BACKGROUND: Glutaraldehyde is widely used as a disinfectant for endoscopic equipment. The aim of this study was to investigate work practices and glutaraldehyde exposure in relation to symptoms and lung function. METHODS: A questionnaire was administered to 76 nurses. Exposed nurses (n = 38) also completed lung function tests and visual analogue scales before and after a work session in which glutaraldehyde exposure occurred. Disinfection activities were timed and counted, personal exposures established, and control measures documented. RESULTS: Exposure values above the exposure limit (0.10 ppm) were found for all exposure control methods except for the enclosed washing machine. Skin symptoms were 3.6 times more likely to be reported by exposed workers. None of the other symptoms were significantly associated with glutaraldehyde exposure. There were significant cross-shift reductions in FVC and FEV(1) in the exposed group. No evidence of a dose-response relationship for symptoms or lung function was found. CONCLUSIONS: Further exposure controls for both glutaraldehyde and gloves are required to improve skin care in glutaraldehyde exposed nurses. Exposure monitoring methods also need review. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
BACKGROUND:Glutaraldehyde is widely used as a disinfectant for endoscopic equipment. The aim of this study was to investigate work practices and glutaraldehyde exposure in relation to symptoms and lung function. METHODS: A questionnaire was administered to 76 nurses. Exposed nurses (n = 38) also completed lung function tests and visual analogue scales before and after a work session in which glutaraldehyde exposure occurred. Disinfection activities were timed and counted, personal exposures established, and control measures documented. RESULTS: Exposure values above the exposure limit (0.10 ppm) were found for all exposure control methods except for the enclosed washing machine. Skin symptoms were 3.6 times more likely to be reported by exposed workers. None of the other symptoms were significantly associated with glutaraldehyde exposure. There were significant cross-shift reductions in FVC and FEV(1) in the exposed group. No evidence of a dose-response relationship for symptoms or lung function was found. CONCLUSIONS: Further exposure controls for both glutaraldehyde and gloves are required to improve skin care in glutaraldehyde exposed nurses. Exposure monitoring methods also need review. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Stacey E Anderson; Christina Umbright; Rajendran Sellamuthu; Kara Fluharty; Michael Kashon; Jennifer Franko; Laurel G Jackson; Victor J Johnson; Pius Joseph Journal: Toxicol Sci Date: 2010-02-22 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Maria C Mirabelli; Jan-Paul Zock; Estel Plana; Josep Maria Antó; Geza Benke; Paul D Blanc; Anna Dahlman-Höglund; Deborah L Jarvis; Hans Kromhout; Linnéa Lillienberg; Dan Norbäck; Mario Olivieri; Katja Radon; Jordi Sunyer; Kjell Torén; Marc van Sprundel; Simona Villani; Manolis Kogevinas Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2007-03-01 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Lora E Fleming; Barbara Kirkpatrick; Lorraine C Backer; Judy A Bean; Adam Wanner; Dana Dalpra; Robert Tamer; Julia Zaias; Yung Sung Cheng; Richard Pierce; Jerome Naar; William Abraham; Richard Clark; Yue Zhou; Michael S Henry; David Johnson; Gayl Van De Bogart; Gregory D Bossart; Mark Harrington; Daniel G Baden Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: M Angel González Jara; Alfonso Mora Hidalgo; J Carlos Avalos Gulin; Marcos López Albiach; Laura Muñoz Ortiz; Pere Torán Monserrat; Xavier Esteva Ollé Journal: J Occup Med Toxicol Date: 2013-11-01 Impact factor: 2.646