M. Goodman et al., Epidemiologic study of pulmonary obstruction in workers occupationally exposed to ethyl and methyl cyanoacrylate, J TOX E H A, 59(3), 2000, pp. 135-163
Citations number
38
Categorie Soggetti
Environment/Ecology,"Pharmacology & Toxicology
Journal title
JOURNAL OF TOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH-PART A
The association between pulmonary obstruction (e.g., asthma) and occupation
al exposure to methyl cyanoacrylate (MCA) and ethyl cyanoacrylate (ECA) was
examined in an occupational cohort of 450 persons at an adhesive productio
n facility in Puerto Rico. Employee medical records containing information
on physical examinations and pulmonary function tests (PFTs), as well as oc
cupational histories, on each employee over a period of about 17 yr and ind
ustrial hygiene measurements were evaluated. The cohort analysis was based
on a Cox proportional hazards model. Workers exposed to ECA or MCA were com
pared to workers unexposed to these chemicals with respect to their risk of
becoming an "incident case." An "incident case" was defined as any person
whose PFTs were normal at the time of employment, but later demonstrated an
obstructive pattern, which was defined as a decline in the ratio of forced
expiratory volume exhaled in 1 s to forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC) below
70%. A separate case-control analysis was also conducted that compared "su
spected cases," defined as all those whose PFTs ever demonstrated an obstru
ctive pattern (e.g., asthma), to persons whose PFTs remained within normal
limits throughout their employment with respect to their past peak and cumu
lative exposures to cyanoacrylates. All of these analyses showed no evidenc
e that exposure to average short-term concentrations of ECA or MCA of ft ss
than 0.5 ppm and occasional daily peak exposures of at least 1.5 ppm (usua
lly 10 min or less), with occasional higher concentrations during spills, w
ere associated with an increased risk of pulmonary obstruction. However, th
e study suggested that persons occupationally exposed to cyanoacrylates wer
e more likely to have some reversible eye or upper airway irritation than p
ersons who were unexposed.