Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Understanding skin absorption of common aldehyde vapours from exposure during hazardous material incidents

Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology volume 30, pages 537–546 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

The toxic release of aldehyde vapours during a hazardous material (HAZMAT) incident primarily results in respiratory concerns for the unprotected public. However, skin absorption may be an important concurrent exposure route that is poorly understood for this scenario. This study provides experimental data on the skin absorption properties of common aldehydes used in industry, including acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzaldehyde and formaldehyde, in gaseous or vapour form using an adapted in vitro technique. Two of the four tested aldehydes were found to penetrate the skin in appreciable amounts following 30-min exposure at HAZMAT relevant atmospheric concentrations: acetaldehyde (5.29 ± 3.24 µg/cm2) and formaldehyde (3.45 ± 2.58 µg/cm2). Whereas only low levels of acrolein (0.480 ± 0.417 µg/cm2) and benzaldehyde (1.46 ± 0.393 µg/cm2) skin penetration was noted. The aldehydes demonstrated differing levels of interaction with fabric. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde adsorbed strongly to denim, whereas benzaldehyde and acrolein displayed no sink properties. However, denim was shown to be an initial protective barrier and reduced penetration outcomes for all aldehydes. This study provides important information to assist first responders and confirms the relevance of using physicochemical properties (e.g. solubility, molecular weight, partition coefficient) to predict skin permeation potential in the absence of empirical data during HAZMAT incidents involving different types of aldehydes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gaskin S, Heath L, Pisaniello D, Evans R, Edwards JW, Logan M, et al. Hydrogen sulphide and phosphine interactions with human skin in vitro: application to hazardous material incident decision making for skin decontamination. Toxicol Ind Health. 2017;33:289–96.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Levitin HW, Siegelson HJ, Dickinson S, Halpern P, Haraguchi Y, Nocera A, et al. Decontamination of mass casualties—re-evaluating existing dogma. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2003;18:200–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gaskin S, Heath L, Pisaniello D, Edwards JW, Logan M, Baxter C. Dermal absorption of fumigant gases during HAZMAT incident exposure scenarios—ethyl bromide, sulfuryl fluoride, and chloropicrin. Toxicol Ind Health. 2017;33:547–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Chilcott RP. Managing mass casualties and decontamination. Environ Int. 2014;72:37–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kuykendall JR. 8.16—aldehydes A2. In: McQueen CA, editor. Comprehensive toxicology. 2nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier; 2010. p. 291–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-046884-6.00916-7.

  6. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Fatality and Catastrophe Investigation Summaries Dataset. obtained from Occupational Safety and Health Administration Fatality and Catastrophe Investigation Summaries, Washington; 2018. https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.html.

  7. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Incidents dataset obtained from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration IncidentNews Database; 2018. https://incidentnews.noaa.gov/search/date.

  8. Brandt-Rauf PW, Fallon LF, Tarantini T, Idema C, Andrews L. Health hazards of fire fighters: exposure assessment. Br J Ind Med. 1988;45:606.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Bolstad-Johnson DM, Burgess JL, Crutchfield CD, Storment S, Gerkin R, Wilson JR. Characterization of firefighter exposures during fire overhaul. AIHA J. 2000;61:636–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Caux C, O’Brien C, Viau C. Determination of firefighter exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and benzene during fire fighting using measurement of biological indicators. Appl Occup Environ Hyg. 2002;17:379–86.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Fent KW, Eisenberg J, Snawder J, Sammons D, Pleil JD, Stiegel MA, et al. Systemic exposure to PAHs and benzene in firefighters suppressing controlled structure fires. Ann Occup Hyg. 2014;58:830–45.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Edelman P, Osterloh J, Pirkle J, Caudill SP, Grainger J, Jones R, et al. Biomonitoring of chemical exposure among New York City firefighters responding to the World Trade Center fire and collapse. Environ Health Perspect. 2003;111:1906–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dellarco VL. A mutagenicity assessment of acetaldehyde. Mutat Res Rev Genet Toxicol. 1988;195:1–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Sithu SD, Srivastava S, Siddiqui MA, Vladykovskaya E, Riggs DW, Conklin DJ, et al. Exposure to acrolein by inhalation causes platelet activation. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2010;248:100–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Final report on the safety assessment of benzaldehyde 1. Int J Toxicol. 2006;25:11–27.

  16. Kim K-H, Jahan SA, Lee J-T. Exposure to formaldehyde and its potential human health hazards. J Environ Sci Health Part C. 2011;29:277–99.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gomes R, Liteplo RG, Meek ME. Acrolein: hazard characterization and exposure–response analysis. J Environ Sci Health, Part C. 2001;19:23–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lacroix M, Burckel H, Foussereau J, Grosshans E, Cavelier C, Limasset JC, et al. Irritant dermatitis from diallylglycol carbonate monomer in the optical industry. Contact Dermat. 1976;2:183–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Faroon O, Roney N, Taylor J, Ashizawa A, Lumpkin M, Plewak D. Acrolein health effects. Toxicol Ind Health. 2008;24:447–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lodén M. The in vitro permeability of human skin to benzene, ethylene glycol, formaldehyde, and n-hexane. Acta Pharmacol Toxicol. 1986;58:382–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hafeez F, Chiang A, Hui X, Maibach H. Role of partition coefficients in determining the percutaneous penetration of salicylic acid and formaldehyde under varying occlusion durations. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2014;40:1395–401.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Stotts J, Ely WJ. Induction of human skin sensitization to ethanol. J Invest Dermatol. 1977;69:219–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Wilkin JK, Fortner G. Ethnic contact urticaria to alcohol. Contact Dermat. 1985;12:118–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Sato A, Obata K, Ikeda K, Ohkoshi K, Okumura H, Ozawa N, et al. Evaluation of human skin irritation by carboxylic acids, alcohols, esters and aldehydes, with nitrocellulose-replica method and closed patch testing. Contact Dermat. 1996;34:12–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Haddock NF, Wilkin JK. Cutaneous reactions to lower aliphatic alcohols before and during disulfiram therapy. Arch Dermatol. 1982;118:157–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Barry BW, Harrison SM, Dugard PH. Vapour and liquid diffusion of model penetrants through human skin; correlation with thermodynamic activity. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1985;37:226–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Gaskin S, Pisaniello D, Edwards JW, Bromwich D, Reed S, Logan M, et al. In-vitro methods for testing dermal absorption and penetration of toxic gases. Toxicol Mech Methods. 2014;24:70–2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Heath L, Gaskin S, Pisaniello D, Crea J, Logan M, Baxter C. Skin absorption of ethylene oxide gas following exposures relevant to HAZMAT incidents. Ann Work Expo Health. 2017;61:589–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Lawrence JN. Electrical resistance and tritiated water permeability as indicators of barrier integrity of in vitro human skin. Toxicol Vitr. 1997;11:241–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Diembeck W, Beck H, Benech-Kieffer F, Courtellemont P, Dupuis J, Lovell W, et al. Test guidelines for in vitro assessment of dermal absorption and percutaneous penetration of cosmetic ingredients. Food Chem Toxicol. 1999;37:191–205.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Davies DJ, Ward RJ, Heylings JR. Multi-species assessment of electrical resistance as a skin integrity marker for in vitro percutaneous absorption studies. Toxicol Vitr. 2004;18:351–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Pisaniello D. The generation of test atmospheres for occupational hygiene laboratory evaluation of organic vapour monitoring devices report prepared for the Occupational Health and Radiation Control Branch, Occupational Health and Radiation Control Branch, South Australian Health Commission, Adelaide; 1988.

  33. Frasch FHA. Random walk model of skin permeation. Risk Anal. 2002;22:265–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Barry BW, Harrison SM, Dugard PH. Correlation of thermodynamic activity and vapour diffusion through human skin for the model compound, benzyl alcohol. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1985;37:84–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Driver J, Ross J, Mihlan G, Lunchick C, Landenberger B. Derivation of single layer clothing penetration factors from the pesticide handlers exposure database. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2007;49:125–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Chao K-P, Wang P, Chen C-P, Tang P-Y. Assessment of skin exposure to N,N-dimethylformamide and methyl ethylketone through chemical protective gloves and decontamination of gloves for reuse purposes. Sci Total Environ. 2011;409:1024–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Berthet A, Hopf NB, Miles A, Spring P, Charrière N, Garrigou A, et al. Human skin in vitro permeation of bentazon and isoproturon formulations with or without protective clothing suit. Arch Toxicol. 2014;88:77–88.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Protano C, Guidotti M, Vitali M. Performance of different work clothing types for reducing skin exposure to pesticides during open field treatment. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2009;83:115–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Dickson EFG. Estimates of percutaneous toxicity of sulfur mustard vapor suitable for use in protective equipment standards. J Toxicol Environ Health Part A. 2008;71:1382–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Heck HD, Casanova-Schmitz M, Dodd PB, Schachter EN, Witek TJ, Tosun T. Formaldehyde (CH2O) concentrations in the blood of humans and Fischer-344 rats exposed to CH2O under controlled conditions. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1985;46:1–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Casanova M, d’A. Heck H, Everitt JI, Harrington WW, Popp JA. Formaldehyde concentrations in the blood of rhesus monkeys after inhalation exposure. Food Chem Toxicol. 1988;26:715–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. European Food Safety Authority. Endogenous formaldehyde turnover in humans compared with exogenous contribution from food sources. EFSA J. 2014;12:3550.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Australian Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, and the Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office, Department of Defence, US Government under the counterterrorism funding scheme (Grant No. CB-4433).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Occupational and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia

    Leigh Thredgold, Sharyn Gaskin, Linda Heath & Dino Pisaniello

  2. Research and Scientific Branch, Queensland Fire and Emergency Services, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Michael Logan

  3. Emergency Response TIPS, LLC, Alexandria, VA, USA

    Christina Baxter

Authors
  1. Leigh Thredgold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sharyn Gaskin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Linda Heath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dino Pisaniello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael Logan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christina Baxter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sharyn Gaskin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thredgold, L., Gaskin, S., Heath, L. et al. Understanding skin absorption of common aldehyde vapours from exposure during hazardous material incidents. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 30, 537–546 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-019-0127-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-019-0127-4

Keywords:

Search

Advanced search

Quick links