DOCSLIB.ORG

Effect of Ambient Levels of Smoke and Sulphur Dioxide On

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Effect of Ambient Levels of Smoke and Sulphur Dioxide On 764 74horax 1995;50:764-768 Effect of ambient levels of smoke and sulphur dioxide on the health of a national sample of Thorax: first published as 10.1136/thx.50.7.764 on 1 July 1995. Downloaded from 23 year old subjects in 1981 Jane F Scarlett, Joanne M Griffiths, David P Strachan, H Ross Anderson Abstract episodes of air pollution could have important Background - There is concern that, des- effects on mortality and led to the Clean Air pite the fall in air pollution levels since the Act of 1956. The Clean Air Act dramatically 1950s, there may still be adverse effects at reduced emissions and ambient levels ofsmoke current levels. A study was carried out and SO2 from coal combustion.2 The as- to investigate the association between air sociation between air pollution and mortality3 pollution and respiratory symptoms in 23 and morbidity from bronchitis4 persisted in the year old subjects in 1981. 1960s, but studies from the 1970s found no Methods - Data on cough, phlegm, and association.'9 It was generally believed that air wheeze were available on 11552 members pollution had ceased to be an important public ofthe 1958 national birth cohort. Counties health problem. in the UK were ranked by annual average There has been a resurgence of concern level of black smoke and sulphur dioxide about the possible effects of pollution, espe- (SO2), and then divided into five groups. cially that from motor vehicles, which now The subject's county of residence de- produce as much particulate pollution as all termined their categorisation of pollution other sources and account for the majority of exposure. The association between air pol- oxides of nitrogen.2 Using more sophisticated lution exposure and respiratory symptoms statistical techniques for analysing time series was examined by logistic regression, ad- data, a number of studies - mainly from the justing for social class, sex, and smoking. USA but also from Europe - have dem- Results - The ranges of the air pollution onstrated effects on daily mortality, admissions, groups were 2*0-13*0, 13-1-18*7, 19*6-208, symptoms, and lung function at ambient levels http://thorax.bmj.com/ 21-0-25X8, and 26*1-551 igIm' for black below current national and international stand- smoke, and 7-0-36-4, 36-7-42*7, 430-50*5, ards.'0 In the one reported study from the UK 52*0-59*3, and 609-87*7 pg/m3 for SO2. The associations between hospital admissions and overall prevalences of cough, phlegm, smoke and S02 levels were reported within wheezing since age 16, and wheezing in current guideline levels." Concerns about the the past year were 13-3%, 10-3%, 9-4%, health effects of air pollution have also been and 44%/o, respectively. Phlegm symptoms fuelled by concern about an increase in asthma increased with increasing smoke levels and other atopic diseases. on September 24, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. with evidence of a plateau. Cough and Most evidence relates to short term effects wheeze were not associated with black of air pollution, but there is also evidence from smoke; no symptom was associated with the USA that chronic effects may occur.'2-15 SO2. In the subgroup with wheeze at ages An opportunity to study the chronic effects of 16-23 there was no effect ofsmoke level on air pollution in the UK using a cross sectional phlegm. analysis is provided by respiratory data from Mid Surrey Health Authority, West Park Conclusions - Low ambient levels ofblack the 1958 national birth cohort who were sur- Hospital, Epsom, smoke were associated with decreased pre- veyed in 1981 at the age of 23. Data about the Surrey KTl9 8PB valence ofphlegm symptoms in young ad- potential confounding factors of smoking and J F Scarlett ults in the UK in 1981. The effect was social class are also available. Although average London School of evident below the current EC guideline of levels of smoke and SO2 were higher in 1981 Hygiene and Tropical 34-51 igIm' annual black smoke. In 1991 than at present, the range of exposures at Medicine, London the annual mean WC1E 7HT smoke level for each county level overlaps with the current range J M Griffiths county ranged from 3-4 to 26 5 igIm3, span- and falls within EC guideline levels. Thus, the ning all but the last exposure group used results will be of relevance to the present day Department of Public here. This is consistent with the existence situation. Health Sciences, St George's Hospital of adverse and possibly chronic effects at Medical School, current levels. London SW17 ORE (Thorax 1995;50:764-768) D P Strachan Methods H R Anderson Keywords: phlegm, air pollution, smoke. STUDY SUBJECTS AND HEALTH DATA Reprints will not be The study used information from 11 552 sub- available. jects aged 23 years who were interviewed in Received 2 June 1994 1981 as part of the National Childhood De- Returned to authors 11 August 1994 The London smog of 1952, associated with velopment Survey (NCDS, a cohort of people Revised version received very high levels of sulphur dioxide (SO2) and born between 3 and 9 March 1958). Subjects 27 February 1995 Accepted for publication black smoke, is known to have caused around were asked two questions on asthma/wheezy 11 April 1995 4000 deaths.' This showed convincingly that bronchitis: (1) have you suffered from asthma Air pollution effects on health of 23 year olds 765 or wheezy bronchitis since your 16th birthday? monitors within the county. Counties were then (2) have you suffered from asthma or wheezy ranked by their mean pollution levels and ar- bronchitis in the past 12 months?; two ques- ranged into five exposure groups with as near tions on cough: (1) do you usually cough first equal numbers of subjects in each group as Thorax: first published as 10.1136/thx.50.7.764 on 1 July 1995. Downloaded from thing in the morning in winter? (2) do you possible. usually cough during the day or night during Analyses of the effect of county pollution the winter?; two questions on phlegm: (1) do levels on county sympLom prevalences could you usually bring up phlegm first thing in the not be carried out for several reasons. Firstly, morning in winter? (2) do you usually bring allocating individual pollution measures to each up phlegm during the day or night during subject leads to an analysis ofthe effect ofliving winter?; and three questions on smoking: (1) in each county rather than an analysis of the have you ever smoked a cigarette, a cigar or a effect of exposure to ambient pollution levels. pipe? (2) do you smoke cigarettes at all now- By using exposure groups people from different adays? (3) have you ever smoked cigarettes counties are in the same group, and thus the regularly? effects of potential confounding factors such as Subjects were classed as having cough symp- climate or geographical location are reduced. toms ifthey answered yes to either ofthe cough Secondly, allocating the mean county value as questions and as having phlegm symptoms if a measure of pollution exposure implies a de- they answered yes to either of the phlegm gree ofprecision in the exposure estimate which questions. Smokers were classified as "cur- does not exist. It is more certain that, within rent", "ex"l, "experimental", or "never". Ex- exposure group 1, despite individual variation smokers were those who used to smoke regu- in exposure, individuals have greater exposure larly whilst experimental smokers had smoked to pollution than those within group 2. Thirdly, but not regularly. Subjects were grouped into simple correlations between the prevalences of classes I and II, IIINM, IIIM, IV and V using symptoms by county and the mean pollution the Registrar General's classification of social levels were inappropriate because some coun- class. The most detailed geographical in- ties had few subjects (<10), and thus symptom formation available was subjects' counties of prevalences were either zero or large. Grouping residence. Only subjects with complete data subjects into five groups meant all available on all relevant factors were included in each information could be included in the analysis. analysis which has led to different de- Smoke and SO2 were ranked and grouped nominators for each analysis. separately, hence subjects may be in a different exposure group for each of the two pollutants. A combined smoke and S02 level for the 50 POLLUTION DATA counties with both measurements was cal- http://thorax.bmj.com/ Pollution data were obtained from the Air Pol- culated by ranking counties by their smoke lution Division of Warren Spring Laboratory levels and SO2 levels, and adding the ranks. and consisted ofthe annual mean, median, and The odds ratio ofeach ofthe four respiratory 98th percentile measurements for smoke and symptoms was computed using logistic re- SO2 for all monitoring sites active in 1981. gression models within which the potential con- Black smoke was measured using the British founding factors of smoking, social class, and Standard reflectance method and SO2 using sex were included. In the first instance a test peroxide samplers.2 Monitoring stations were for homogeneity across the pollution groups on September 24, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. excluded if values were missing for more than was performed, and this was followed by a test 14 daily measurements in the year, or for seven for trend where there was some evidence of a consecutive days. In addition, monitoring sta- trend on inspection. The trend analyses used tions at purely industrial sites were excluded the median value of pollution in each exposure as these may not reflect the air pollution ex- group as a covariate.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wildland Firefighter Smoke Exposure
    ❑ United States Department of Agriculture Wildland Firefighter Smoke Exposure EST SERVIC FOR E Forest National Technology & 1351 1803 October 2013 D E E P R A U RTMENT OF AGRICULT Service Development Program 5100—Fire Management Wildland Firefighter Smoke Exposure By George Broyles Fire Project Leader Information contained in this document has been developed for the guidance of employees of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, its contractors, and cooperating Federal and State agencies. The USDA Forest Service assumes no responsibility for the interpretation or use of this information by other than its own employees. The use of trade, firm, or corporation names is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official evaluation, conclusion, recommendation, endorsement, or approval of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildfire Smoke and Your Health When Smoke Levels Are High, Even Healthy People May Have Symptoms Or Health Problems
    PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION http://Public.Health.Oregon.gov Wildfire Smoke and Your Health When smoke levels are high, even healthy people may have symptoms or health problems. The best thing to do is to limit your exposure to smoke. Depending on your situation, a combination of the strategies below may work best and give you the most protection from wildfire smoke. The more you do to limit your exposure to wildfire smoke, the more you’ll reduce your chances of having health effects. Keep indoor air as clean as possible. Keep windows and doors closed. Use a Listen to your body high- efficiency particulate air (HEPA) and contact your filter to reduce indoor air pollution. healthcare provider Avoid smoking tobacco, using or 911 if you are wood-burning stoves or fireplaces, burning candles, experiencing health incenses or vacuuming. symptoms. If you have to spend time outside when the Drink plenty air quality is hazardous: of water. Do not rely on paper or dust masks for protection. N95 masks properly worn may offer Reduce the some protection. amount of time spent in the smoky area. Reduce the amount of time spent outdoors. Avoid vigorous Stay informed: outdoor activities. The Oregon Smoke blog has information about air quality in your community: oregonsmoke.blogspot.com 1 Frequently asked questions about wildfire smoke and public health Wildfire smoke Q: Why is wildfire smoke bad for my health? A: Wildfire smoke is a mixture of gases and fine particles from burning trees and other plant material. The gases and fine particles can be dangerous if inhaled.
    [Show full text]
  • Determination of Ammonia in Tobacco Smoke
    Application Note 1054 Note Application Determination of Ammonia in Tobacco Smoke Lipika Basumallick and Jeffrey Rohrer Thermo Fisher Scientific, Sunnyvale, CA, USA Key Words Ion Chromatography, Freebasing Nicotine, Dionex IonPac CS19 Column, Cigarette Goal To develop an IC method that can determine ammonia in tobacco smoke and is not subject to interference from small amines Introduction Ammonia (0.01–0.6%) occurs naturally in cured tobacco leaves and is now being used as an additive to enhance flavor and increase the amount of free nicotine in cigarette smoke. This practice is called freebasing of nicotine.1,2 Typically, the freebased amount equates to 0.2–10 mg ammonia per gram of tobacco or 7–200 μg and 320–450 μg ammonia per gram of smoked tobacco in mainstream and sidestream smoke, respectively (Figure 1).3 Sidestream Smoke Mainstream Smoke Ammonia is listed as a respiratory toxicant. This list Figure 1. Main- and sidestream smoke from a cigarette. was published in the Federal Register to announce that beginning June 22, 2012, the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act would require tobacco product manufacturers to On June 23, 2009, the U.S. Congress passed the Tobacco submit a list and quantify the constituents (including Control Act that granted the U.S. Food and Drug smoke constituents) identified by the FDA as harmful or Administration (FDA) authority to regulate the potentially harmful to health in each of their tobacco manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products.4 Hence, there is a need for a robust and sensitive products to protect public health. In January 2011, the analytical method for quantifying ammonia in tobacco FDA established a list of harmful and potentially harmful products and smoke.
    [Show full text]
  • Multidisciplinary Design Project Engineering Dictionary Version 0.0.2
    Multidisciplinary Design Project Engineering Dictionary Version 0.0.2 February 15, 2006 . DRAFT Cambridge-MIT Institute Multidisciplinary Design Project This Dictionary/Glossary of Engineering terms has been compiled to compliment the work developed as part of the Multi-disciplinary Design Project (MDP), which is a programme to develop teaching material and kits to aid the running of mechtronics projects in Universities and Schools. The project is being carried out with support from the Cambridge-MIT Institute undergraduate teaching programe. For more information about the project please visit the MDP website at http://www-mdp.eng.cam.ac.uk or contact Dr. Peter Long Prof. Alex Slocum Cambridge University Engineering Department Massachusetts Institute of Technology Trumpington Street, 77 Massachusetts Ave. Cambridge. Cambridge MA 02139-4307 CB2 1PZ. USA e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected] tel: +44 (0) 1223 332779 tel: +1 617 253 0012 For information about the CMI initiative please see Cambridge-MIT Institute website :- http://www.cambridge-mit.org CMI CMI, University of Cambridge Massachusetts Institute of Technology 10 Miller’s Yard, 77 Massachusetts Ave. Mill Lane, Cambridge MA 02139-4307 Cambridge. CB2 1RQ. USA tel: +44 (0) 1223 327207 tel. +1 617 253 7732 fax: +44 (0) 1223 765891 fax. +1 617 258 8539 . DRAFT 2 CMI-MDP Programme 1 Introduction This dictionary/glossary has not been developed as a definative work but as a useful reference book for engi- neering students to search when looking for the meaning of a word/phrase. It has been compiled from a number of existing glossaries together with a number of local additions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fire and Smoke Model Evaluation Experiment—A Plan for Integrated, Large Fire–Atmosphere Field Campaigns
    atmosphere Review The Fire and Smoke Model Evaluation Experiment—A Plan for Integrated, Large Fire–Atmosphere Field Campaigns Susan Prichard 1,*, N. Sim Larkin 2, Roger Ottmar 2, Nancy H.F. French 3 , Kirk Baker 4, Tim Brown 5, Craig Clements 6 , Matt Dickinson 7, Andrew Hudak 8 , Adam Kochanski 9, Rod Linn 10, Yongqiang Liu 11, Brian Potter 2, William Mell 2 , Danielle Tanzer 3, Shawn Urbanski 12 and Adam Watts 5 1 University of Washington School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, Box 352100, Seattle, WA 98195-2100, USA 2 US Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory, Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98103, USA; [email protected] (N.S.L.); [email protected] (R.O.); [email protected] (B.P.); [email protected] (W.M.) 3 Michigan Technological University, 3600 Green Court, Suite 100, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, USA; [email protected] (N.H.F.F.); [email protected] (D.T.) 4 US Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Durham, NC 27709, USA; [email protected] 5 Desert Research Institute, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, NV 89512, USA; [email protected] (T.B.); [email protected] (A.W.) 6 San José State University Department of Meteorology and Climate Science, One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192-0104, USA; [email protected] 7 US Forest Service Northern Research Station, 359 Main Rd., Delaware, OH 43015, USA; [email protected] 8 US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Moscow Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 1221 S Main St., Moscow, ID 83843, USA; [email protected] 9 Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Utah, 135 S 1460 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0110, USA; [email protected] 10 Los Alamos National Laboratory, P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Smoke Production in Fires
    VTT RESEARCH NOTES 1708 VTT-T\EX)--ro8 Leena Sarvaranta & Matti Kokkala Smoke production in fires DECEIVED NOV 2 5 1396 OS Tt MASTER DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT 18 UNLMfTH) VTT TECHNICAL RESEARCH CENTRE OF FINLAND ESPOO 1995 V'lT TltiDOlTElTA - MtiUDtiLAJNUtiM - KfcSfcAKVH INUlto 1/U6 Smoke production in fires Leena Sarvaranta & Matti Kokkala VTT Building Technology ■tyTT TECHNICAL RESEARCH CENTRE OF FINLAND ESPOO 1995 ISSN 1235-0605 Copyright © Valtion teknillinen tutkimuskeskus (VTT) 1995 JULKAISIJA - UTGIVARE - PUBLISHER Valtion teknillinen tutkimuskeskus (VTT), Vuorimiehentie 5, PL 2000, 02044 VTT puh. vaihde (90) 4561, telekopio (90) 456 4374 Statens tekniska forskningscentral (VTT), Bergsmansvagen 5, PB 2000, 02044 VTT tel. vaxel (90) 4561, telefax (90) 456 4374 Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT), Vuorimiehentie 5, P.O.Box 2000, FIN-02044 VTT, Finland phone internal. + 358 0 4561, telefax + 358 0 456 4374 VTT Rakennustekniikka, Rakennusfysiikka, talo-ja palotekniikka, Kivimiehentie 4, PL 1803, 02044 VTT puh. vaihde (90) 4561, telekopio (90) 456 4815 VTT Byggnadsteknik, Byggnadsfysik, hus- och brandteknik, Stenkarlsvagen 4, PB 1803, 02044 VTT tel. vaxel (90) 4561, telefax (90) 456 4815 VTT Building Technology, Building Physics, Building Services and Fire Technology, Kivimiehentie 4, P.O.Box 1803, FIN-02044 VTT, Finland phone internal. + 358 0 4561, telefax + 358 0 456 4815 Technical editing Kerttu Tirronen VTT OFFSETPAINO, ESPOO 1995 DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document Sarvaranta, Leena & Kokkala, Matti. Smoke production in fires. Espoo 1995, Technical Research Centre of Finland, VTT Tiedotteita - Meddelanden - Research Notes 1708. 32 p.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildfire Smoke Wildfires Are Becoming Larger and More Frequent in the United States and Canada, in Part Due to the Influence of Climate Change
    Wildfire Smoke Wildfires are becoming larger and more frequent in the United States and Canada, in part due to the influence of climate change. Not only are we seeing hazier skies in Minnesota, we’re experiencing more unhealthy air from wildfire smoke. Breathing wildfire smoke can make anyone sick, but some people are at greater risk than others of experiencing health-related problems like heart and lung disease. All Minnesotans need to take steps to decrease the risks from breathing wildfire smoke and protect health. How can wildfire smoke impact Who's Most At-Risk? health? Some populations may experience more severe acute Wildfire smoke is a mix of gases and fine particulate and chronic symptoms from exposure to wildfire smoke matter from burning vegetation and materials. The including: pollutant of most concern from wildfire smoke is fine ▪ Children: Their lungs are still developing and particulate matter (PM 2.5). PM 2.5 from wildfire smoke there is a greater likelihood of increased is damaging to human health because it has the ability to exposure to wildfire smoke because of more deeply penetrate lung tissue and even affect the heart time spent outdoors, engaging in more and circulatory system. vigorous activity and inhaling more air per Wildfire smoke can make anyone sick. Breathing wildfire pound of body weight compared to adults. smoke can have immediate health impacts, including ▪ Older adults: Adults older than 60 can be at a respiratory and cardiovascular effects. Particle pollution higher risk of harmful effects from wildfire may also affect the body’s ability to remove inhaled smoke due to the frequency of pre-existing foreign materials, such as viruses and bacteria, from the respiratory and heart conditions, as well as a lungs.
    [Show full text]
  • Deaths Associated with Fires Caused by Cigarettes
    NCIS DATABASE SEARCH DEATHS ASSOCIATED WITH FIRES CAUSED BY CIGARETTES Between 1 June 2000 – 30 June 2006 Report produced for NSW Fire Brigades Compiled by: Marde Hoy and Stephen Morton National Coroners Information System October 2006 Version no. 1.5 Authorship Details Marde Hoy and Stephen Morton National Coroners Information System NCIS Disclaimer This data set does not purport to be representative of all deaths associated with fires caused by cigarettes notified to a Coroner within the specified time period. Due to occasional coding errors, some missing data, and some cases not being closed it is possible that there are relevant deaths not included in this data set. Accordingly, there is a possibility of under-reporting. 2 AIMS The purpose of this report was to provide quantitative and qualitative data to the NSW Fire Brigades on the number and nature of deaths associated with fires caused by cigarettes contained on the National Coroners Information System (NCIS). METHODOLOGY Data Source The data was obtained through conducting a search of the National Coroners Information System (NCIS). The NCIS is a world first electronic database of coronial information containing case detail information from the coronial files of all Australian states and territories, except Queensland, dating back to 1 July 2000. Queensland data is contained from 1 January 2001. Authorised users of the NCIS are able to access the database on-line at www.ncis.org.au. Data is then entered into the jurisdiction’s Local Case Management System (LCMS) and uploaded to the NCIS within 24 hours of a death being reported. As the circumstances of the death can change as more information is gathered during the investigation, the NCIS contains fields relating to information received when the death is first reported, referred to as “notification” as well as when the death investigation has been completed, referred to as “completion”.
    [Show full text]
  • Chlorine Safety for Swimming Pool Operators
    Chlorine Safety for Swimming Pool Operators Chlorine is an effective and economical antibacterial strong oxidizer that is used to destroy and deactivate a wide range of and corrosive to bacteria and viruses in homes, hospitals, swimming tissue. Contact pools, hotels, restaurants and other public places. with solid calcium hypochlorite will Chlorine used in pool operations is supplied in cause irritation three forms: to eyes and • Sodium hypochlorite—a liquid that in dilute skin. Duration form is commonly known as bleach of exposure and • Calcium hypochlorite—a powder or tablet concentration • Chlorine—a gas supplied in 150-lb. cylinders of the solution Due to the inherent hazards of using any of these will determine compounds containing chlorine, swimming pool the severity of the resulting burns. Dust of calcium operators should be trained in the safe use, handling hypochlorite can be inhaled, which will irritate the and storage of these chemicals. This training should nose and throat. Higher exposures will result in include a discussion of the hazards, emergency response symptoms similar to breathing chlorine gas. procedures, first aid and pool chemical safety rules. Additional hazard—All three of these compounds are strong oxidizers. They are not explosive or flammable Hazards of Pool-Chlorinating Chemicals by themselves, but they will support and increase Chlorine—The health effects of chlorine are primarily combustion. They also have the potential to react due to its corrosive properties. The strong oxidizing violently with organic materials, such as oil and grease effects of chlorine cause hydrogen to split from water from air compressors, valves and pumps or wood and in moist tissue, resulting in the formation of hydrogen rags from maintenance work, resulting in fire.
    [Show full text]
  • Chlorine Dioxide
    Common Name: CHLORINE DIOXIDE CAS Number: 10049-04-4 DOT Number: NA 9191 (Hydrate, frozen) DOT Hazard Class: FORBIDDEN (Not Hydrate) RTK Substance number: 0368 5.1 (Oxidizer) Date: June 1998 Revision: December 2005 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- HAZARD SUMMARY * Chlorine Dioxide can affect you when breathed in. * Exposure to hazardous substances should be routinely * Contact can irritate the skin and eyes causing watery eyes evaluated. This may include collecting personal and area and seeing halos around the lights. air samples. You can obtain copies of sampling results * Breathing Chlorine Dioxide can irritate the nose and from your employer. You have a legal right to this throat causing coughing and wheezing. information under the OSHA Access to Employee * Breathing Chlorine Dioxide can irritate the lungs causing Exposure and Medical Records Standard (29 CFR coughing and/or shortness of breath. Higher exposures 1910.1020). can cause a build-up of fluid in the lungs (pulmonary * If you think you are experiencing any work-related health edema), a medical emergency, with severe shortness of problems, see a doctor trained to recognize occupational breath. diseases. Take this Fact Sheet with you. * Chlorine Dioxide is a HIGHLY FLAMMABLE and * ODOR THRESHOLD = 0.1 ppm. REACTIVE gas and a DANGEROUS FIRE and * The range of accepted odor threshold values is quite EXPLOSION HAZARD. broad. Caution should be used in relying on odor alone as * DOT regulations FORBID the transport of Chlorine a warning of potentially hazardous exposures. Dioxide in Not Hydrate form. WORKPLACE EXPOSURE LIMITS IDENTIFICATION OSHA: The legal airborne permissible exposure limit Chlorine Dioxide is a yellow to red gas with an irritating odor (PEL) is 0.1 ppm averaged over an 8-hour similar to Chlorine.
    [Show full text]
  • Chemical Safety Alert: Safe Storage and Handling of Swimming Pool
    United States Office of Solid Waste EPA 550-F-01-003 Environmental Protection and Emergency Response March 2001 Agency (5104A) www.epa.gov/ceppo/ Safe Storage and Handling of Swimming Pool Chemicals The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing this Alert as part of its ongoing effort to protect human health and the environment by preventing chemical accidents. We are striving to learn the causes and contributing factors associated with chemical accidents and to prevent their recurrence. Major chemical accidents cannot be prevented solely through regulatory requirements. Rather, understanding the fundamental root causes, widely disseminating the lessons learned, and integrating these lessons learned into safe operations are also required. EPA publishes Alerts to increase awareness of possible hazards. It is important that facilities, State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs), Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs), emergency responders, and others review this information and take appropriate steps to minimize risk. This document does not substitute for EPA’s regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. It cannot and does not impose legally binding requirements on EPA, states, or the regulated community, and the measures it describes may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. This guidance does not represent final agency action and may change in the future, as appropriate. packaged in “breathable” containers to Problem avoid pressure buildup while in storage. A partial listing of pool chemicals includes Pool chemicals may become a hazard when chlorinated isocyanurates, lithium they become wetted by a small quantity of hypochlorite, sodium bicarbonate, water or when they are improperly mixed, potassium monopersulfate, hydrogen such as with other chemicals or reactive peroxide, sodium hypochlorite, calcium materials.
    [Show full text]
  • Fire Chief Dies 10 Days After Exposure to Toxic Gases and Smoke
    )$&( ,19(67,*$7,215(3257 Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation Project FACE #96-NJ-060-01 Fire Chief Dies 10 Days After Exposure to Toxic Gases and Smoke New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services Occupational Disease and Injury Services P.O. Box 360 Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0360 (609) 984-1863 TO: Division of Safety Research National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Morgantown, West Virginia 26505 FROM: Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation (FACE) Project New Jersey Department of Health & Senior Services (NJDHSS) SUBJECT: Face Investigation #96-NJ-060-01 Fire Chief Dies 10 Days After Exposure to Toxic Gases and Smoke DATE: March 25, 1997 SUMMARY On August 14, 1996, a 59-year-old deputy fire chief was critically injured and two other fire officers received minor injuries after inhaling toxic gases at a fire scene. The incident occurred at a fast food restaurant when a fire broke out in the hamburger broiler. Spreading into the hood and exhaust ductwork above the broiler, the fire quickly spread to the roof of the building where it was drawn into the roof top air conditioning system. The heat apparently burst the air conditioner’s cooling coils, releasing Freon gas into the fire that thermally decomposed into acid and phosgene gases. The toxic gases were drawn into the building and mixed with the smoke and other fire gases until the fire fighters began to ventilate the building and extinguish the fire. This pushed the smoke and gases out the rear of the building, surrounding the fire chief who was standing outside near the back door.
    [Show full text]