Groundbreaking paper: use of formaldehyde passive samplers

Posted on by
Reply

Dr. Underhill reviews the research paper “Comparison of personal formaldehyde levels in anatomy laboratories of five physical therapy education programs”

             Whoever would have thought that a groundbreaking paper on the use of passive samplers would appear in the Journal of Physical Therapy Education?  Yet “Comparison of personal formaldehyde levels in anatomy laboratories of five physical therapy education programs”, by Janet Cope and her co-workers, is just that.  Results that should be interesting to readers of this blog include:

            High formaldehyde exposures are possible in unexpected areas.  Who would have expected to find such unwanted exposures in physical therapy education programs?  But once you realize that these programs generally rely on cadavers for an important part of their instruction, the connection becomes obvious, but many of these programs are not associates with other academic programs and there are no professionals available to assess the formaldehyde exposure of students and professors to formaldehyde exposure.

            The low cost of diffusive samplers made possible the extensive exposure measurements reported in this paper.  Through these numerous measurements, one finding was that the area samples and personal samples could have quite different results, but this has been established before for formaldehyde as well as for a number of other toxic workplace compounds. 

            Formaldehyde is both a strong irritant as well as a weak carcinogen.  (If it were a strong carcinogen, OSHA wouldn’t allow it in the workplace under any conditions.)  Therefore asking those present in the anatomy laboratory if they have had sensory irritation is a good way to establish whether there has been significant formaldehyde exposure.  This was done via a questionnaire that asked such questions about sensory irritation as Eye Irritation. Nasal irritation, Sinus problems, Throat irritations, Shortness of breath. Cough. Nausea, Vomiting, Itch, Rash.  Industrial hygienists sometimes forget how useful it can be to look for sensory irritation in workers in order to locate a hot spot for testing for exposure.  We should remember that somewhere between a third and a half of all TLVs are set based on sensory irritation.

            Another point – well brought out in their paper – is how important it is to avoid contamination of the diffusive samplers.  All it takes is a little amount of formaldehyde placed onto the sampler through contaminated fingers to throw the measurement way off.   The Elon protocol included careful washing of the hands before handling the diffusive samplers.  In our laboratory we can spot such a problem if a so-called “blank” shows up with a high concentration, but otherwise this error on the part of the user is difficult to spot.  It usually results in a retest to see if the reported high exposure is real. 

            Finally the engineering controls, such as air exchanges per hour and the use of downdraft ventilation were mentioned in the paper.  Here is another good use of diffusive samplers – testing the efficiency of engineering controls.  In particular, if you are about to spend a large sum of money on new engineering controls, it could be very worthwhile to use a few diffusive samplers before and after the controls are installed to see if you are getting good value for your dollars.   

The full research paper can be found in the Journal of Physical Therapy Education Vol 25, No 3, Fall 2011.

Formaldehyde Risks in Depth – Concerns Rise Over Workplace Exposure

Posted on by
Reply

January 9, 2012 By Jack Benton in Jack Benton, News, OSHA News, PEL Exposure Limits, Personal Safety, Workplace Safety Tags: Brazilian Blowout, Brazilian hair straightening, Environmental Working Group, Hair Cuttery, Hair straightening, Health Canada, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA Leave a comment

Source: AP

Beauty salons and mortuaries in recent years have received numerous OSHA citations for violating federal exposure standards for formaldehyde. Several hair-straightening products contain the carcinogenic chemical.

Although beauty salons and mortuaries have drawn the most citations and fines for violating the federal exposure standard for formaldehyde among smaller companies, employer awareness of the hazards of this carcinogenic chemical and the details of complying with the standard vary widely in these two predominantly middle-market industries.

Because funeral directors and embalmers have a long history of working with formaldehyde, which chemical experts say is indispensable for preparing the human body for viewing, the National Funeral Directors Assn. has developed a best practice protocol for working with formaldehyde.

By contrast, beauty salon owners and stylists generally lack a scientific background and don’t have a keen awareness of the danger of working with products that contain formaldehyde, experts say. This is complicated by the fact that manufacturers of several popular hair-straightening products containing formaldehyde have mislabeled the products and not disclosed their formaldehyde content, according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Another problem is that, for the lay person, there are many unrecognizable names for formaldehyde, including methylene glycol, formalin and oxomethane, according to OSHA.

From October 2010 through September 2011 among companies with up to 99 employees, beauty salons racked up 62 citations for violating OSHA’s formaldehyde standard; funeral homes and crematories drew 16 citations.

An OSHA hazard alert said the agency is investigating “complaints from stylists and hair salon owners about exposure to formaldehyde while using hair-smoothing products such as Brazilian Blowout, Brasil Cacau Cadiveau, Keratin Complex Smoothing Therapy and Marcia Teixeira….Some of these products were labeled formaldehyde-free.”

“OSHA has conducted air sampling at multiple salons and found formaldehyde in the air when stylists were using hair smoothing products,” according to the hazard alert.

In a December 2010 advisory, Health Canada said it found up to 7% formaldehyde content in some hair-straightening products.

In September 2011, OSHA said it cited two manufacturers and distributors of hair-straightening products, including Keratin Complex Smoothing Therapy and Marcia Teixeira, “for failing to ensure that material safety data sheets reflected the content of formaldehyde in the product or the hazards associated with formaldehyde exposure, as well as for failing to develop a written hazard communication program for their own employees.”

The Professional Beauty Assn., a trade group representing beauty salons, “strives to inform and educate the professional beauty industry on a variety of topics and issues,” Myra Irizarry, government affairs director in Scottsdale, Ariz., said in an email.

The PBA posted “What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You: A Message from OSHA” on its website, stating that OSHA “has found that some hair-smoothing products may contain formaldehyde, may release formaldehyde at levels above OSHA’s permissible exposure limits during use and may be mislabeled, all of which can pose health risks to salon workers.”

The PBA website also contains detailed information about OSHA and other health agency findings of formaldehyde in keratin-based hair products. It urged salon workers to follow OSHA’s formaldehyde standard, to stay informed and take appropriate precautions as the “controversy” continues to be studied.

Salon owners across the country surveyed by the Washington-based nonprofit Environmental Working Group last spring were either unaware of the formaldehyde content in Keratin Complex Smoothing Therapy and similar products, minimized the danger of exposure or considered the issue “controversial.”

The distributor of Brazilian Blowout posted a disclaimer on its website stating that “while the media continues to report that Brazilian Blowout contains 8% to 10% formaldehyde, it is important to understand that this relates to the measure of potential formaldehyde released at a level that never occurs in a real-world application.

“As federal OSHA is aware, the only accurate method of testing free formaldehyde exposure is via controlled air monitoring. Every controlled air monitoring test conducted by OSHA and alternate reputable institutions has produced results conveying that the Brazilian Blowout Smoothing Treatment falls well beneath even the most stringent of OSHA safety standards,” according to the distributor, Brazilian Blowout, North Hollywood, Calif.

“This information is now being communicated to the FDA, demonstrating that the Brazilian Blowout complies with all air monitoring guidelines.

“You can continue to confidently offer the Brazilian Blowout to your customers with the knowledge that the Brazilian Blowout falls well below the safety standards set by OSHA,” the distributor said.

Jeremy Lurie, marketing specialist at M&M International in Delray Beach, Fla., which distributes Marcia Teixeira keratin treatments, said the treatments do not contain formaldehyde. “I’ve never been one to shy away from truth in advertising,” he said, noting that the company’s website says that their original treatments contain methylene glycol, which produces a trace amount of formaldehyde gas when heated, and are “substantially below OSHA standards for safe exposure.”

“What caused the controversy is misrepresentation by other companies that their products are formaldehyde-free,” Mr. Lurie said. “Our newest products, Soft and Soft Chocolate, do not contain any ingredients that produce formaldehyde.”

On the Keratin Complex website, Larry Solomon, president, wrote: “We disagree with OSHA’s inflammatory and inaccurate report and we are asking for a full retraction. Keratin Complex not only complies with all OSHA standards, but we meet or exceed their safety standards and requirements.”

“Some salons have taken appropriate precautions by discontinuing the use of these products. However, as of the spring when we published our report, over 60% of top salons nationwide were still using keratin-straightening products,” said a spokeswoman for the Washington-based Environmental Working Group, which has urged the FDA to take these products off the market.

A small salon owner, who wished to remain unidentified, said that one distributor cited by OSHA “swore up and down there was no formaldehyde” in its keratin products. He continued: “We stopped using most of (them). We found that most of those companies haven’t been honest with us. A couple of clients want them and we have them sign a release, saying we’re not sure what’s in the product.”

Hair Cuttery, a national chain, advertises on its website that it provides a “Keratin Smoothing System.” In response to a question about what precautions are taken to protect stylists against formaldehyde exposure when using keratin products, a spokeswoman for Hair Cuttery parent Ratner Cos. in Vienna, Va., said in an email that “We do not use straightening products that contain formaldehyde in our salons.”

When questioned about this discrepancy and whether the company had discontinued using Keratin Smoothing System, she said, “The system we use is Bionaza Premiere Brazilian Keratin Treatment and it is formaldehyde-free.”

Salons across the country continue to advertise keratin hair- smoothing services on their websites, including Joseph Michael’s Salon & Spa in Chicago.

“The main precaution we take is a large carbon filter system that’s portable and goes with the stylist,” said Allison Vannoy, general manager. “We let the stylist decide whether to do the services or not. All are welcome to wear a mask, but most don’t. We haven’t seen any adverse results and if we do, we’ll take a second look,” she said. “We look at the (OSHA) regulations on a pretty regular basis,” she said.

“If you follow best practices management, you can use (formaldehyde) safely,” said John Reed Sr., owner of Dodd & Reed Funeral Home in Webster Springs, West Va., and past president of the NFDA. “A good exhaust system” is a main precaution as well as “absolutely monitoring the air” and wearing gloves and masks when working with products containing formaldehyde, he said.

“The best precaution is to follow OSHA guidelines, and really the best way is proper ventilation. Keep that air changing in the room,” said Vernie Fountain, a licensed funeral director and owner of Fountain National Academy in Springfield, Mo., which teaches “difficult embalming cases and post-mortem reconstructive surgery.”

“I know from limited experience with salons that they don’t have a safety and health or hazard communication program that they review with employees,” said Jack Luckhardt, president of safety and health consultant The Luckhardt Group in Oviedo, Fla. “They need to check the labels of all the materials they have and make sure they have a material safety data sheet. They need to get the information and make it available to employees and watch out for warning signs,” such as itching or burning in the eyes, said Mr. Luckhardt, a former board member of the American Society of Safety Engineers.

“But one of the problems they’re up against is there are manufacturers of hair care products that were labeled as formaldehyde-free, when in fact the products when heated release formaldehyde,” he said.

“I think a lot of the salons are flying blind,” Mr. Luckhardt said.

Formaldehyde has literally a million uses

Posted on by
Reply

Formaldehyde has literally a million uses.  Just to list a few, some well known some not –

  • As a sterilizer.  Formaldehyde is noncorrosive, yet highly toxic to all bacteria and viruses, and importantly, none have developed any resistance to it.  This enables hospital equipment, such as endoscopes, to be sterilized without harm.[1]
  • As a glue.  Formaldehyde is the main ingredient in inexpensive glue. [2]  Unfortunately, this application has domestic usage, in for example holding fiberboard together, and in laying down carpets.  The irony here is that a conscientious employer may be successful in protecting his employees from formaldehyde, and go home to a house filled with formaldehyde vapor.
  • As an insulation.  Urea-formaldehyde foam was once used in home insulation.[3]  Unfortunately, this same material, as it ages, can break down to urea and formaldehyde.  For this reason, its use for this purpose is now illegal.  A good friend of mine had a close relative who was literally bedridden for several years until it was discovered that it was formaldehyde from this source that was making him sick.
  • In beauty products.  Formaldehyde is a highly effective nail hardener, but has a severe allergic response in a small fraction of those who use it.  Years ago, Revlon, not knowing of this effect, marketed a nail hardener containing formaldehyde as its active ingredient.  After the Revson brothers learned of the harm this product was causing, to their great credit, they went by train (this was pre World-war two) across the country recalling their defective product.[4]  Is this problem over?  Apparently not. The government has just issued a warning about the use of formaldehyde in hair products (Hair and nails are very similar biologically).  This is something you really should be aware of if you work in or own a beauty salon.
  • In funeral parlors.  Formaldehyde is a highly effective embalming agent.  This puts at risk not only embalmers, but medical and dental students who work with preserved body parts.  Very high exposures of formaldehyde have been documented from this source. 
  • Room deodorizers.  There are two independent means to “eliminate” odors.  First it must be understood that they do not eliminate odors.  Any compound so reactive that it reacts with the compounds making up the odor will be so reactive that they will react even more quickly with the proteins that make up our body.  Room deodorizers can mask unpleasant odors by adding a stronger more pleasant odor, and also work by deadening the nerve cells in the nasal mucosa.  The latter effect is usually achieved by high molecular weight ethers, but occasionally formaldehyde is used for the purpose.[5]  Did you ever walk into a smelly room, and fifteen minutes later not smell a thing?   This is how it happened – your nose was desensitized.

Formaldehyde exposure causes cancer.[6]  One of the remarkable things about this is we know how it does cause cancer.  Formaldehyde is a methylating agent – and in this role it is capable of adding a methyl group to a strand of DNA.  When that strand replicates, that strand can be misread and the wrong base added to the new strand, which might lessen its ability to be under control by the body.  This said, formaldehyde is allowed in the workplace for two reasons: first it is a weak carcinogen, and secondly it is a useful compound with unique properties. The thought behind the current standards for formaldehyde exposure is that maintaining formaldehyde exposures at or below the PEL (personal exposure limit) will reduce the hazard from exposure to be less than that of other hazards that we accept in the course of our daily life.  The key to using formaldehyde safely is making certain that the exposure does not exceed the PEL. 

Formaldehyde has many other interesting properties.  I’ll list a few: formaldehyde is a very small molecule – its molecular weight is less than oxygen (30 vs. 32).  Pure formaldehyde polymerizes at room temperature to form a hard material, which because it is water soluble, has no widespread commercial use.  Formaldehyde molecules have been detected in outer space – does OSHA have a PEL for astronauts?  Around 1900 in the US it was commonly added to milk as a preservative.  I could add a lot, lot more, but that has to be the subject of another blog.  It’s a pity that such an interesting compound as formaldehyde can cause cancer. 

 


[4]  Fire and Ice: The Story of Charles Revson, the Man Who Built the Revlon Empire  Andrew Tobias, 1977 

[6]  Casarett & Doull’s Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons, 6th Edition , Curtis D. Klaassen (Editor)

How Sensors Safety Badges Capture and Hold a Contaminant

Posted on by
Reply

BadgesOccasionally we are asked how our badges capture and hold a contaminant.  This is actually one of the more fascinating aspects of our work, which is finding a good adsorbent for a particular contaminant.

First, for charcoal, which is present in the majority of our badges.  Here the “secret” is what is commonly called “lock and Key”. By this it is meant that the pores in the charcoal are just slightly larger than the molecule we want to adsorb.  When this is the case the contaminant molecule will diffuse into the charcoal, where it will soon find a pore that it can snuggle into, and be held (if you were a physical chemist, you would say it was held by van derwaals forces) until it is desorbed in out laboratory.  Some compounds of interest are too small to be tightly bound by van der Waals forces, and we need “tricks” to make certain that they are retained.  Formaldehyde, for example falls into this category.  For this contaminant (and for glutaraldehyde and OPA as well) we use a glass fiber filter coated with 2,4-dinitrophenolhyderzine.  This chemical does two essential things.

First, it combines with the reactive formaldehyde molecule to form a stable, nonvolatile molecule that will remain on the filter until it is analyzed in our laboratory.  Secondly, this same formaldehyde-2,4-DNPH compound has a very strong fluorescence under UV light, making it possible to see very small quantities of this molecule in our HPLC using a fluorescence detector.

Our nitrous oxide adsorbent has a special connection with me.  One of my graduate students was one of the first, if not the first, to find that a particular type of molecular sieve had a pore size just right to attract and bind nitrous oxide.  His finding came before he was NY graduate student, so alas, I cannot claim any part of this neat discovery.

Another example – I am trying not to bore you to death with chemicals- we treat our carbon with hydrobromic acid before we place it in our badges for ethylene oxide. When sampled, the ethylene oxide is converted to 2-bromoethanol, which is stable and can be analyzed by gas chromatography.  We could give other examples.

Right now Sensors does not sell a diffusive sampler for sulfur dioxide, but we do know from reading the literature that sodium bicarbonate is an excellent adsorbent for this particular contaminant.  Stay tuned!

Shipping Formaldehyde Diffusive Samplers in Blue Ice

Posted on by
Reply

From time to time our clients ask why Sensors Safety does not require shipping its formaldehyde diffusive samplers in blue ice, which had been  an OSHA requirement for its diffusive samplers.  This appears all the more puzzling what it is realized that Sensors states in its SOP Manuel that this company has patterned its procedures after the relevant OSHA or NIOSH protocol, so that every client can be assured that he or she, in using a Sensors product, is in compliance with current Federal testing protocols .  But it is also stated in the SOP that we do make changes, but only if a better procedure is available, and that is what has occurred here.

First an explanation of why the OSHA protocol required  shipment in ice.  Usually this is because the shipped material is unstable at room temperature.  An example of this is Sensors glutaraldehyde diffusive sampler, which does require shipment in ice.  But this is not the case here.  With the formaldehyde diffusive sampler the need for shipment in ice is to reduce the background in the HPLC analysis that is carried out after the badge reached the laboratory.  It is well established that the reaction of formaldehyde with DNPH (the chemisorbent used in our diffusive sampler) produces a compound that is stable at room temperature.  In this regard, SKC found “The formaldehyde-hydrazone derivative is stable. Refrigeration is necessary to keep the background to a minimum.”  OSHA also found that the formaldehyde-DNPH adduct stores well at room temperature. Specifically it is stated in Section 1.2.6 of OSHA Analytical Method 1007 states that: “The recovery of formaldehyde from samples used in a 17-day storage test remained above 95.2, 94.6, and 95.8% when the samples were stored at 23°C for ChemDisk-ALs, UMEx 100s, and DSD-DNPHs, respectively.”

Having a low background is essential, as the diffusive sampler needs to quantify a formaldehyde exposure for which the 15 minute STEL is 2 PPM.  Sensors achieved the goal of a low analytical background through selection of materials of construction having extremely low levels of formaldehyde contamination.  After six months of storage at room temperature, our diffusive samplers have a formaldehyde buildup that is below the HPLC detection level.  This not only reduces the shipping requirements, but the longer shelf life of six months also gives our clients greater flexibility in the use of our diffusive samplers.

Shipping Exposed Sensors to the Lab

Posted on by
Reply

It is very important that exposed badges be shipped back to Sensors Lab for analysis as soon as possible.  We recommend that badge be sent back within 30 days of exposure so we may give the most accurate results to the customers.  Badges should also be put back into the plastic bag and outer foil bag to prevent contamination.

When a customer receives their badge(s), they will also receive a return envelope to send back to the lab.  It is not necessary to put the badge in this 6×9 return envelope if the customer is sending the badge in a secondary envelope (i.e. a FedEx or UPS envelope).

We encourage the customers to send back more than one badge in the same package, especially if mailing through USPS.  We have found that more times than not, if several badges are sent at the same time, but in separate envelopes, the badges are not received all at the same time.  This can be frustrating for customers.  It is best to reuse the Sensors box and send several badges together back to the lab.

Another question we often get is how much is postage?  Currently postage for one badge is $1.56.  If a postage meter is used to calculate the postage, ‘First Class Parcel’ will determine the correct postage.