧基丙醇的暴露受喷雾（P = 0.007）和交叉通风（P = 0.000）影响。
发现专业清洁人员暴露于低浓度的多种空气刺激性物质，因此在清洁行业呼吸功能障碍调查中应考虑这些物质；特别是在诸如强化地板清洁等专门清洁任务中。
