Article | Published:

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

Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology (2019) | Download Citation

Subjects

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.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Additional information

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

References

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 4.

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

  5. 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. 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. 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. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 13.

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

  14. 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.

  15. 15.

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

  16. 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.

  17. 17.

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

  18. 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.

  19. 19.

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

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 22.

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

  23. 23.

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

  24. 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.

  25. 25.

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

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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. 33.

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

  34. 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.

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

  39. 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.

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. 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

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. Search for Leigh Thredgold in:

  2. Search for Sharyn Gaskin in:

  3. Search for Linda Heath in:

  4. Search for Dino Pisaniello in:

  5. Search for Michael Logan in:

  6. Search for Christina Baxter in:

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sharyn Gaskin.

About this article

Publication history

Received

Revised

Accepted

Published

DOI

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