A recommended occupational exposure limit for formaldehyde based on irritation.

D. Paustenbach, Y. Alarie, T. Kulle, Neil E. Schachter, Ralph G. Smith, J. Swenberg, H. Witschi, S. Horowitz
{"title":"A recommended occupational exposure limit for formaldehyde based on irritation.","authors":"D. Paustenbach, Y. Alarie, T. Kulle, Neil E. Schachter, Ralph G. Smith, J. Swenberg, H. Witschi, S. Horowitz","doi":"10.1080/009841097160465","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, several regulatory agencies and professional societies have recommended an occupational exposure limit (OEL) for formaldehyde. This article presents the findings of a panel of experts, the Industrial Health Foundation panel, who were charged to identify an OEL that would prevent irritation. To accomplish this task, they critiqued approximately 150 scientific articles. Unlike many other chemicals, a large amount of data is available upon which to base a concentration-response relationship for human irritation. A mathematical model developed by Kane et al. (1979) for predicting safe levels of exposure to irritants based on animal data was also evaluated. The panel concluded that for most persons, eye irritation clearly due to formaldehyde does not occur until at least 1.0 ppm. Information from controlled studies involving volunteers indicated that moderate to severe eye, nose, and throat irritation does not occur for most persons until airborne concentrations exceed 2.0-3.0 ppm. The data indicated that below 1.0 ppm, if irritation occurs in some persons, the effects rapidly subside due to \"accommodation.\" Based on the weight of evidence from published studies, the panel found that persons exposed to 0.3 ppm for 4-6 h in chamber studies generally reported eye irritation at a rate no different than that observed when persons were exposed to clean air. It was noted that at a concentration of 0.5 ppm (8-h TWA) eye irritation was not observed in the majority of workers (about 80%). Consequently, the panel recommended an OEL of 0.3 ppm as an 8-h time-weighted average (TWA) with a ceiling value (CV) of 1.0 ppm (a concentration not to be exceeded) to avoid irritation. The panel believes that the ACGIH TLV of 0.3 ppm as a ceiling value was unnecessarily restrictive and that this value may have been based on the TLV Committee's interpretation of the significance of studies involving self-reported responses at concentrations less than 0.5 ppm. The panel concluded that any occupational or environmental guideline for formaldehyde should be based primarily on controlled studies in humans, since nearly all other studies are compromised by the presence of other contaminants. The panel also concluded that if concentrations of formaldehyde are kept below 0.1 ppm in the indoor environment (where exposures might occur 24 h/d) this should prevent irritation in virtually all persons. The panel could not identify a group of persons who were hypersensitive, nor was there evidence that anyone could be sensitized (develop an allergy) following inhalation exposure to formaldehyde. The panel concluded that there was sufficient evidence to show that persons with asthma respond no differently than healthy individuals following exposure to concentrations up to 3.0 ppm. Although cancer risk was not a topic that received exhaustive evaluation, the panel agreed with other scientific groups who have concluded that the cancer risk of formaldehyde is negligible at airborne concentrations that do not produce chronic irritation.","PeriodicalId":17418,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"114","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/009841097160465","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 114

Abstract

In recent years, several regulatory agencies and professional societies have recommended an occupational exposure limit (OEL) for formaldehyde. This article presents the findings of a panel of experts, the Industrial Health Foundation panel, who were charged to identify an OEL that would prevent irritation. To accomplish this task, they critiqued approximately 150 scientific articles. Unlike many other chemicals, a large amount of data is available upon which to base a concentration-response relationship for human irritation. A mathematical model developed by Kane et al. (1979) for predicting safe levels of exposure to irritants based on animal data was also evaluated. The panel concluded that for most persons, eye irritation clearly due to formaldehyde does not occur until at least 1.0 ppm. Information from controlled studies involving volunteers indicated that moderate to severe eye, nose, and throat irritation does not occur for most persons until airborne concentrations exceed 2.0-3.0 ppm. The data indicated that below 1.0 ppm, if irritation occurs in some persons, the effects rapidly subside due to "accommodation." Based on the weight of evidence from published studies, the panel found that persons exposed to 0.3 ppm for 4-6 h in chamber studies generally reported eye irritation at a rate no different than that observed when persons were exposed to clean air. It was noted that at a concentration of 0.5 ppm (8-h TWA) eye irritation was not observed in the majority of workers (about 80%). Consequently, the panel recommended an OEL of 0.3 ppm as an 8-h time-weighted average (TWA) with a ceiling value (CV) of 1.0 ppm (a concentration not to be exceeded) to avoid irritation. The panel believes that the ACGIH TLV of 0.3 ppm as a ceiling value was unnecessarily restrictive and that this value may have been based on the TLV Committee's interpretation of the significance of studies involving self-reported responses at concentrations less than 0.5 ppm. The panel concluded that any occupational or environmental guideline for formaldehyde should be based primarily on controlled studies in humans, since nearly all other studies are compromised by the presence of other contaminants. The panel also concluded that if concentrations of formaldehyde are kept below 0.1 ppm in the indoor environment (where exposures might occur 24 h/d) this should prevent irritation in virtually all persons. The panel could not identify a group of persons who were hypersensitive, nor was there evidence that anyone could be sensitized (develop an allergy) following inhalation exposure to formaldehyde. The panel concluded that there was sufficient evidence to show that persons with asthma respond no differently than healthy individuals following exposure to concentrations up to 3.0 ppm. Although cancer risk was not a topic that received exhaustive evaluation, the panel agreed with other scientific groups who have concluded that the cancer risk of formaldehyde is negligible at airborne concentrations that do not produce chronic irritation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于刺激的甲醛的推荐职业暴露限值。
近年来,一些监管机构和专业协会推荐了甲醛的职业暴露限值(OEL)。这篇文章介绍了一个专家小组的调查结果,工业健康基金会小组,他们负责确定一种可以防止刺激的OEL。为了完成这项任务,他们对大约150篇科学文章进行了评论。与许多其他化学物质不同,有大量的数据可用于建立人体刺激的浓度-反应关系。由Kane等人(1979)开发的一种数学模型也进行了评估,该模型基于动物数据预测接触刺激物的安全水平。专家小组得出的结论是,对大多数人来说,甲醛引起的眼睛刺激在至少1.0 ppm之前不会发生。来自志愿者的对照研究的信息表明,在空气中的浓度超过2.0-3.0 ppm之前,大多数人不会出现中度至重度的眼睛、鼻子和喉咙刺激。数据表明,低于1.0 ppm,如果某些人出现刺激,则由于“适应”而迅速消退。根据已发表研究的证据权重,小组发现,在室内研究中暴露于0.3 ppm 4-6小时的人通常报告的眼睛刺激率与暴露于清洁空气时观察到的速度没有区别。值得注意的是,在0.5 ppm(8小时TWA)的浓度下,大多数工人(约80%)没有观察到眼睛受到刺激。因此,专家组建议OEL为0.3 ppm作为8小时时间加权平均值(TWA),上限值(CV)为1.0 ppm(不能超过的浓度),以避免刺激。专家小组认为,ACGIH将0.3 ppm作为上限值的TLV是不必要的限制,该值可能是基于TLV委员会对涉及浓度低于0.5 ppm的自我报告反应的研究的意义的解释。专家小组的结论是,任何有关甲醛的职业或环境准则都应主要以人体对照研究为基础,因为几乎所有其他研究都受到其他污染物的影响。该小组还得出结论,如果室内环境(每天24小时都可能接触甲醛)的甲醛浓度保持在0.1 ppm以下,这应该可以防止几乎所有人受到刺激。专家小组无法确定一组人是否过敏,也没有证据表明任何人在吸入甲醛后会致敏(产生过敏)。专家小组的结论是,有足够的证据表明,哮喘患者在暴露于高达3.0 ppm的浓度后的反应与健康个体没有区别。虽然癌症风险并不是一个得到详尽评估的话题,但该小组同意其他科学团体的结论,即甲醛的致癌风险在空气中浓度可以忽略不计,不会产生慢性刺激。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Drosophila melanogaster as a model organism for screening acetylcholinesterase reactivators Penilumamide, a novel SIRT1 activator, protects UVB-induced photodamages in HaCaT cells Exposure to emissions generated by 3-dimensional printing with polycarbonate: effects on peripheral vascular function, cardiac vascular morphology and expression of markers of oxidative stress in male rat cardiac tissue Syagrus coronata fixed oil prevents rotenone-induced movement disorders and oxidative stress in Drosophila melanogaster Genotoxic and antiproliferative properties of Endopleura uchi bark aqueous extract
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1