1. Occupational Exposure to Metalworking Fluids Occupational Exposure to Metalworking Fluids Presented at the Occupational Hygiene Association of Ontario Spring Symposium March 28, 2007 By Lorraine Shaw, B.Sc., CIH, ROH Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory, McMaster University

2. Outline Overview Overview Types of MWF, Health Effects, Standards, Exposure Assessment Types of MWF, Health Effects, Standards, Exposure Assessment Objectives of the Study Objectives of the Study Methodology Methodology Selection of Plants, Laboratory Investigation, Field Investigation, QC and Statistics Selection of Plants, Laboratory Investigation, Field Investigation, QC and Statistics Results Results Laboratory and Field Results Laboratory and Field Results Conclusions Conclusions

3. Overview (I) Types of MWFs: Oil-based: Oil-based: – Insoluble (neat) – Soluble (30% - 85% oil) Water-based: Water-based: – Semi-synthetic (5%-30% oil) – Synthetic (no oil) Health Effects: Cancer Cancer Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis (HP) Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis (HP) Respiratory Effects Respiratory Effects Dermatitis Dermatitis

4. Overview (II) Regulations and Exposure Standards: Ontario Ministry of Labour: Oil, mineral, mist 5 mg/m 3 TWAEV, 10 mg/m 3 STEV ACGIH TLV-TWA (Mineral Oil) in 2006 notice of intended changes : Mineral Oil Used in metal working Poorly and mildly refined 0.2 mg/m 3 (Inhalable)A2 Highly and severely refined 0.2 mg/m 3 (Inhalable)A4 Proposed NIOSH REL for all types of MWF (1998): 0.5 mg/m 3 (Total) 0.4mg/m 3 (Thoracic) 0.5 mg/m 3 (Total) 0.4mg/m 3 (Thoracic) Exposure Assessment: – Sampling Devices: ie. Total, Thoracic (BGI), IOM, Direct Reading Instrument (DustTrak) – Particle size selective sampling

5. The Three Size Fractions

6. Objectives Assess and Validate Analytical Methods Assess and Validate Analytical Methods Assess Air Sampling Methods Assess Air Sampling Methods Collect Current Representative Occupational Exposure Data Collect Current Representative Occupational Exposure Data Assess Exposure Exceedance Assess Exposure Exceedance Compare Ontario Exposure with Published Data Compare Ontario Exposure with Published Data (Mainly Water-Based MWF’s)

7. Methodology Selection of 4 Plants in Ontario Laboratory Investigation Field Investigation Quality Control and Statistical Analysis

8. Laboratory Investigation NIOSH Method (0500) – Total Aerosol NIOSH 5524 – Extractable MWFs HSE Method (MDHS 95) – Marker Element Sample Recovery Detection Limits Sample Stability During Storage

9. Field Investigation Collection of Air Samples – Personal – Area Size Selective Samples – Total – Thoracic (MMAD = 10 µm) – Respirable (MMAD = 4 µm) – Inhalable (MMAD = 100 µm) – Direct Reading Instrument (DustTrak)

10. Air Sampling Devices Total Sampler IOM Inhalable Sampler BGI 2.69 Cyclone Thoracic Sampler Respicon Size-Selective Particle Sampler DustTrak Aerosol Monitor Direct Reading Instrument

11. Occupational Exposure

12. Examples of Machining Fluids

13. Examples of Finished Products

14. QC and Stats QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY CONTROL – Laboratory – Field STATISTICAL ANALYSIS STATISTICAL ANALYSIS – Excel and Minitab 13

15. Results: Laboratory Investigation Sample Recovery Sample Recovery – Our Study83.5% – NIOSH Study95 % Detection Limit Detection Limit – Our Study 35µg – NIOSH Study28 µg Storage Study (Sample Stability) Storage Study (Sample Stability) – Room Temp – NOT Stable – Refrigerator – 2 days – Freezer – 7 days

16. Results:Airborne Concentrations (mg/m 3 ) % Exceedance is based on log normal distribution ze = -log(GM/STD) / log(GSD)

17. Relationship of Total vs Thoracic

18. Conclusions (I) HSE method proved problematic Both NIOSH method 0500 or 5524 can be used preferred method is the 5524 Detection limits, sample recovery etc. were similar to NIOSH study Samples should NOT be stored at Room Temp Samples should be analyzed within 2 or 7 days depending on storage temperature

19. Ratio of Thoracic to Total aerosol is about 0.7 Range of exposures in Ontario (0.04 to 3.84 mg/m 3 ) is similar to others (NIOSH & OSHA) Percent exceedance based on data set and assumption of log normality is 38% with respect to NIOSH REL Respiratory effects reported at levels below 0.5 mg/m 3 Total Protection requires AIR, DERMAL and FLUID management Conclusions (II)

20. Thank you This research study was funded by a grant from the WSIB