zone concentrations of biphenyl were below the limit of detection (i.e., <0.02 ppm), butylobiphenyl concentrations ranged from 0.12 to 0.29 ppm, and HMDI concentrations ranged from 0.7 to 4.5 μg/m³ for coater and assistant coater operators. On the basis of the medical questionnaire data obtained during the investigation, the authors concluded that some workers may have had pulmonary problems related to past diisocyanate exposure. This investigation is one of several that document CCP-attributable health effects at a CCP manufacturing facility.
Bennett and Chrostek 1986. At the request of the management of the Defense Industrial Supply Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, NIOSH evaluated possible excess cancer deaths and respiratory problems encountered among workers [Bennett and Chrostek 1986]. Measurements were taken for carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, temperature, relative humidity, organic vapors, and airborne dust. Samples were taken of insulation, solvent cleaners, and CCP used at the facility. The amount of outside air being introduced into the building was occasionally in the low range—such that headaches and complaints of respiratory and mucous membrane problems could develop, even though concentrations of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide were within safe limits. In addition, the building was overcrowded. The authors concluded that hazards were posed by inadequate ventilation, high temperatures, and low humidity. The authors recommended improvements in ventilation and the use of impermeable gloves when using solvents. However, they made no statements or recommendations about the use of CCP—other than the possibility of formaldehyde release.
Chovil et al. 1986. Chovil et al. [1986] reported cases of eye irritation, sinusitis, dermatitis, and psychological manifestations associated with an outbreak of a building-related illness at a U.S. university. As part of a building expansion program in August 1983, the student advisement office was relocated to a renovated area on another floor. Shortly after the move, the nine-member staff began complaining of skin and mucous membrane irritation. The presence of asbestos increased staff concern over their symptoms. Medical histories were taken and clinical examinations were performed. Air flow in the ventilation system was evaluated. Seven staff members reported symptoms that they believed were work related. All claimed that their symptoms occurred when they were in the file storage area or when they handled the files.
Air-flow measurements indicated that any noxious agent originating from the files would tend to stay localized in the filing area instead of being dispersed throughout the work area. An inquiry revealed that the university had changed suppliers of advisement forms composed of CCP in April 1983. The authors suggest that the outbreak was due to low-level environmental pollution, probably originating from the CCP in the forms. Reported symptoms may have been exacerbated by the fear of asbestos. In all but one case, symptoms were mild. The worker who exhibited severe symptoms restricted contact with CCP and had no recurrence. The authors added that informal inquiries revealed at least two workers in other departments who had symptoms of mucous membrane irritation during periods of peak usage of these forms (at the beginning of each semester). A followup 8 months later revealed that the staff members were no longer complaining about symptoms—in spite of the fact that previous recommendations for improving the ventilation and for reducing CCP handling had not been implemented.
Shehade et al. 1987. In the United Kingdom, Shehade et al. [1987] identified a case of allergic contact dermatitis associated with exposure to CVL in CCP. Skin-patch tests were
