Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
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 ISI Web of Science
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 arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (15)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by SIMPSON, A. T.
Right arrow Articles by CROOK, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by SIMPSON, A. T.
Right arrow Articles by CROOK, B.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Ann. occup. Hyg., Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 17-30, 2003
© 2003 British Occupational Hygiene Society
Published by Oxford University Press

Occupational Exposure to Metalworking Fluid Mist and Sump Fluid Contaminants

A. T. SIMPSON1, M. STEAR2,*, J. A. GROVES1, M. PINEY3, S. D. BRADLEY1, S. STAGG1 and B. CROOK1

1 Health and Safety Laboratory, Broad Lane, Sheffield S3 7HQ; 2 Health & Safety Executive, Magdalen House, Stanley Precinct, Bootle, Merseyside L20 3QY; 3 Health & Safety Executive, Haswell House, 54 Nicholas Street, Worcester WR1 1UW, UK

Received 30 April 2002; in final form 23 September 2002

This paper summarizes the analytical and occupational hygiene findings from a recent survey of occupational exposure to metalworking fluids (MWFs) in the engineering industry. The aim of the survey was to link MWF mist exposure measurements with particular engineering processes and controls, and utilize the data obtained to develop exposure standards. At the same time the opportunity was taken to assess fluid management and control, including bacterial and fines contamination in the machine sumps. In general, occupational exposure to mineral oil MWF mist was controlled to <3 mg/m3 (8 h time-weighted average) and to <1 mg/m3 for water-mix MWF mist (in terms of the concentrate). These exposure values do not necessarily represent best practice, but are believed to be achievable and representative of industry as a whole. Gravimetric analysis of the total inhalable particulate was found to be a good predictor of mineral oil MWF mist but not for water-mix MWF mist. Grinding and drilling operations produced higher exposures than turning and milling for water-mix fluids. There were insufficient data to compare machining operations for mineral oil MWFs. On the whole, fluid management was found to be poor, with most sites failing to meet industry good practice or Health & Safety Executive (HSE) standards. Some of the operating procedures utilized were deficient or unsatisfactory. Poor standards of fluid management were found at all sizes of company. High levels of bacteria, endotoxin and fines were found in sumps, and control of other factors, such as water-mix fluid concentration, was often poor. Mineral oils had higher levels of fines than water-mix fluids (medians of 395 and 18 mg/l, respectively), and grinding produced high levels of fines in both types of MWF. Many water-mix sumps contained bacterial levels of >1 x 106 CFU/ml, and endotoxin levels of >100 000 EU/ml were not uncommon. The median values were 109 000 CFU/ml and 8039 EU/ml, respectively. Mists could potentially contain extensive contamination from bacteria and endotoxin. Analysis of the data suggests that sumps operating under typical conditions for machining (a temperature of 20°C, a pH of 9 and a fluid strength below 10%), also appear to provide optimum conditions for the proliferation of bacteria. Low levels of benzo[a]pyrene (median 0.03 µg/g) were found in the mineral oils, and low levels of N-nitrosodiethanolamine (median 0.4 µg/ml) were found in the water-mix MWFs. The results of this work will contribute to guidance from the HSE, setting out accepted industry good practice, including guide values for MWF mist and sump fluid contaminants, with significant emphasis on sump fluid management (maintenance and monitoring), as well as control issues.

Keywords: oil mist; bacteria; cutting fluid; endotoxin; nitrosamines; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons


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
Occup Med (Lond)Home page
P. Dawkins, A. Robertson, W. Robertson, V. Moore, J. Reynolds, G. Langman, E. Robinson, J. Harris-Roberts, B. Crook, and S. Burge
An outbreak of extrinsic alveolitis at a car engine plant
Occup. Med., December 1, 2006; 56(8): 559 - 565.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ANN OCCUP HYGHome page
P. C. RAYNOR, S. W. KIM, and M. BHATTACHARYA
Mist Generation from Metalworking Fluids Formulated Using Vegetable Oils
Ann. Hyg., June 1, 2005; 49(4): 283 - 293.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ANN OCCUP HYGHome page
M. ROFF, D. A. BAGON, H. CHAMBERS, E. M. DILWORTH, and N. WARREN
Dermal Exposure to Electroplating Fluids and Metalworking Fluids in the UK
Ann. Hyg., April 1, 2004; 48(3): 209 - 217.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Toxicol SciHome page
Y. Kuroda, J. Akaogi, D. C. Nacionales, S. C. Wasdo, N. J. Szabo, W. H. Reeves, and M. Satoh
Distinctive Patterns of Autoimmune Response Induced by Different Types of Mineral Oil
Toxicol. Sci., April 1, 2004; 78(2): 222 - 228.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [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.