Insufficient respiratory hazard identification in the safety data sheets for cleaning and disinfection products used in healthcare organisations across England and Wales

Respiratory and Other Hazard Characteristics of Substances in Cleaning Products Used in Healthcare Centres in England and Wales

Occupational use of cleaning products can cause asthma in healthcare workers but the cleaning agents responsible are not yet known. This study aimed to identify respiratory and other hazards in cleaning products on the National Health Service (NHS) supply chain online catalogue and used in the NHS. Information on cleaning products, their composition, and H-statements that identified hazard characteristics of chemical substances in them was obtained from chemical safety data sheets (SDSs). Furthermore, a quantitative structure-activity relationship model and a published asthmagen list were used to identify potential additional respiratory hazards. 473 cleaning products and 229 substances were identified. SDSs reported only 4 respiratory sensitizers but an additional 51 were suggested by the other 2 methods. In contrast, 25 respiratory irritants were identified using SDSs and only one from the asthmagen list. This comprehensive overview of cleaning agents' hazards has potential use in future risk assessment and epidemiological studies.

Inconsistent health hazard information across safety data sheets for substances in cleaning products used in healthcare centres

Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) are used to inform downstream users of any hazardous substances in chemical products and advise on how to manage the risks from using these products. It is therefore important that information on the SDS is accurate and consistent. This study investigates the accuracy and consistency of hazard information included in the SDSs of cleaning products used in the healthcare sector in England and Wales. Data on cleaning products used in the National Health Service (NHS) in England and Wales and their chemical composition and any hazard information (as H-statements) were collected from the products' SDSs obtained from the NHS supply online catalogue. By each hazard, mainly respiratory hazards, the number of hazardous substances specified as hazardous in all SDSs was identified. Moreover, we investigated hazard characteristics of substances identified by only SDS (at least one SDS) or only through Harmonised Classifications and Labeling (CLH) or by SDS and through CLH simultaneously. In total, 229 unique chemical substances were found in 473 cleaning products' SDSs. All 4 respiratory sensitisiers were identified in all SDSs and through CLH. However, only 14 of the 25 respiratory irritants (56.0 %) were consistently labelled across all SDSs. Although respiratory irritation characteristics of 3 substances were classified through CLH, it was not identified by any of the relevant SDSs. Substantially incorrect and inconsistent health hazard information for the same substances was identified across SDSs. Therefore, healthcare workers and their managers may not receive accurate information on the presence of and potential for exposure to hazardous substances in the cleaning products they are using.

Airway Diseases Related to the Use of Cleaning Agents in Occupational Settings

Exposure to disinfectants and cleaning products (DCPs) is now a well-established risk factor for work-related asthma (WRA). However, questions remain on the specific causal agents and pathophysiological mechanisms. Few studies have also reported an association between DCPs and rhinitis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This review discusses the recent evidence pertaining to airway diseases attributable to occupational exposure to DCPs. In contrast to other agents, the incidence of WRA due to DCPs has increased over time. The use of DCPs in spray form has clearly been identified as an added risk factor. The mechanisms for WRA associated with DCPs remain poorly studied; however, both allergic and nonallergic responses have been described, with irritant mechanisms thought to play a major role. An early diagnostic workup based on clinical assessment accompanied by evaluation of lung function and immunological and airway inflammatory markers is important to guide optimal care and exposure avoidance to the implicated agent. Future research should focus on the effects of "green" products, pathophysiological mechanisms, and quantitative exposure assessment including the use of barcode-based methods to identify specific agents. There is an urgent need to strengthen preventive measures and interventions to reduce the burden of airway diseases associated with DCPs.

Safety data sheets as an information pathway on hazards of occupationally used cleaning agents

To investigate consistency and accessibility of asthma and skin allergy hazard information in safety data sheets (SDSs) for cleaning agents on the Swedish market, we compiled a database of 504 SDSs and 351 therein declared ingredients. Labelling of products was compared to that of ingredients according to harmonised classification. For each ingredient, also notified classification and three additional sources on sensitising properties were compared. Product labelling most frequently indicated corrosion and irritation hazards. Only 3% of products were labelled as skin sensitisers and none as asthmagens. According to harmonised classification, 9% of products contained skin sensitisers, using other information sources increased the number to 46%. While 2% of products contained respiratory sensitisers according to harmonised classification, the number increased to 17% when using other information sources. Furthermore, sensitisers were declared across several sections of the SDSs, hampering easy access of such information. In conclusion, there are inconsistencies in hazard identification of cleaning agents and their ingredients. Hence, SDSs may not altogether fulfil its hazard information role. Improved criteria for identifying sensitisers and respiratory irritants are warranted. Additionally, we argue that all ingredients should be listed in section 3 regardless of concentration, to facilitate access of information about sensitising properties.

Update on irritant-induced occupational asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this narrative review, we aim to highlight novel research findings on both acute/subacute irritant-induced asthma (IIA) and chronic exposure IIA (also called 'low dose' IIA).

RECENT FINDINGS

Novel case series showed that acute and subacute IIA cases had similar causal agents (e.g., acid or base aerosols/fumes, dusts, mixtures) but had occurred in different circumstances (accidents vs. regular work). Acute and subacute IIA cases had similar clinical characteristics but poorer short-term outcomes than sensitizer-induced occupational asthma patients. Novel large epidemiological studies reported associations between chronic occupational exposure to irritants and current adult-onset asthma and poor asthma control, and with a specific asthma endotype characterized by neutrophilic inflammation and oxidative stress. Recent studies reconfirmed the association of the use of disinfectants and cleaning products (especially sprays) with IIA. A role for genetic susceptibility has been suggested.

SUMMARY

Recent literature provided further understanding of both acute/subacute and chronic exposure IIA, in terms of causes, possible mechanisms, and consequences such as poor asthma control. Research is needed to clarify several aspects of IIA, including its frequency (still likely underestimated), modulating factors, and mechanisms. Research aiming at improving irritant exposure assessment, including intensity/duration, and determining relevant exposure windows would be welcome.

OUP accepted manuscript

Using data from the Swedish Products Register, hosted by the Swedish Chemicals Agency (KemI), national occupational injury and disease statistics, and call records from the Swedish Poisons Information Centre (PIC) we characterize health hazards of marketed cleaning products and recorded injuries, disease, and incidents linked to cleaning or disinfection agents. The results show that cleaning agents pose many kinds of health hazards, although corrosion and irritation hazards dominate, in particular for the eyes (54% of all included products). Few products were recognized as inhalation hazards. The nature of the health hazards is reflected in the occupational disease and injury statistics and PIC records for eyes and skin but not for the respiratory tract. Among occupational disease cases attributed to cleaning or disinfection agents, 61% concern skin and 26% the respiratory tract. Among occupational injury cases 64% concern chemical burns. However, only a small part (<0.5%) of all reported diseases and injuries were explicitly attributed to cleaning or disinfection agents. On average, there were 11 cases of disease attributed to cleaning or disinfection agents per million workers and year. For occupational injuries the corresponding number was 8. The data concern a broad range of sectors and occupations, but notable sectors were healthcare, accommodation and food service, and manufacturing. Women were more likely to suffer from disease, men and women equally likely to suffer from injury. PIC cases were evenly distributed between men and women, but the clear risk cases more frequently involved men. Occupational diseases increased many-fold in 2020 while injuries decreased, which could be due to COVID-19 changing use patterns of cleaning and disinfection agents at work. We conclude that cleaning agents pose a variety of risks to a large part of the workforce, although particular attention for preventive efforts may need to be directed to the healthcare, accommodation and food service, and manufacturing sectors.