Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Niven, K. J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Spencer, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Niven, K. J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Spencer, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Ann. occup. Hyg., Vol. 41, No. 6, pp. 691-698, 1997
© 1997 British Occupational Hygiene Society
Published by Oxford University Press

research-article

ESTIMATION OF EXPOSURE FROM SPILLED GLUTARALDEHYDE SOLUTIONS IN A HOSPITAL SETTING

Karen J. M. Niven*, John W. Cherrie{dagger} and Jonathan Spencer*

*Tayside Occupational Health and Safety Service (TOHSS) 1 Edward Street, Dundee, DD1 5NS, U.K.
{dagger}University of Aberdeen and IOM 8 Roxburgh Place, Edinburgh EH8 9SU, U.K.

Glutaraldehyde is commonly used in hospitals for cold disinfection of instruments which may be damaged by autoclaving. The increased use of automatic washer/disinfection machines has resulted in a greater risk of spills than with manual methods. A series of experiments was conducted to answer two related research questions: what was the likely range of airborne concentrations when glutaraldehyde is spilled, and are commonly used personal protective equipment ensembles effective and practicable in use? Objective measurements using three sampling methods (two pumped methods based on OSHA 64, one using treated filters and the other based on adsorbent tubes, and a Glutaraldemeter direct reading instrument) were conducted with spills of various surface areas of both 2 and 50% solutions of glutaraldehyde. Results ranged between < 0.01 and 1.4 ppm. Two personal protective equipment ensembles were tested. One was based on a half-facepiece respirator with gas-tight goggles, while the other comprised a fullfacepiece cartridge respirator. Both ensembles gave adequate protection against irritation, although in use the half-facepiece respirator and goggles tended to interfere with each other. The direct reading instrument generally underestimated the glutaraldehyde concentrations, although there was a significant association with the results obtained using the method based on adsorbent tubes © 1997 British Occupational Hygiene Society. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Indoor and Built EnvironmentHome page
E. Glumbakaite, Z. Zymantiene, V. Seskauskas, G. Smolianskiene, and V. Jurkuvenas
Quality of the Air and Health Assessment of the Medical Staff Handling Disinfection Chemicals in Lithuanian Hospitals
Indoor and Built Environment, February 1, 2003; 12(1-2): 105 - 111.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.