A field study on clinical signs and symptoms in cleaners at floor polish removal and application in a Swedish hospital

Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Aim

To study health effects in hospital cleaners (N = 21) at floor polish removal and application.

Methods

The cleaners were investigated before exposure (Monday = day 1), after polish removal work (day 2), and after application of floor polish (day 3). Ratings of symptoms, tear-film break-up-time (BUT), nasal patency and biomarkers in nasal lavage were studied.

Results

There was a significant increase both day 2 and day 3, as compared to pre-exposure, in ocular, nasal, throat symptoms, solvent smell, dyspnoea, and general symptoms such as headache and fatigue. Posterior nasal patency was decreased day 2 (p < 0.01) and day 3 (p < 0.01). No change of nasal biomarkers (ECP, MPO, lysozyme, albumin) was seen. BUT was decreased after polish removal (p < 0.01), but not after polish application. Separate test of the weekday effect in non-exposed showed slight improvements, or no change of symptoms or clinical signs from Monday to Wednesday. Air concentrations of ethylene glycol monoethyl ether, ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, diethylene glycol monoethyl ether, dipropylene glycol monomethyl ether, diethylene glycol monoethyl ether and ethylene glycol phenyl ether 103, 666, 13,650, 7,000, 67, and 27 μg/m3, respectively, at polish application. Glycol ether levels were reduced to 3% after 2 days and 0.3% after 17 days.

Conclusions

Emissions from a common water-based polish remover and floor polish system may cause ocular and airway irritation and general symptoms, and reduce tear-film stability and nasal patency. The levels of glycol ethers had a rapid decay.

Keywords

Floor polish Glycol ethers Clinical methods Respiratory symptoms Biomarkers 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Institution of Clinical Chemistry, Medical Faculty, Uppsala University for analysis of biomarkers in nasal lavage and Professor Per Venge, Head of the institution. This study was supported by grants from The Swedish Council for Worklife Research.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Andersson K, Hallgren C, Levin JO, Nilsson CA (1981) Chemosorbtion sampling and analysis of formaldehyde in air; influence on recovery during simultaneous sampling of formaldehyde, phenol, furfural alcohol. Scand J Work Environ Health 7:282–289Google Scholar
  2. Anonymous (1993) National Swedish Board of Occupational Safety and Health, Ventilation and quality of air, AFS 1993:5, Stockholm (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  3. Anonymous (2005) National Swedish Board of Occupational Safety and Health, Occupational hygienic limit values. AFS 2005:17, Stockholm (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  4. Anundi H, Langworth S, Johanson G et al (2000) Air and biological monitoring of solvent exposure during graffiti removal. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 8:561–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. English JS, Rycroft RJ (1989) Occupational sensitization to ethylenediamine in a floor polish remover. Contact Dermatitis 20:220–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ernstgard L, Löf A, Wieslander G et al (2007) Acute effects of some volatile compounds emitted from water-based paints. J Occup Environ Med 49:880–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Falk A, Löf A, Hagberg et al (1991) Human exposure to 3-carene by inhalation: toxicokinetics, effects on pulmonary function and occurrence of irritation and CNS symptoms. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 110:198–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jessen M, Malm L (1997) Definition, prevalence and development of nasal obstruction. Allergy 52(Suppl 40):3–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kjellberg A, Landström U, Löfstedt P et al (1988) Estimation of noise and annoyance in working environments. Arbete och Hälsa 1988:30Google Scholar
  10. Kogevinas M, Marie JM, Sunyer J (1999) Occupational asthma in Europe and other industrialized areas: a population based study. Lancet 353:1750–1754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Laitinen J, Liesuvouri J, Harvima R (2006) Evaluation of exposure to 1-alkoxy-2-propanols and 1-(2-methoxy-1-methylethoxy)-2-propanol by the analysis of the parent compounds in urine. Toxicol Lett 162:186–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Malmberg B, Leandersson P, Nilsson A, Flodin U (2000) Powdering floor polish and mucous membrane irritation in secondary school pupils. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 73:498–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Medina-Ramon M, Zock JP, Kogevinas M et al (2004) Asthma symptoms in women employed in domestic cleaning: a community based study. Thorax 58:950–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Medina-Ramon M, Zock JP, Kogevinas M et al (2005) Asthma, chronic bronchitis, and exposure to irritant agents in occupational domestic cleaning: a nested case-control study. Occup Environ Med 62:98–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nihlen A, Wålinder R, Löf A, Johansson G (1998) Experimental exposure to methyl tertiarybutyl ether II. Acute effects in humans. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 148:281–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Norbäck D, Wieslander G (2002) Biomarkers and chemosensory irritations. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 75:298–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Norbäck D, Wieslander G, Edling C, Johanson G (1995a) House painters’ exposure to glycols and glycol ethers from water based paints. Occup Hyg 2:111–117Google Scholar
  18. Norbäck D, Wieslander G, Ström G, Edling C (1995b) Exposure to volatile organic compounds of microbial origin (MVOC) during indoor application of water-based paints. Indoor Air 5:166–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Peterson CGB, Enander I, Nystrand J et al (1991) Radioimmunoassay of human eosinophilic cationic protein (ECP) by an improved method. Establishment of normal levels in serum and turnover in vivo. Clin Exp Allergol 21:561–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schmekel B, Karlsson SE, Linden K et al (1990) Myeloperoxidase in human lung lavage marker of local neutrophil activity. Inflammation 14:447–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ulmer HV, Janz U, Löllgren H (1977) Aspects of the validity of Borg’s scale, is it measuring stress or strain? In: Borg G (ed) Physical work and effort. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 181–196Google Scholar
  22. Venge P, Hällgren R, Stålenheim G, Olsson I (1979) Effects of serum and cations on the selective release of granular proteins from human neutrophils during phagocytosis. Scand J Haematol 22:317–326Google Scholar
  23. Walinder R, Norbäck D, Wieslander G et al (1999) Nasal patency and lavage biomarkers in relation to settled dust and cleaning routines in schools. Scand J Work Environ Health 25:137–143Google Scholar
  24. Walinder R, Norbäck D, Wieslander G et al (2000) Influence of personal factors on nasal patency and lavage biomarkers in white-collar workers. Rhinology 38:130–135Google Scholar
  25. Wieslander G, Norbäck D, Edling C (1994) Occupational exposure to water based paint and symptoms from the skin and eyes. Occup Environ Med 51:181–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wieslander G, Norbäck D, Nordström K et al (1999) Nasal and ocular symptoms, tear film stability and biomarkers in nasal lavage, in relation to building design in hospitals. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 72:451–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wieslander G, Lindgren T, Norbäck D (2000) Changes of ocular and nasal signs and symptoms of aircrew, in relation to the ban of smoking on intercontinental flights. Scand J Work Environ Health 26:514–522Google Scholar
  28. Wolkoff P, Schneider T, Kildesö J et al (1998) Risk in cleaning: chemical and physical exposure. The Sci Tot Environ 215:135–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. World Health Organization (WHO) Regional office for Europe. (1987) Air quality guidelines for Europe. WHO Regional Publications, European Series No 23, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  30. Wyon D (1992) Sick buildings and the experimental approach. Environ Technol 3:313–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wyon NM, Wyon DP (1987) Measurement of acute response to draught in the eye. Acta Ophthal 65:385–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zock JP (2005) World at work: cleaners. Occup Environ Med 62:581–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zock JP, Kogevinas M, Sunyer J et al (2001) Spanish working group of the European Community Respiratory Health Survey. Asthma risk, cleaning activities and use of specific cleaning products among Spainsh indoor cleaners. Scand J Work Environ Health 27:76–81Google Scholar
  34. Zock JP, Kogevinas M, Sunyer J et al (2002) For the European Community Respiratory Health Survey. Asthma characteristics in cleaning workers, workers in other risk jobs and office workers. Eur Respir J 20:679–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zock JP, Plana E, Jarvis D, Antó JM, Kromhout H, Kennedy SM, Künzli N, Villani S, Olivieri M, Torén K, Radon K, Sunyer J, Dahlman-Hoglund A, Norbäck D, Kogevinas M (2007) The use of household cleaning sprays and adult asthma: an international longitudinal study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 176:735–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Uppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations