Durrns ;:Lj;:: Reparr
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Joumalof Occupationaland Envlronmcntal HyghneFor Peer Revlew Only t!A[S.gllI.- .brrnd of Oqndonat gl$[ff[** a$ Emttumandtllt3trtn Joumal of Occupatlonaland EnvlronmentalHyglene Letter to the Edltor regardlng "Alrborne exposures assoclated wlth the typlcal use of an aerosol brake cleaner durrns reparr ;:lj;:: Joumal of Oeupdonal & Envlronmental Hyglene benzeneexposure, toluene, brake cleaner, Industry funded sclstAft0N€* Manuscripts http://mcmanuscriptcentral.com/joeh; E-mail: [email protected] Page1 of9 Journalof Occupationaland EnvironmentalHygiene.For Peer Review Only 1 ,2 3 66Airborne 4 Letter to the Editor regarding exposuresassociated 5 1ryiththe typical useof an aerosolbrake cleanerduring vehicle 6 7 tepair work" 8 9 Keywords:benzene exposure, 10 toluene,brake cleaner, industry funded 11 12 ExpositionWord Count: 2102 13 14 INTRODUCTION 15 l6 17 The recently published article, Airborne exposures associated with the typical use l8 19 of an aerosol brake cleaner during vehicle repair work,o) is scientifically flawed and 20 21 misleading. ln preface, the authors do not disclose at least two important conflicts of 22 23 24 interest: l) While acknowledging that CRC Industries ("CRC") prepared the "historical" 25 26 Brakleen brake cleaner blends and paid for the field simulation, the authors didnot 27 28 mention that CRC lndustries has been a frequent defendant in benzeneexposure lawsuits 29 30 concerning ("Brakleen"), 3t its Brakleen brake cleaners and 2) lnstead ofdisclosing 32 33 specifically that one of the authors, Dr. Williams, has served as a testifying expert for 34 35 CRC in benzeneexposure lawsuits,e) the authors acknowledge only in general terms that 36 37 she is a testifring expert in benzeneexposure cases. Obviously, these facts matter and 38 39 40 should have been disclosed. The reported benzenecontent ofthe so-called "historical" 41 42 Brakleen(1.6 parts per million), said to havecontained3S% toluene, is improbably low 43 4 and almost certainly in error given the benzenecontents and other relevant properties of 45 6 47 the three commercial grades of toluene that may be purchased in bulk. Importantly, the 48 49 finding that "no detections of benzenewere found" in any sample taken during eight 50 :l ,, i exposure simulations is misleading (and unsurprising) in light of the unrealistically low 52 53 54 benzenecontent of the "historical" Brakleen that was sprayedin the simulations. ln 55 s6 respondingto my letter, the authors should addresssworn testimony given by Dr. 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/joeh;E-mail:[email protected] Journalof Occupationaland EnvironmentalHygiene-For Peer Review Only Page2 of9 1 2 3 rygilliamsthat nitrationgrade benzene (which has no ASTM specificationfor minimum 4 5. to manufacturebrake cleaner products. i p*ity or maximumbenzene content) is used 7 a NeitherALS Global (C. Amidon, personalcommunication, May 3, 2018)nor CRC 9 1o Industries(A. Selisker,personal communication, May 3, 2018)responded to inf-ormation 11 'l) requestsgennane to the preparationand analysis of "historicalBrakleen." ;; 14 (Spiked" ls Misleading BrakleenBlends t6 17 Brakleenblends B andC in the presentstudy, which CRC ostensiblyprepared by 18 10 A with benzene,had "targeted" benzene contents of )Z "spiking" the "historical" Brakleen 21 zz only 100 parts per million (ppm) and 1,000 ppm, respectively. The article thus createsthe 23 24 false impression that non-chlorinated Brakleen products in the stream of commerce 25 always contained no more than 1,000 ppm benzene(corresponding to an important :i - 28 ;; threshold concentration in benzeneexposure litigation). Becausecommercial brake 30 31 cleaning products general utilize nitration or industrial grade toluene (discussedbelow), - 32 11 their benzenecontents can be more thanl00-fold and l0-fold higher than reported in the 34 35 ;Z article for blends B and C, respectively. 37 38 Toluene and BenzeneContent of ttHistoric" Brakleen 39 The "historical" Brakleenblend A that CRC formulatedreportedly contained3S% Ii 42 ;; toluene(unclear if this is by volumeor weight). As noted,recipes for aerosolbrake 44 45 cleanersgenerally utilize "nitration grade"toluene, which containsas much as2.29%o 46 1l benzene(molar basis;.(r-sl "lndustrial grade" toluene is lesspure and contains as much as 48 49 products asnitration grade are ; . }%benzene(molar basis;.t3'6)In practice,toluene sold 51 i s2 sometimesthe less-pureindustrial grade. For instance,a recentmaterial safety data sheet 53 21 (MSDS) for nitrationgrade toluene communicates an initial boiling point of l09oc 55 56 57 58 59 [email protected] 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/joeh;E-mail: Page3 of 9 Journalof Occupationaland EnvironmentalHygiene'For Peer Review Only 1 ,2 3 (conespondingto industrialgrade toluene) and a benzenecontent of up to 2.5%(25,000 4 5 6 ppm).o The per unit volumecost of toluenevaries according to its purity grade. The 7 8 purest(99 .9%) grade of toluenethat is commerciallyavailable in bulk is TDI 9 10 Feedstock,(8)which is specifiedto containup to 300ppm benzene.Analytical grade t1 12 (costing per ppm Sincea 13 toluene $125 150ml septumbottle) contains up to 100 benzene. 14 15 20-ouncesize Brakleen aerosol is sold for lessthan five dollars,CRC would of course 16 17 find it costprohibitive to useanalytical grade toluene in its Brakleenproducts. 18 't9 Giventhe recipefor "historical" BrakleenA, CRC would havehad to usetoluene 20 21 22 that contained/ess than I ppm benzeneto accountfor the benzenecontent of BrakleenA, 23 24 asreported in the article. Simplyput, thereis no suchtoluene on the markef- not even 25 26 high pricedanalytical grade toluene sold in pint sizeamber bottles. If the authors 27 28 29 disagree,they can sayso andprovide proof in their response.Curiously, CRC did not 30 31 respondto an email in which I inquiredabout the gradeand properties of tolueneit used 32 33 to prepare"historical" Brakleenblend A. (A. Selisker,personal communication, May 3, 34 35 2018)The authors, 36 who appearto haveblindly acceptedthe analyticalresult 37 38 communicatedto them,offer no documentation(e.g., certificate of analysis,initial 39 40 boiling point,paraffin content)for the toluenegrade CRC usedin formulatingthe 41 42 "historical"Brakleen blend A. Nor do they evencomment on the issue. [n fact, the 43 4 45 authorsdo not saywhether CRC (or an outsidelab it engaged)ever conducted analytical 6 47 testingto measurethe benzenecontent of Brakleenin commerceor of the tolueneused 48 49 by CRC to manufactureit. Certainly,such measurements would havebeen useful to 50 51 52 includein the articlefor comparisonpurposes. I notethat if industrialgrade toluene 53 54 versusnitration grade toluene versus TDI feedstocktoluene versus analytical grade 55 s6 57 58 59 60 http//mc.manuscriptcentral.com/joeh;E-mail: [email protected] Journalof Occupationaland Environmental Hygiene-For Peer Review Only Page4 of9 I 2 3 toluenewere present at38o/o by volumein blendA, onewould expectto seeas much as 4 5 6 the following respectivebenzene concentrations in "historical" BrakleenA (ppm by 7 8 volume):15,200 ppm, 7,600ppm, 114ppm, and38 ppm. Thus,if the 38% of "historical" 9 't0 BrakleenA consistingof toluenewas the analyticalgrade, one would anticipate.up to 24- 11 12 fold morebenzene in blendA thanis reportedin the 13 article. 14 15 While the authorsidentified peer-reviewed NIOSH l50l asthe testused to l6 17 quantiff airborneexposures, the only referencein the articleto the unidentifiedALS 18 l9 Globaltesting method used to determinethe benzenecontents of bulk Brakleenwas that 20 21 22 it involved"gas chtomatographycoupled with a flame ionizationdetector." That is 23 24 analogousto providing a chocolatecake recipe that saysonly that one shouldbake the 25 26 cakein an oven. Basedon the foregoing,I concludeit wasunwise for the authorsto have 27 28 29 blindly reportedthe bulk benzenecontent results communicated to them. 30 31 Air SpeedMeasurements 32 33 Figure5, the authorsgraphically present air speedmeasurements made with a 34 35 36 factory-calibratedthermal anemometer (TSI VelociCalc9535) for ScenarioI (closed 37 38 baysdoors) and Scenario2 (openbay doors). .Thefigure showsthat most air speed 39 40 readingswere lessthan 30 ff/min with frequent"zero"readings and, as expected,the 41 42 43 readingswere higher overall with the bay doorsopen. The authorsseem not to believe 44 45 their own measurementsand classify as "erratic" readingsbelow 30 ff/min. They cite a 46 47 l0-year-oldAmerican Conference of Govemmentallndustrial Hygienists (ACGIH) 48 49 ventilationmanual (reference 34) to supportthe ideathat their anemometerwas 50 { 51 1' 52 unreliableat measuringlow air speeds.However, what the manufacturerTSI saysabout 53 54 the reliability of measurementsmade with its calibratedanemometer is far morerelevant 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentra l.com/joeh; E-mail: [email protected] Page5 of 9 Journalof Occupationaland Environmental Hygiene'For Peer Review Only 1 2 3 thana generalstatement in an ACGIH manual.Moreover, based on the air speeds 4 5 6 reportedin the cited Wilson,et al. study(reference 26), theauthors likely knew from the 7 8 startthat low air speedswere expected. In turn, if they questionedthe reliability of the 9 t0 TSI instrument,they had ampleoppornrnity to acquirea moreaccurate anemometer. 1l 12 26 not characte thelowmeasured air speeds(well below 30 fVmin) as t3 Reference does irze 14 15 beingindicative of "stagnant"conditions. It wasmisleading