xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001914310
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 071022s2007 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001975
Ethyl methacrylate and methyl methacrylate exposure among fingernail sculptors
h [electronic resource] /
by Adam Marty.
[Tampa, Fla.] :
b University of South Florida,
ABSTRACT: Fingernail sculptors may be exposed to ethyl methacrylate and methyl methacrylate in their workplace. The literature suggests that these chemicals may cause sensitization in individuals who are exposed to sufficient quantities. Cases of occupational asthma and allergic contact dermatitis have been reported among persons who work with these chemicals. Little personal exposure data exists on nail technicians' exposures to these chemicals, especially ethyl methacrylate. The literature suggests that the industrial hygiene practices used for methyl methacrylate also be applied to ethyl methacrylate since more is known about methyl methacrylate. Previous exposure studies have revealed relatively low exposures to these chemical. There are no U.S. occupational exposure limits for ethyl methacrylate. The objectives of this study were to measure nail sculptors' exposure to ethyl methacrylate and/or methyl methacrylate vapors in their personal breathing zone, describe the interior lay-out of the nail salon in relation to where the chemical vapors were generated, and quantify the volume of air supplied by the HVAC. This study was designed to further characterize and quantify nail technicians' exposures to ethyl methacrylate and methyl methacrylate. Two nail salons were identified as study sites. A total of five fingernail sculptors volunteered to participate. Personal sampling pumps and activated charcoal media were used to collect organic vapors in the personal breathing zones of the participants. The samples were collected for an entire work shift and analyzed by gas chromatography with dual flame ionization detection, per a modified OSHA 7 Protocol. The 8-hour time weighted averages ranged from < 1 31 parts per million of ethyl methacrylate and < 1 5.2 parts per million methyl methacrylate. These levels were similar to those already reported in the literature. These levels were below any U.S. occupational exposure level in place or suggested.Local exhaust ventilation appeared to make a difference, as did natural ventilation. The results of this study strongly suggested that methyl methacrylate was used at one salon despite a ban on its use in nail products.
Thesis (M.S.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 80 pages.
Advisor: Steve P. Mlynarek, Ph.D.
x Public Health
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
Ethyl Methacrylate and Methyl Methacryl ate Exposure among Fingernail Sculptors by Adam Marty A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Public Health Department of Environmental and Occupational Health College of Public Health University of South Florida Major Professor: Stev en P. Mlynarek, Ph.D. Member: Yehia Y. Hammad, Sc.D. Member: Eugene Szonntagh, Ph.D. Date of Approval: April 5, 2007 Keywords: acrylic nails, artificial nails, nails salons, co smetologists, ventilation Copyright 2007, Adam Marty
Dedication This thesis is dedicated to my parents, Phillip and Marianne Marty, with love. You have always believed in me, pushed me to succeed, and supported me in all my scholastic endeavors and I truly thank you both.
Acknowledgments First and foremost I would like to thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my committee members Dr. Steve Mlynarek, Dr. Yehia Hammad, and Dr. Eugene Szonntagh for guiding me through this lengthy process. I would also like to tha nk them and Dr. Thomas Bernard for providing me with an outstanding experience, quality e ducation, and for always taking the time to answer any questions I had. I would like to thank the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health for providing the funds to cover the costs of my education and living expenses. I would also like to thank the Am erican tax payers whose taxes paid for my NIOSH funding. I would like to thank the Wisconsin Occupational Health Laboratory for helping me select an appropriate anal ytical method, for providing me with extra information, and for providing outstanding serv ice. Additionally, I would like to thank my schoolmate Lt. Scott Dunn for being there wh en we felt like we were in the trenches. We were not called the A Team for nothing!!
i Table of Contents List of Tables iii List of Figures iv Abstract v Introduction 1 Purpose 2 Literature Review 4 Toxicology 5 Health Effects Associated with Exposure 6 Background 12 Related Studies 13 Study Design 17 Methods 19 Task Analysis 19 Salon Lay-Out 19 Ventilation Assessment 19 Sampling Strategy 20 Sample Analysis 21 Results 23 Task Analysis 23 Salon Lay-Out 28 Ventilation Assessment 32 Analytical Results 33 Discussion and Conclusion 37 Discussion 38 Conclusion 42 Recommendations for Future Research 43 References Cited 45 Bibliography 49
ii Table of Contents (Continued) Appendices 50 Appendix A: OSHA Method 7 51 Appendix B: Desorption/QC development spreadsheet 61 Appendix C: Ventilation assessm ents for both nail salons 65 Appendix D: Pump calibration information 66 Appendix E: Analytical La boratory Reports and COCs 69
iii List of Tables Table 1 Allergic contact dermatitis studies associated with EMA and MMA exposure 8 Table 2 Occupational asthma studie s associated with MMA exposure 11 Table 3 Previous studies of nail technicians exposures to EMA 16 Table 4 Task analysis for the application of a full set of artificial nails 25 Table 5 Task analysis for a fill-in of artificial nails 26 Table 6 Estimate of the total time spen t working with the liquid monomer 27 Table 7 Ventilation assessment for nail salon 1 33 Table 8 Summary of personal sample and calibration information 34 Table 9 Summary of personal expos ures to MMA and EMA 34
iv List of Figures Figure 1 Interior layout of nail salon 1 30 Figure 2 Interior lay-out of nail salon 2 31
v Ethyl Methacrylate and Methyl Methacryl ate Exposure among Fingernail Sculptors Adam Marty ABSTRACT Fingernail sculptors may be exposed to ethyl methacr ylate and methyl methacrylate in their workplace. The literature suggests th at these chemicals may cause sensitization in individuals who are exposed to sufficient quantities. Cases of o ccupational asthma and allergic contact dermatitis have been reported among persons who work with these chemicals. Little personal exposure data ex ists on nail technician s exposures to these chemicals, especially ethyl methacrylate. The literature suggests that the industrial hygiene practices used for met hyl methacrylate also be ap plied to ethyl methacrylate since more is known about methyl methacry late. Previous exposure studies have revealed relatively low exposures to these chemical. There are no U.S. occupational exposure limits for ethyl methacrylate. The objectives of this study were to measure nail sculptors exposure to ethyl methacrylate and/or methyl methacrylate vapors in their personal breathing zone, describe the interior lay-out of the nail salon in relation to where the chemical vapors were generated, and quantify the volume of air supplied by the HVAC. This study was designed to further characterize and quantif y nail technicians exposures to ethyl methacrylate and methyl methacrylate.
vi Two nail salons were identified as study sites. A total of five fingernail sculptors volunteered to participate. Personal sampling pumps and activated charcoal media were used to collect organic vapors in the persona l breathing zones of the participants. The samples were collected for an entire work shift and analyzed by ga s chromatography with dual flame ionization detection, pe r a modified OSHA 7 Protocol. The 8-hour time weighted averages ranged from < 1 31 parts per million of ethyl methacrylate and <1 5.2 parts per million me thyl methacrylate. These levels were similar to those already reported in the literature. These levels were below any U.S. occupational exposure level in place or suggested Local exhaust ventilation appeared to make a difference, as did natural ventilation. The results of this study strongly suggested that methyl methacrylate was used at one sa lon despite a ban on its use in nail products.
1 INTRODUCTION Nail technicians may be exposed to the chemicals ethyl me thacrylate (EMA) and/or methyl methacrylate (MMA) duri ng the application of acrylic liquid used in the sculpting of artificial nails. Acrylates are a class of chemicals that include methacrylates, both EMA and MMA (Bisesi, 2001). The various acrylate monomers generally exist in a liquid form. These monomers can undergo pol ymerization to form products that range from hard, solid plastics to emulsion polymers (Bisesi, 2001). Methac rylates are used in surgical organ repair, contact eye lenses, surgical and dental cement, artificial nail products, and for other applications (Bisesi, 2001). Nail technician s exposures to EMA and/or MMA may lead to the development of skin and respiratory disorders (Thorne, 2001). These disorders may lead to decrea sed quality of life and may even be life threatening. Unfortunately, little informa tion exists on nail technicians personal exposure to these chemicals and even less in formation exists on the prevalence of the disorders associated with chronic exposur e. This study was designed to further characterize and quantify nail techni cians exposure to EMA and MMA. Two nail salons were selected based on convenience. Volunteer nail technicians were equipped with air sampling media to measure the amounts of EMA and/or MMA in their personal breathing zone (PBZ). A ta sk analysis of each na il technicians work activity was performed. The nail salons dimensions and lay-out, including positions of the manicure tables, any windows and exits and the heating, ventilating, and air
2 conditioning systems (HVAC) diffusers and returns were measured and drawn. The salons HVAC system was also assessed to dete rmine the air flow within the salon. This information will add substantially to the limited information that exists on this topic. Chronic exposures to EMA and MMA can lead to serious health problems. Little personal exposure data exists on nail technician s exposures to these chemicals. Because previous studies have not included some of the objectives contained in this study, this research was unique. The research did have its limitations. The study design only provided a snapshot of the data collected on one day. The information captured only applied to the conditions encountered on the day the exposure assessment was performed. It may not apply to other nail salons and it may not predict othe r nail technicians exposures. However, the research desi gn did provide needed information on nail technicians exposures to EMA and MMA and under what conditions these exposures occurred. This study therefore provided a valuable source of information that furthers the previous research on this topic. Purpose The purpose of this research was to quantify nail technicians exposures to EMA and MMA vapors and characterize th e conditions under which these exposures occurred. Specifically, the objectives of this research were: 1. To quantify and describe nail technician s exposures to EMA and MMA vapors; a. The concentration of EMA and/or MMA vapors breathed by nail technicians was determined. b. The number of clients seen on th e day of sampling was determined. c. The duration of the nail technicians work shift was determined. d. The percentage of the time spent work ing with the liquid methacrylate was determined.
3 2. To describe the interior la y-out of the nail salon in relation to where the chemical vapors were generated; a. The interior dimensions of the nail salons were measured and the interior volumes were determined. b. The locations of the manicure tables we re determined in relation to windows, exits, and heating, ventilating, a nd air conditioning (HVAC) diffusers and returns. 3. To quantify the volume of air supplied by the nail salons HVAC system; a. The number of air change s per hour was determined. b. The HVAC system was qualitatively a ssessed for evidence of fresh air introduction.
4 LITERATURE REVIEW MMA,C5H8O2, has a molecular weight of 100.13, a boiling point of 101 C, a relative vapor density (Air = 1) of 3.45, and a vapor pressure of 40 mm Hg at 25 C (Bisesi, 2001). MMA has an odor threshold of less than 0.4 parts per m illion (ppm) (ACGIH, 2001) and is immediately dangerous to life a nd health (IDLH) at a concentration of 1000 ppm and above (NIOSH, 2005). The odor th reshold and IDLH for EMA were not available. EMA, C6H10O2, has a molecular weight of 114.14, a boiling point of 117 C, a relative vapor density (Air = 1) of 3.94 (Bis esi, 2001), and a vapor pressure of 21 mm Hg at 20 C (Haz Map, 2007). EMA, on the molecular level, has only one CH2 group more than the MMA molecule. Because the EMA molecule is slight ly heavier, the chemi cal has an increased boiling point, vapor density, and a decreased vapor pressu re. Both chemicals are monomers and rapidly polymerize (Bisesi, 2001). Nail technicians working in nail salons may be exposed to EMA and/or MMA monomers during the application of acrylic liquid for the scul pting of artificial nails. Exposure may result from physical contact betw een the chemical and the skin or through inhalation of the chemical vapors. Persons exposed to these chemicals may develop irritation at the site of exposure. Persons exposed to these chem icals may also develop an immune mediated response in the organs exposed resulting in organ sensitization (Thorne, 2001). Sufficient skin contact may cause dermal sensitization resulting in a
5 condition known as allergic contact derma titis (Thorne, 2001). Sufficient inhalation of the vapors may cause an immune mediated asthmatic response known as occupational asthma (Thorne, 2001). The signs associated with these conditions usually subside when the exposure is removed (Thorne, 2001). These conditions can be serious since sensitized individuals may ha ve reactions to even the most minute amounts of these chemicals (Thorne, 2001). Prior to 1975, MMA was used as the primary monomer in the liquid acrylic (Jackson, 1999). The Food and Drug Administration subsequently banned MMA for use in nail products due to reports of several cases of severe allergic contact dermatitis associated with its use (Fisher and Bara n, 1991). Some literature suggests MMA may still be used due to its re latively inexpensive price, $20-$60/gallon compared to EMA at approximately $200/gallon, as well as a lack of regulatory overs ight (Jones, 2003). Toxicology EMA and MMA can cause health pr oblems when persons are exposed to sufficient amounts of these chemicals. The main routes of exposure are by direct skin contact and through inhalation of the chemicals vapors (B isesi, 2001). Both chemicals are irritating to the skin, eyes, and mucus membranes (Bises i, 2001). Both can cause allergic contact dermatitis (Bisesi, 2001; Kanerva et al, 1992; Kanerva et al 1997, Van Der Walle et al 1982; Cond-Salazar et al 1986; Cond-Salazar et al 1988) and persons sensitized to one acrylate may show cross-se nsitization to other acrylates (Fisher, 1980). Cases of occupational asthma have been associated with exposure to MMA vapors (Lozewicz et al 1985; Pickering et al 1986; Marez et al 1993; Piirila et al 1998; Jedrychowski,
6 1982); some cases have also been asso ciated with EMA exposure (Spencer et al 1997; NIOSH, 1999; Estill et al 2000). The National Institutes of Health lists both chemicals as respiratory sensitizers (Haz-Map, 2004). The literature surrounding the allergic potential of MMA and EMA is controversial, as highlighted in The sensitization potential of methyl methacr ylate and ethyl methacrylate (Jackson, 1999), Hazards of ethyl methacrylate (Estill et al 2000), Response (Jackson, 2000), and the Amended final report on the safety assessment of ethyl methacrylate (Cosmetic Ingredient Review, 2002), although it seems more so for EMA. These issues are discussed further. Health Effects Associated with Exposure The literature suggests that both EM A and MMA are dermal sensitizers; although the extent to which has been deba ted. Allergic contact dermatit is (ACD) is a condition that results from repeated exposures to cer tain chemicals (Mathias, 1994). ACD is characterized by inflammation and redness of th e skin that frequently is seen in areas distal from the initial site of exposure (Mathias, 1994). The development of ACD is preceded by repeated exposures that immunol ogically sensitize the worker (Mathias, 1994). The actual condition does not manifest itself until after the individual is sensitized. Once sensitized, the worker may show symptoms of ACD to very low levels of the offending chemical hours to days af ter the exposure (Mathias, 1994). Symptoms may decrease with cessation of the exposure; however, in certain individuals symptoms may persist for longer periods of time (Mathias, 1994). Several studies have documented de rmal sensitization to these chemicals in an occupational setting (See Table 1). Ten y ears of patch testing with (meth)acrylates
7 (Kenerva et al 1997) revealed that between 6.5 % 8.2 % of persons patch tested with 2 % MMA reacted positively and between 4.8 % 1 0.1 % of persons patch tested with 2 % EMA reacted positively. Cond-Salazar et al (1986) reported that a 17-year-old woman who had been working with artificial nails de veloped dermatitis after 3 months. She was subsequently patch tested with a variety of compounds including EMA and MMA monomers. Both concentra tions of the compounds were 10 % in petroleum. EMA yielded a + result after 48 hours and a + result after 96 hours. MMA yielded a + result after 48 hours and a ++ result afte r 96 hours; however, it was unclear what a + or ++ result meant in this report. ACD has also been reported among car mechanics and car assembly workers who worked with acrylic sealan ts (Cond-Salazar et al 1988). Patch tests of six workers revealed dermal sensitivity to EMA and MMA, 83 % of cases and 50 % of cases respectively. Kanerva et al (1992) also reported ACD in an orthodontist. Patch testing with 2 % EMA and 2 % MMA resulted in abundant redness and swelling on the six day reading. The sensitizing potential of EMA and MMA has also been examined in a guinea pig model using the guinea pig maximization test (GPMT). In that report, Van Der Walle et al (1982) reported that approximately 20 % 30 % of guinea pigs tested could be sensiti zed to MMA and approximately 10 % could be sensitized to EMA. Additionally, the doc umentation for the American Conference of Governmental Hygienists (ACGIH) Threshol d Limit Value (TLV) for MMA also called it a potent skin sensitizer (ACGIH, 2001). The evidence clearly shows that both EMA and MMA can cause allergic contact dermatitis.
8 Table 1: Allergic contact dermatitis studi es associated with EMA and MMA exposure Study Study description MMA Concentration MMA Results EMA Concentration EMA Results Kanerva et al 1997 Patch test of 275 patients with a history of exposure to (meth)acrylates 2% w/w petroleum 7.4 % of 271 tested 2% w/w petroleum 7.4 % of 243 tested CondSalazar et al 1986 Patch test of a nail technician who presented with dermatitis 10% in petroleum + after 48 hrs ++ after 96 hrs 20 controls 10% in petroleum + after 48 hrs + after 96 hrs 20 controls CondSalazar et al 1988 Patch test of 6 patients who presented with dermatitis and also worked with acrylic sealants 10% in petroleum Patient 1 Patient 2 Patient 3 Patient 4 + Patient 5 ++ Patient 6 ++ 20 controls 10% in petroleum Patient 1 Patient 2 + Patient 3 ++ Patient 4 ++ Patient 5 + Patient 6 ++ 20 controls Kanerva et al 1992 Orthodontist suspected of developing occupational pharyngitis. Patch testing revealed dermal sensitivity to EMA and MMA 2% w/w petroleum 3+ 3 indicates abundant redness and swelling 2% w/w petroleum 3+ 3 indicates abundant redness and swelling Van der Walle et al 1982 Guinea pig sensitization to (meth)acrylates using the guinea pig maximization test (GPMT) and/or the Freund's complete adjuvant test (FCAT) Varied GPMT = 20% 30% of animals sensitized FCAT = 25% of animals sensitized Varied GPMT = 10% of animals sensitized FCAT = 33% of animals sensitized
9 EMA and MMA can cause ACD; however, the degree to which each is a dermal sensitizer has been debated. It has been suggest ed that part of this debate could originate from how the studies have reported their findings; percentages have been used, descriptors such as weak or potent have been used, and symbols such as + have been used. The problems seem to arise when the resu lts are interpreted across the studies. It is difficult to compare a ++ result to a result described as potent. Furthermore, the exposure strategies used in patch tests may not be typical of the e xposures encountered in a work setting. Occupational asthma, sometimes referred to as allergic occupational asthma, is a condition that results because of an increased response of the airways in the lungs to irritants encountered in the work environm ent (Demeter, 1990). Asthma, in general, costs the American public billions of dollars each year (Sipkoff, 2006). It is estimated that approximately 5 25 percent of newly diagnosed asthma cases fall within the occupational asthma definition (Sipkoff, 2006). In workers with occupational asthma, the worker is usually sensitized over a period of time to the offending irritant with no adverse reaction (Demeter and Cordasco, 1994). On ce the worker is sensitized, the airway response is triggered through an immune me diated pathway (Demeter and Cordasco, 1994). Occupational asthma is also charac terized by decreasing symptoms with time away from the work environment (Demeter and Cordasco, 1994). Workers with occupational asthma must have their exposures reduced since even the smallest exposures can elicit a life threatening asthma attack in which breathing can become very difficult (Sipkoff, 2006).
10 Several studies have documented occ upational asthma associated with exposures to MMA in an occupational setting (See Table 2); however, little information exists on the association between EMA exposure a nd occupational asthma. Piiril et al (1998) reported respiratory hypersensit ivity to acrylates in dental personnel. One patient was inhalation challenge tested with MMA, result ing in a decreased forc ed expiratory volume (FEV1) in one second of 6 % and a decreased pe ak expiratory flow (PEF) of 20 %. Marez et al (1993) studied workers exposed to MMA. Pre-shift and post-shift lung function tests were performed. Although postshift/pre-shift ratios for forced vital capacity (FVC), FEV1, and FEV1/FVC were not statistically significant, they did find statistical significance in the post-shift/pre-shift ratios fo r maximum expiratory flow when 50 % of the FVC remained (MEF50) and the MEF50/MEF ratio, p = 0.04 and p = 0.01 respectively. In this study, MEF50 and MEF50/MEF may have been a more sensitive indicator for obstruction in the smaller ai rways of the lung (Bau m and Wolinsky, 1983). Pickering et al (1986) documented occupational asthma in an orthopedic operating theater worker. Inhalation challenge testi ng with MMA resulted in a 25 % decrease in FEV1 13 hours after the challenge. Lozewicz et al (1985) reported a dent al assistant with occupational asthma. Inhalation challenge testing with MMA provoked a similar 24 % reduction in PEF in two challenge tests c onducted one week apar t. Lung obstruction syndrome, a general condition that includes oc cupational asthma, has also been reported by Jedrychowski (1982) in workers exposed to styrene and MMA; however, the study did not isolate the effects of either compound. The evidence clearly shows that MMA can cause occupational asthma.
11 Table 2: Occupational asthma studi es associated with MMA exposure Study Study description Study findings Piiril et al 1998 Goal of the study was to report respiratory hypersensitivity in dental personnel to acrylates. Flowvolume spirometry, skin-prick, and inhalation challenge tests were performed. A dental nurse was symptomatic of occupational asthma. Challenge test with liquid MMA reduced Max FEV1 by 6% and PEF by 20%. Skin-prick test was negative for MMA. Marez et al 1993 Study of 40 workers exposed to MMA for more than 5 yrs and 45 controls. Questionnaires were administered for sample selection and flow-volume spirometry was measured before and after shift. No statistically significant findings for before shift observed/predicted spirometric measurements among the exposed group and controls. There was statistical significance in after shift/before shift ratios for MEF50 and MEF50/MEF in the exposed group, p=0.04 and p=0.01, respectively. Pickering et al 1986 A case report of an orthopedic operating theater worker who developed work related asthmatic symptoms. Inhalation challenge tests were performed using water as a control and MMA. Flowvolume spirometry was subsequently performed Lung function tests were normal when the worker was not working. Lung function tests were normal after inhalation challenge with water. Lung function tests were abnormal starting 6 hrs after inhalation challenge with MMA. FEV1 was reduced 25% 13 hrs after the challenge. Lozewicz et al 1985 Case report of a dental assistant who mixed liquid MMA with powdered polyMMA on a regular basis. Experienced chest tightness, dyspnoea, and cough after working with MMA for several yrs. Underwent two inhalation challenges with MMA one week apart. Lung function tests were performed after each challenge. No formal control test was made. First inhalation test provoked a 24% reduction in PEF. Second test provoked similar results. PEF measurements between the two tests showed little variation (<10%) except upon waking in the morning. Jedrychowski, 1982 Study assessed the prevalence of lung obstruction syndrome in 454 workers exposed to styrene and MMA and 683 controls. Included area air monitoring, interviews on health status, and lung function tests. Study found the prevalence of lung obstruction was: non-smokers or ex-smokers = 13.6% of controls and 42.4% of exposed current smokers = 21.0% of controls and 46.5% of exposed. Study did not isolate the effects of either compound
12 Background Nail technicians and their customer s breathing zones are often within 2 feet of where the liquid acrylic is applied. The li quid is volatile and va por inhalation is a concern (Sandmeyer and Kirwin, 1981). The ap plication of liquid acrylic usually does not take place in the proximity of local e xhaust ventilation. Nail technicians have the potential to be exposed to gr eater amounts of the chemical wh en applying several sets of artificial nails throughout the workday and es pecially when more than one nail set is being applied in the same room. Only the monomer forms of EMA and MMA are a health concern and they quickly react to form polymers (Spencer et al 1997). When industrial hygiene sampling is performed, personal exposures are converted to an eighthour workday, time weighted average (8-hr TWA) since most occupational exposure limits are based on this average (Klonne, 2003). This calculation takes into account shorter or longer workdays and assumes a 40 hour work week (Klonne, 2003). The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have established a Recommended Exposure Limit (REL) and a Permissible Exposure Li mit (PEL) of 100 ppm 8-hr TWA for MMA, respectively. The American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists has recommended a Threshold Limit Value of 50 ppm 8-hr TWA; however, no established United Statess occupational exposure lim its (OELs) exist for EMA (NIOSH, 2005). Pattys Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, 3rd revised ed., has recommended that the same criteria used to evaluate MMA also be applied to EMA due to their chemical similarity (Sandmeyer and Kirwin, 1981) The Netherlandss government has
13 recommended an OEL of 10 ppm 8-hr TWA; Sw eden and the former Soviet Union have established an OEL of 11 ppm 8-hr TWA fo r EMA. However, this recommendation does not appear to be based on any human epidem iological evidence as they noted that very limited human data was available (Health Council of the Netherlands, 1994). Nail technicians may work with MMA or EMA during the application of artificial nails. There are typically three scenarios in which the chemicals are used: during application of a full set of artificial nails, duri ng a fill-in of a previously applied set of nails, or during the repair of a broken artificial nail. The time that the nail technician may work with the chemicals varies according to procedure being done with a full set generally taking the most time and a repair the least. Related Studies The literature suggests that availa ble data on EMA toxicology and EMA exposure is limited and controversial (J ackson, 1999). Lowenstein (2006) suggests that a combination of circumstances contributes to the lack of information on the topic. Roelofs (2006) suggests that small businesses, like nail salons, are not well characterized. This could be because most nail salons have less than ten employees and are not required to maintain OSHA injury and illness reco rds (OSHA, 2000 revised) In a self-report survey, Roelofs (2006) reported that 31% of nail techs reported resp iratory irritation, 18% reported breathing difficulty, and 30% reported that these symptoms declined away from work. Roelofs (2006) also reported that 79% of nail techs reported an irritating smell at work.
14 The goal of this research was to fu rther characterize nail t echnicians exposures to EMA and/or MMA vapors via inhalation. K nowing the extent of nail technicians exposures to EMA and/or MMA was importa nt because there were approximately 43,800 licensed, active nail specialist in the state of Florida alone as of November, 2005 (Board of Cosmetology, 2006). The few studies that have been conducted do not adequately document the inhalation route of exposure in this population of wo rkers (See Table 3). The Spencer et al (1997) study evaluated the effectiveness of a modified, ventilated table versus a non-ventilated table. Although these researchers found low levels of EMA, 15 ppm or less TWA, they used students who lack experience and tende d to have slower application rates compared to an experienced nail technician. Additionally, the Spencer et al (1997) study seemed to indicate that only one nail set was being applied at any one time. Perhaps more than one set could be a pplied by different nail technicians within the salon at any given time. Decker and Beasley (1992) perfor med a NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) at a Springdale, Ohio nail salon. This salon had two employees, only one was working on the day of the HHE, where 5 12 nail sets would be completed per day. Although low levels of EMA were detected, only one of te n air samples taken was a personal breathing zone (PBZ) sample; of the area samples, only one was a full day and the other eight were short-term samples. Almaguer and Blade (1992) perfor med a NIOSH HHE at a Norman, Oklahoma nail salon. Two employees were employed at this salon; however, the number of clients seen that day was unclear. They found short-term, 14 minutes or less, PBZ samples
15 approaching 28 ppm; however, only three PBZ samples were taken. Froines and Garabrant (1986) performed PBZ sampling in several nail salons and found nail technicians were being exposed to both EMA and MMA. Both active and passive sampling media were used; however, it was unc lear when either was used. The study also lacked details regarding sampling times, number of nail technicians working at the salon, and the number of clients seen. Hiipakka and Samimi (1987) also f ound that nail techs were being exposed to low levels of EMA. Interestingly, they had planned to sample on a cold winter day so as to capture the worst-case scenario; however, the weather was springlike and the salons windows were open. They (Hiipakka and Sami mi, 1987) also noted that considerable intersalon differences in mean personal organi c vapor exposures were found to exist, in that air levels ranged from <0.1 ppm of all vapors to 46.4 ppm for isopropyl alcohol. These differences in isopropyl alcohol concen trations could serve as a surrogate for EMA variability. The literature also s uggests that even low levels of EMA can cause health problems. LoSasso et al (2001) concluded that exposure to even low levels of chemicals common in nail salons, including EMA, may result in m ild cognitive and neurosensory changes similar to those observed among documented so lvent-exposed workers in other settings. Although this study did not isolate EMA as the single cause for these health problems, it highlights the need for further research.
16 Table 3: Previous studies of na il technicians exposures to EMA Study Study description PBZ samples taken for EMA Strengths Weaknesses EMA concentration Spencer et al 1994 The Colorado Department of Health requested NIOSH assist in the evaluation and control of nail technicians' exposures at a cosmetology school. Examined differences in exposures under conditions utilizing a modified manicure table with downdraft ventilation or an unventilated manicure table. 10 short-term w/ unvent table 8 short-term w/ vent table 3 samples > 5 hours w/ unvent table 3 samples > 5 hours w/ vent table Established the effectiveness of modified ventilated table Included diagram of facility and location of manicure table relative to exhaust fan in wall Active sampling media used Student nail techs lacked experience and were slower Appeared only one set of nails was being applied at any one time General ventilation and air changes per hour were not measured Short-term PBZ w/ unvent table = 10.6 ppm GM Short-term PBZ w/ vent table = 0.8 ppm GM PBZ > 5 hours w/ unvent table = 7.0 12.8 ppm GM PBZ > 5 hours w/ vent table = 0.4 1.5 ppm GM Hiipakka and Samimi, 1987 In-depth study that measured exposures of nail techs to organic vapors and methacrylate dust. Samples were collected in six different nail salons. Selfadministered symptom questionnaires completed by nail techs and controls. 17 samples using active sampling media Included evaluation of nail techs symptom prevalence Revealed that regular ventilated tables do not produce enough capture velocity to reduce EMA exposure Lacked details regarding sampling times, number of nail techs at each salon, and number of clients seen General ventilation and air changes per hour were not measured 4.5 4.6 ppm mean TWA Range <0.1 to 17 ppm Froines and Garabrant, 1986 Eight nail salons and their employees sampled for MMA, four of which were also sampled for EMA. Both active and passive sampling media were used. 25 mean intermittent samples for MMA 59 mean continuous samples for MMA 15 mean intermittent samples for EMA 32 mean continuous samples for EMA Captured both EMA and MMA exposure Included direct reading instrumentation for est. continuous methacrylate exposure Appeared all samples taken were PBZ samples Lacked details regarding sampling times, number of nail techs at each salon, and number of clients seen General ventilation and air changes per hour were not measured Unclear when active or passive sampling media were used Mean intermittent exposure for MMA = 9.1 47.6 ppm Mean continuous exposure for MMA = 2.1 6.8 ppm Mean intermittent exposure for EMA = 7.0 18.0 ppm Mean continuous exposure for EMA = 2.4 9.2 ppm Almaguer and Blade, 1992 NIOSH conducted a Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) at the request of a nail salon owner. 3 short term Samples, 14 min or less Qualitative evaluation of general ventilation Some IEQ parameters measured Active sampling media Lacked details regarding numbers of clients seen Lacked long-term PBZ samples 7 min sample = 27.4 ppm 14 min sample = 16.9 ppm 37 min sample = 4 ppm* Portion of sample was lost Decker and Beasley, 1992 NIOSH conducted a HHE at the request of adjacent business owners who noted a terrible smell emanating from salon. One long-term sample (321 mins) during which five clients were seen Qualitative evaluation of general ventilation Active sampling media Lacked long-term PBZ samples PBZ sample = ND (LOD = 1 ppm) One Area sample = 7 ppm (4.6 L air)
17 Study Design This research project was an industrial hygiene study of nail technicians exposures to ethyl methacrylate and methyl methacrylate. The hypothesis of this research was that nail technicians were exposed to measurable concentrations of one or both of these chemicals; however, the research was not design ed to assess the presen ce of any disease. The design did provide actual c oncentrations of nail technici ans personal exposures to EMA and MMA on the day of sampling and under what conditions these exposures occurred. This type of design was necessary since little information exists on these types of exposures. This research project was a pilo t study designed to captu re nail technicians exposures on a busy workday. Therefore, the nail salons nail technicians were sampled on their historically busiest da y of the week and a rrangements were made to perform the exposure assessment based on appointment schedules and past information. Two nail salons served as study site s, including an Asian owned salon. Having an Asian owned salon incorporated into the de sign was important because approximately 37 % of nail salons in the U.S. are Asian owned (EPA, 2006). Nail technicians employed by these sites were asked to volunteer as resear ch subjects. Six to eight volunteers were expected from both sites. Only nail technicians who volunteer participated. Only nail technicians who worked with artificial nail s for more than half their shift were considered. A University of South Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB) Application for Initial Review was submitted and IRB requirements were subsequently waived.
18 This research design had its limita tions. The study design only provided a snapshot of the data collected on that day. The information captured only applied to the conditions encountered on the day the exposure assessmen t was performed. It does not apply to other nail salons and it may not predict othe r nail technicians exposures. However, the research design did provide needed informa tion on nail technicians exposures to ethyl methacrylate and/or methyl methacrylate and un der what conditions they occurred. This may provide important information for further assessment and research.
19 METHODS Task Analysis A task analysis of the nail applic ation process was performed at each study site. Each nail technician was observed for at least one entire nail procedure for each type of nail procedure that they performed. These observations were performed to assess the time spent on each task of the artificial nail application process. Each nail technician was also asked to record the number s of procedures that they performed. These task analyses were necessary for determining the proporti on of time spent working with the liquid related to the total time of the procedure. Salon Lay-Out The two participating nail salons interior lay-outs were drawn. The interior dimensions of the salons were measured. Placements of all manicure tables were measured from a wall to the mid-point of the table. All windows, exits, and locations of HVAC vents and return(s) were also measured and recorded. Diagrams of the salons are provided in Figures 1 and 2. Ventilation Assessment The nail salons HVAC system was assessed. An Alnor Balometer (APM 150, Alnor, Skokie, Illinois), an instrument used to quantify air flow, was used to measure the air flows through the HVAC systems vents and returns. These air flow measurements were used to determine the amount of air m ovement within the na il salon measured in
20 supply air changes per hour. This measure wa s important in determining the time it takes to recycle one volume of inside air. The HVA C system was also assessed for evidence of outside air introduction. Sampling Strategy Research subjects were equippe d with a Buck personal sampling pump (Basic-5, A.P. Buck Inc., Orlando, Florida) and activ ated coconut shell charcoal sampling media connected via Tygon tubing. The sampling apparatus was pre-calibrated and postcalibrated according to the OSHA protocol of 5% (OSHA, 2007). A factory calibrated mini-Buck calibrator (M-5, A.P. Buck Inc., Or lando, Florida) was used for this purpose. Nail technicians personal breathing zones were continuously sampled at an approximate flow rate of 42 milliliters of air per minute (m l/min). Each personal sample was collected over an approximate four hour period. Two samples per nail technician were collected whenever it was possible. This flow rate and sample time should have yielded a minimum mass of the chemicals that satisfi es the minimum detection limit of the analytical method, Wisconsin Occupationa l Health Laboratory (WOHL) Method WG006 which is based on OSHA Method 7 (See Appendi x A). An area sample was collected at an approximate flow rate of 40 ml/min over th e entire day in each nail salon in the area where the chemicals are stored. Additionally, an air sample was taken from a partially full liquid monomer bottle supplied by each salo n. The sampling media was inserted into the one gallon bottle of the monomer and positioned approximately 3 inches from the surface of the liquid. The air space above the liquid was sampled for 15 minutes at a flow rate of 200 ml/min. These grab vapor samples from the one gallon bottles were
21 collected to quantify the vapor mixture at high concentrations since the sampling media would be nearly saturated. Appropriate sample blanks were also submitted for analyses. All samples were packed on ice and shippe d overnight to the WOHL for analyses. Sample Analysis Samples were analyzed accordin g to WOHL Method WG006, which is a modified version of the OSHA Method 7 protocols. The Wisconsin Occupational Health Laboratory developed WG006 to accommodate a variety of organi c solvents including EMA and MMA. The method allowed for the sa mpling and analysis of both chemicals at the same time. The method used SKC An asorb CSC (catalog # 226-01) activated coconut shell charcoal sampling media with a 20/40 mesh particle size to collect organic vapors which were subsequently desorbed with carbon disulfide and analyzed by gas chromatography with flame ionization detection. The analytes were separated by two different analytical columns, a primary a nd confirming column, and quantified against valid calibration curves. WOHL Method WG006 was chosen af ter careful discussions with the WOHLs organic laboratory supervisor. The WO HL is an AIHA accredited laboratory and recommended this method for a few reasons. Fi rst, the WOHL reported that they did not get good recoveries of EMA from XAD-2 media using NIOSH Method 2537; although it works well for MMA. Second, the WOHL uses WG006 (modified OSHA Method 7 protocol) for the analyses of EMA and MMA with good recoveries of the analytes. The WOHL has provided documentation of mu ltiple EMA/MMA spiked quality control samples. See Appendix B for the Desorption/QC Development Spreadsheet. Third,
22 WOHL Method WG006, OSHA Method 7, and the EMA specific OSHA Method PV2100 are all virtually identi cal in all other aspects.
23 RESULTS Task Analysis The task analysis was separated into three general steps: nail prep, work with liquid monomer, and fine finish. The nail prep c onsisted of removing the old nail polish, filing, trimming, and shaping the real nail, gluing the artificial nail extension on to the real nail, trimming the nail extension to an appropriate length, a nd roughening and priming the surface of the nail. The only difference between a full set and a fill-in was in this step, because a fill-in did not require the artificial extensions. Interestingly, a Dremel-like tool with a variable speed foot control was used in the roughening of the nail. The work with liquid monomer step consisted of the time the nail technician spent forming the artificial nail. The nail technician dipped a small brush into a small container of the liquid monomer, then into a containe r of powdered polymer, and then applied the mixture to the nail and formed it. During this step, the li quid container remained open the entire time and the smell of the vapors was very noticeabl e. The openings of the containers were approximately one and quarter inch in diameter. The fine finish step consisted of filing and shaping the artificial nail some more and smoothing the surface of the nail. The Dremel-like tool was also used in the fine finish. For the purpose of this analysis, the fine finish step ended when the costumer wa s sent to wash the nail dust off their hands, although the nails may have been painted after washing. These procedures were used at both locations.
24 Nail salon 1 had four nail technici ans working on the day of sampling. Three of the four nail technicians, nail tech A, B, and D, worked six or more hours. Nail technician C worked approximately 4 hours and went home early. Nail salon 2 had two employees who worked with artificial nails; however, a rrangements were made so that only one of them would perform the majority of artifi cial nail work on the day of sampling. Therefore, only this nail technician served as a study subject. This nail technician worked approximately nine hours on the day of sampling. The results of the task analyses for th e application of a full set of artificial nails are reported in Table 4. For the purpose of this analysis, a procedure called a back-fill, which is a major fill-in, was grouped in the full set category. This decision was made because the time spent on each task and the amount of the liquid monomer used in a back-fill was similar to a full set of artifici al nails. Unfortunately, nail salon 1 performed only four such procedures on the day of sampling and none of them was observed from the beginning. Therefore, only the time spent working with the liquid monomer, 15 minutes, was captured in a task analysis of na il technician B at nail salon 1. Nail salon 2 performed three full set procedures. A task an alysis of one procedur e revealed that 14 minutes were spent on nail preparation, 10 mi nutes were spent working with the liquid monomer, and 18 minutes were spent doing the fi ne finish. The percentage of time spent working with the liquid monomer was 24 % of the total time of the procedure.
25Table 4: Task analysis for the application of a full set of artificial nails Site Location Nail Technician Nail Prep (min) Work with Liquid Monomer (Min) Fine Finish (Min) Total Time for Procedure (Min) Salon 1 B NR 15 NR NA Salon 2 TTM 14 10 18 42 NR = Not recorded NA = Not Applicable The results of the task analyses for th e fill-in of a previously applied set of artificial nails are reported in Table 5. Nail sal on 1 performed 22 such procedures. Nail technicians A, B, and D were observed once from start to finish and once again during the work with the liquid monomer. Theref ore, the average of each technicians time spent working with the liquid monomer was us ed in the overall task analyses. A task analysis of nail technician A revealed that 26 minutes were spent on nail prep, 17.5 minutes were spent working with the liqui d monomer, and 17 minutes were spent on the fine finish. The percentage of time spent working with the liquid monomer was 29 % of the total time of the procedure. A task analys is of nail technician B revealed that eight minutes were spent on nail prep, six minutes were spent working with the liquid monomer, and 14 minutes were spent on the fi ne finish. The percentage of time spent working with the liquid monomer was 21 % of th e total time of the procedure. A task analysis of nail technician D revealed that five minutes were spent on nail prep, eleven minutes were spent working with the liqui d monomer, and 15 minutes were spent on the fine finish. The percentage of time spent working with the liquid monomer was 35 % of the total time of the procedure.
26Table 5: Task analysis for a fill-in of artificial nails Site Location Nail Technician Nail Prep (min) Work with Liquid Monomer (Min) N=2 Fine Finish (Min) Total Time for Procedure (Min) A 26 17.5 17 60.5 B 8 6 14 28 Salon 1 D 5 11 15 31 Salon 2 TTM 9 9 23 41 Average of two observations Nail salon 2 performed at least eight fill-in procedures. Task analyses of nail technician TTM revealed that nine minutes were spent doing nail prep, nine minutes were spent working with the liquid monomer, and 23 minutes were spent on the fine finish. The percentage of time spen t working with the liquid monomer was 22 % of the total time of the procedure.
27Table 6: Estimate of the total time spent working with the liquid monomer Full Set Procedure Fill-In Procedure Nail Technician # of Events Estimated time working with liquid/Event (Min) # of Events Estimated time working with liquid/Event (Min) Total time working with liquid (Min) A 0 0 6 17.5 105 B 2 15 8 6 78 C 1 12.5 2 10.9 34.3 D 1 12.5 6 11 78.5 TTM 3 10 8 9 102 Time spent working with liquid monomer for both procedures estimated from averages of A D and TTM Time spent working with liquid monomer for full set estimated from averages of B and TTM An estimate of each nail technici ans time spent working with the liquid monomer was calculated, see Table 6. The calculations were based on the sum of total numbers of each procedure times the estimated amount of time spent working with the liquid monomer for that procedure, respectively. Since nail technician C was not observed during either procedure, the time spent wo rking with the liquid monomer was estimated from the averages of nail technicians A, B, D, and TTM for each procedure, respectively. Since nail technician D was not observed for a full set procedure, the time spent working with the liquid monomer for this procedure was estimated from the averages of B and TTM since they were the only nail technici ans who were actually observed performing this procedure. Nail technici an A spent an estimated 105 mi nutes working with the liquid monomer during the sampling periods. Nail t echnician B spent an estimated 78 minutes working with the liquid monomer during the sa mpling periods. Nail technician C spent
28 an estimated 34.3 minutes working with the liquid monomer during the sampling period. Nail technician D spent an estimated 78.5 minutes working with the liquid monomer during the sampling periods. Nail technici an TTM spent an estimated 102 minutes working with the liquid monome r during the sampling periods. The work practices of the nail techni cians varied considerably. At nail salon 1, it was common for the nail technicians to eat a nd drink at their mani cure tables whereas this practice was not observed at salon 2. None of the salon 1 nail technicians used latex gloves to guard against direct chemical cont act with the skin; howev er, the salon 2 nail technicians did. At both sites, nail debris was observed flying while clipping the nails and using the Dremel-like tool and air-borne du st was generated during the filing process. At nail salon 1, nail technician B used proper protective eye wear wh ile nail technician A relied on corrective lenses; nail technician s C and D did not use eye protection. Nail technicians A and D did use dust masks; howev er, the masks did not appear to be very tight fitting. The salon 2 nail technicians did use dust masks and appeared to use them correctly; however, they did not wear protective eyewear. Salon Lay-Out Figure 1 shows the detailed interior lay-out of nail salon 1. This salon was 23 feet wide, 36.8 feet long, and 7.9 feet high, and th e internal volume of the salon was 6686.6 cubic feet. This salon had one air handler. Five supply diffusers and one return were noted. No evidence of outside air introduc tion into the HVAC system was observed. The salon had one window located in the bathroom, which does not appear in the drawing, and one door. Four manicure tabl es were used for the purpose of applying
29 artificial nails. On the day of sampling, all four tables were used, labeled A, B, C, and D. Manicure tables A and B had local exhaust ventilation. Each nail technician worked at their respectively labeled manicure table. Figure 2 shows the interior lay-out of nail salon 2. This salon was 31.6 feet wide, 34.7 feet long, and 8.3 feet high, and the in ternal volume of th e salon was 9101.1 cubic feet. The salons owner stated that this salon had two separate air handlers. Ten supply diffusers and three returns were noted. No evidence of outside air introduction into the HVAC system was observed. This salon had one window located in the back corner and one door. Three manicure tables were used fo r applying artificial nails, and none of these tables had local exhaust ventilation. On the day of sampling, only two of the tables were used, labeled M and MN. Nail technician TTM worked at the tables labeled M interchangeably. The table labeled N repr esents the location of area sample TTN.
Figure 1: Interior lay-out of nail salon 1 (Not to Scale) 30 6.2 1 7.6 2.1 5.5 3.3 Hair Salon Area 7 3.6 D 6 C 4 4.9 2 1 16.2 Pedicure and Tanning Area 0 16.5 10 9.3 A 3 B 6.2 36.8 23 Legend = Diffusers = Return = Manicure Table
Figure 2: Interior lay-out of nail salon 2 (Not to Scale) Legend = Diffusers = Returns = Manicure Table = Window 5 7 8 10.5 5.7 6.2 5 8 7 5.5 1.5 3.5 4 3 6 5 9 12 14 5 7 13 11.5 4.7 9 M M N 4 6 5 0 8 3 2 1 7 3 9.6 22 34.7 31
32 Ventilation Assessment The HVAC systems were evaluated for the total volume of ai r supplied and total air returned to the units. The air flows were measured in cubic feet per minute and taken with the doors and windows open and with th em closed. This evaluation took place one week prior to the exposure assessment which was necessary to minimize the inconveniences imposed had this evaluation taken place on the day of the exposure assessment. Nail salon 1 operated their HVAC system with the doors and window closed on the day of sampling. Table 7 shows the different air volumes measured through the individual supply diffusers and the return, as well as the total supply volume. Based on the internal volume of the salon and the to tal volume of the air supplied by the HVAC, the calculated supplied air changes per hour (ACH) were six ACH with the door and the window closed. Nail salon 2 did not operate their HVAC systems but instead opened the window and the door to provide natural ventilation. Detail s regarding the air volumes and the supply ACH of both salons with the doors and windows open and with them closed are included in Appendix C.
33Table 7: Ventilation assessment for nail salon 1 Diffuser # Air flow with door/window closed* (cfm) 0 120 1 137 2 137 3 178 4 92 Total Supply (cfm) 664 Total Return Volume(cfm) 713 *One door and one window Analytical Results Personal and area sampling were perf ormed at nail salon 1 on Friday, February 2, 2007. The temperature and relative humidity in side this nail sal on were 20.2 C and 60.5 %, respectively. Personal and area samp ling were performed at nail salon 2 on Saturday, February 3, 2007. The temperature an d relative humidity inside this nail salon were 23.4 C and 52.9 %, respectively. These tw o days were reported to be their busiest days of the week based on past in formation from the salons owners. Detectable levels of both EMA and MMA were measured in both nail salons. Information regarding personal sample designation, sample times, sample volumes, and calibration information appears in Table 8 a nd Appendix D. A summary of the personal sample results and 8-hour time weighted averages (TWA) appears in Table 9. The 8hour TWA was calculated under the conservativ e assumption that the exposure during the unsampled time was similar to the sampled time.
Table 8: Summary of personal sample and calibration information Location Nail Technician Sample Designation Sample Time (min) Sample Volume (Liters) Percent Difference Pre and Post Pump Calibrations A1 190 7.670 4.0% A A2 198 7.478 6.7% B1 275 11.477 1.3% B B2 258 10.780 1.5% C C1 206 8.721 5.5% D1 309 12.952 2.5% Salon 1 D D2 74 3.136 4.2% TTM1 244 10.703 0.5% Salon 2 TTM TTM2 217 9.508 0.7% Table 9: Summary of personal exposures to MMA and EMA First Sample Period Seco nd Sample Period 8 Hour TWA Site Location Personal Sample MMA (ppm) EMA (ppm) Time (Min) MMA (ppm) EMA (ppm) Time (Min) MMA (ppm) EMA (ppm) A 0.13 6.40 190 0.17 10.00 198 0.15 8.24 B 0.15 8.60 275 0.15 9.90 285 0.15 9.26 C 0.70 31.00 206 NA NA NA 0.70 31.00 Salon 1 D 0.24 13.00 309 0.18 11.00 74 0.23 12.61 TTM 2.90 0.036 244 7.7 0.041 217 5.16 0.04 Salon 2 TTN* 2.60 0.033 291 5.3 0.044 218 3.76 0.04 Indicates an area sample taken in the vicinity of the personal breathing zone Less than or equal to. The analyte was detected bu t at a level too low to accurately quantify. One area sample was set up in the vici nity of the chemical st orage area of nail salon 1. In this case it was a small room, not s hown on the salon diagram, where towels were also washed. The door to this room remained open during the sample period. The 34
35 sample period lasted from 12:13 PM until 7:38 PM for a total sample time of 445 minutes at a flow rate of 39.9 ml/min. This area sa mple, sample E1, yielded a concentration of 7.5 ppm for EMA and 0.14 for MMA. Analysis of a three liter sample of the vapors from the liquid monomer bottle supplied by this sa lon yielded a concentr ation of 5300 ppm of EMA and 100 ppm of MMA (see Sampling Strategy ). However, these values should be considered approximate values since th e EMA concentration was above the upper calibration standard of the an alytical method and both sample s contained analytes on the back-up section of the charcoal tube. A sample blank submitted with the nail salon 1 samples was reported below the detection limits for both chemicals. No air was sampled through this sample blank. A copy of the WOHL Analytical Labor atory Report for the nail salon 1 samples appears in Appendix E. An area sample was attached to the light of manicure table MN at nail salon 2. This area sample was positioned directly over the work space and approximately one and a half feet from nail technician TTMs face. Two area samples were collected at this table. The first area sample, sample TTN1, was collected from 9:30 AM until 2:21 PM for a total time of 291 minutes at a flow rate of 40.1 ml/min. Sample TTN1 yielded a concentration of 2.6 ppm of MMA and approxi mately 0.03 ppm of EMA. The later value was only approximate because the analyte was detected but at a level too low to be accurately quantified. The second area sample, sample TTN2, was taken from 2:30 PM until 6:08 PM for a total time of 218 minutes at a flow rate of 39.8 ml/min. Sample TTN2 yielded a concentration of 5.3 ppm of MMA and approximately 0.04 ppm of EMA. The later value was considered approximate for the same reason as described
36 above. The TWA for these area samples, based on the time sampled, were 3.8 ppm MMA and approximately 0.04 ppm EMA. One area sample was set up in the vici nity of the chemical st orage area of nail salon 2. In this case it was a room, not shown on the salon diagram, that also contained a refrigerator and a bed. The door to this room remained clos ed during the sample period. The sample period lasted from 10:19 AM until 6:17 PM for a total sample time of 478 minutes at a flow rate of 39.5 ml/min. This area sample, sample TTP1, yielded a concentration of 1.1 for MMA a nd 0.03 ppm for EMA. Analysis of a three liter sample of the vapors from the liquid monomer bottle supplied by this salon yielded a concentration of 5400 ppm of MMA and 4.1 ppm of EMA (see Sampling Strategy). These values should be considered approxima te values since the MMA concentration was above the upper calibration sta ndard of the analytical met hod and both samples contained analytes on the back-up section of the charcoal tube. A sample blank submitted with the nail salon 2 samples was reported below the dete ction limits for both chemicals. No air was sampled through this sample blank. A copy of the WOHL Analytical Laboratory Report for the nail salon 2 samples also appears in Appendix E.
37 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this study was to char acterize nail technician s exposures to ethyl methacrylate (EMA) and methyl methacrylate ( MMA). The literature was reviewed for information regarding occupational exposure to these chemicals, th e associated health effects, and more specifically, for information on nail technicians exposure to these chemicals. This review indicated that allerg ic contact dermatitis and occupational asthma may be associated with chronic exposure to these chemicals. The review also indicated that nail technicians exposures to these ch emicals have not been well characterized. This study sought to quantitatively evaluate nail technicians personal exposure to EMA and/or MMA vapors and describe the conditions under wh ich the exposures occurred. The breathing zones of nail technicians were sampled over the course of a workday. Additionally, a task analysis was performed to determine the total number of clients seen by each nail technician, the time sp ent with one client, the percentage of time spent working with the liquid monomer, a nd the approximate time each nail technician spent working with the liquid monomer duri ng the sampling periods. The interiors of two different nail salons were described in detail in relation to where the artificial nail processes took place. The HVAC systems we re assessed to determine the number of supply air changes per hour that could have been provided on the day of sampling with the doors and windows open and then closed. This study captured personal exposures to both chemicals and was successful in determining how and under what conditions these
38 exposures occurred. This information was necessary for a complete understanding of the personal exposures. Discussion The analytical results reported in this study appear consistent with what other studies have reported. One aspect that made this st udy unique was the fact that the majority of samples collected were personal. Anothe r important aspect of this study was the completeness of the exposure assessment. Also, this study attempted to use an Asian owned nail salon and was successful in doing so. This was importa nt because a large number of nail salons in the U.S. are Asian owned. Detectable levels of EMA and MMA were found in air samples of nail technicians personal breathing zones taken at the nail salon 1 site. Nail technicians at this site were mainly exposed to EMA. Personal exposures ranged from 8.2 31.0 ppm EMA as an 8hour TWA. A number of variables, such as the time spent with a client, the time spent working with the liquid monomer, presence of local exhaust ventilation, and proximity to HVAC diffusers, likely contribu ted to the differences in personal exposures seen between nail technicians. Nail technici an A was the owner of this nail salon and her total time spent performing a fill-in procedure was about twice the time that the other two nail technicians, who were task analyzed, spen t on this same procedure. She conversed extensively with her clients because she likely had de veloped a rapport with them over time. At the same time, her workers may have worked faster so as to make more money. Interestingly, although the tota l time spent on this proce dure was quite different, the percentage of time spent working with th e liquid monomer was similar between nail
39 technicians at this site, approximately one-quarter to one-third of the total time of the procedure. In fact, the percentage of tim e working with the liquid was similar between both procedures and both sites. It was noted in the results section th at manicure tables A a nd B at this salon were equipped with local exhaust ventilation. This ventilati on was not assessed for its effectiveness; however, both were operational. Nail technician A worked closely over the local exhaust and nail debris and dust we re observed being captured. Nail technician B however did not work as closely over th e local exhaust with little debris observed being picked up by the exhaust system. Initia lly, it was expected that there would be a larger difference between nail technician A and Bs personal e xposures, 8.2 ppm and 9.3 ppm, respectively. This initial expectati on was based not only on the behavior of nail debris and nail dust entering the local exhaust but also on the fact that extensive nail dust was collected on nail technician Bs sampling tube holder bypass. This was not observed on nail technician As tube holde r. There did, however, seem to be a difference in these individuals exposures when compared to na il technicians C and D, who did not have local exhaust provisions. Nail technici an C had an 8-hour TWA, based on an approximate three and a half hour sample tim e, of 31 ppm of EMA and nail technician D had a 12.6 ppm 8-hour TWA for EMA. It may be possible that the local exhaust ventilation played a role in reduci ng nail technician A and Bs exposure. Nail technician C at the salon 1 site who had an EMA exposure of 31 ppm had her sample collected over a period of 206 minutes She performed only one full set and two fill-in procedures; yet her e xposure was almost three times higher than the next highest
40 personal exposure at this sal on. It may be possible that this measured exposure was in fact their personal exposure from their job; however, work practices that were not observed could have likely played a role in this higher exposure. Another possible explanation for this result was that the personal sample was tampered with, but no evidence of this was observed. Detectable levels of EMA and MMA were measured at nail salon 2. Personal air sampling of one nail technician and an area sample set up in th e vicinity of his personal breathing zone indicated that MMA was the main chemical e xposure at this nail salon. Nail technician TTMs 8-hour TWA indicate d a personal exposure to 5.2 ppm MMA and the area samples, TTN1 and TTN2, yielded a TWA concentration of 3.8 ppm MMA. The area sample was likely lower because the nail technician did not work solely at that particular manicure table. The results from the grab vapor sample and the personal and area samples clearly suggested that MMA was being used in this nail salon despite the FDAs ban on its use in nail products. This re sult was particularly surprising since the bottle that the grab vapor sample was taken from was labeled No MMA. Nail salon 1 operated its HVAC un it during the exposure assessment and the door and window were closed. This was not the case at nail salon 2. The door and window were open and the HVAC system was not used. A strong cross-dr aft through the salon was noted throughout the day. Nail salon 2 had lower personal exposures to MMA compared to the levels of EMA found at na il salon 1. It is possible that natural ventilation played a role in lowering the concentrations of airborne chemicals at nail salon 2, especially since MMA has a higher vapor pressure and more chemical vapors
41 should have been generated. Hiipakka and Samimi (1987) also suggested that natural ventilation could help reduce airborne ch emical exposures in nail technicians. The HVAC systems were evaluated at both sites; however, this information was only relevant to nail salon 1 where the HVAC was in operation. Both evaluations are included in Appendix C. Nail salon 1s HVAC provi ded six supply air changes per hour (ACH) with the door and window closed. There are no recommended air change rates provided by Burton for nail salons or beauty shops (Burton, 1995). If the lig ht factory operations category for typical air change rates is a pplied to salon operations, six supply ACH seemed like a reasonable amount and po ssibly within the lower ranges of the recommendation (Burton, 1995). The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers recommends 25 cubi c feet per minute of outside air per person be introduced into a beauty shop (A SHRAE, 2001). It was not clear if this recommendation was met. It was initially thought that diffuser locations and the air flows through them might influence the expos ure; however, it was impossible to deduce how that interaction might have occurred. The exposures that occurred at nail salon 1 may more closely resemble nail technicians personal exposures in the Tampa Bay area. Most of the year it is hot and humid here and it is likely that most small bus inesses, like nail salons, would keep their doors and windows closed and operate th eir HVAC systems to keep the indoor environment comfortable. It is also likely that most nail salons would be using EMA since MMA has been banned for nail use. Although personal exposures to these chemicals are highly variable, it is likely that personal e xposures would be low. The
42 United States does not have any Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs) for EMA. If the Occupational Safety and Health Administra tions Permissible Expos ure Level for MMA, which is 100 ppm for an 8-hour TWA, is appl ied to EMA, the exposures obtained in this study are much less than half of this value. If the American Conf erence of Governmental Industrial Hygienists Threshold Limit Valu e for MMA, which is 50 ppm for an 8-hour TWA, is also applied to EMA, only nail t echnician Bs exposure would have exceeded the action level, which is one-half the TLV. Interestingly though, some of the exposures obtained from nail salon 1 would have exceeded the OELs that some other nations, such as the Netherlands, Sweden, and the form er Soviet Union, have recommended or established. The nail technicians at salon 1 were not observed using gloves to protect against chemical contact with the skin. It was ther efore likely some chemical contact with the skin could have occurred; although, this was not actually observed. Because direct skin contact has been associated with the devel opment of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), the possibility of these workers developing ACD exists. NIOSH does not recommend the use of latex gloves for this application becau se of the potential for chemical permeation; however, the recommended gloves made of pol yvinyl alcohol or laminates of plastic films would probably not be appropriate due to the limitations in dexterity that these materials would impose (NIOSH, 2005). Conclusion Detectable levels of ethyl methacr ylate and methyl methacrylate were both measured at two Tampa Bay area nail salons. Persona l exposures ranged <1 31 ppm of EMA and
43 <1 5.2 ppm MMA. These levels were belo w any U.S. occupational exposure level in place or suggested. Local exhaust ventilation seemed to make a difference in reducing personal exposure levels. The type of gene ral ventilation, whether HVAC use or natural, used in the salon also seemed to make a di fference in exposure leve ls. Natural ventilation seemed to dilute the concentrations of air borne chemicals in the salon by the introduction of outside air. The analytical results strongly sugge sted that MMA was being used at nail salon 2. A manufactures bottle of liquid monomer st ated that it contained NO MMA. The possibility therefore exists that MMA substituti on is occurring in some nail salons despite a ban on its use. Task analyses of the different nail pr ocedures resulted in cons iderable differences in the time it took different nail t echnicians to perform a proced ure; however, the percentage of time spent working with th e liquid monomer was similar be tween nail technicians and nail procedures. The time spent working w ith the liquid monomer varied between 20 35 % of the total procedure. Recommendations for Future Research Based on the findings from this study, the following recommendations for future research are provided. These include: Expand the study and select a more represen tative sample of nail salons in the community to better characterize pers onal exposure levels of EMA and/or MMA in the Tampa Bay area.
44 Expand the time frame to include more personal monitoring of nail technicians at the same sites on different days. Conduct a cross-sectional ep idemiological study that us es surveys designed to measure current health problems a nd personal sampling to assess the exposure. Conduct a prospective epidemiological study, with physiological measures, to determine what, if any, long-term health effects occur to chronic, low level exposures to EMA and MMA. Conduct inhalation challenge testing, coupled with spirometry and other physiological measures, of volunteer nail t echnicians to assess the extent of airway reactivity in this population of workers. Sample all nail salons in the city to determine the frequency of use of MMA.
45 REFERENCES CITED ACGIH. (2001). Documentation of the thresh old limit values and biological exposure indices, Ci ncinnati, OH. (CD-ROM). Almaguer, D. & Blade, L.M. (1992). NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation: Haute Nails. HETA 90-048-2253 ASHRAE Standard 62-2001. Ventilation for ac ceptable indoor air quality. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, GA. 2001. Baum, G., and Wolinsky, E. (eds) (1983). Textbook of Pulmonary Disease 3rd ed. (pgs. 90-94). Little, Brown and Company, Boston. Bisesi, Michael S. (2001). Esters of monoand alkenyl carboxylic acids and monoand polyalcohols. In Pattys Toxicology, 5th ed Eula Bingham, Barbara Cohrssen, & Charles H. Powell (Eds.). CD-ROM: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Board of Cosmetology. January 2006 newsle tter. Tallahassee, FL. 2006. Retrieved 03/15/07, from http://fcn.state.f l.us/dbpr/dbpr/news/division_newsletters/ cosmo/cosmo_news.pdf Burton, J.D. (1995). Industrial Ventilation Workbook, 3rd ed. USA: Carr Printing. Cond-Salazar, L., Guimaraens, D., Romer o, L.V., Gonzlez, M.A., & Alomar, A. (1986). Occupational allergic contact dermatitis to artificial nails. Contact Dermatitis 15, 242. Cond-Salazar, L., Guimaraens, D., & Rome ro L.V. (1988). Occupational allergic contact dermatitis from anaerobic acrylic sealants. Contact Dermatitis, 18, 129-132. Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert panel ( 2002). Amended final report on the safety assessment of ethyl methacrylate. International Journal of Toxicology 21(Suppl. 1), 63-79. Decker, J. & Beasley, A. (1992). NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation: Tina and Angelas Nail Salon. HETA 92-128-2241.
46 Demeter, S.L. (1990). Occupational Asthma. J Dis 1, 109-118. Demeter, S.L. & Cordasco, E.M. (1994). Occupational Asthma. In Occupational Medicine, 3rd ed (pgs. 213-228), Carl Zenz, O. Bruce Dickerson, & Edward Horvath (Eds.). St. Louis: Mosby. EPA. (2006). Nail salons project findings and accomplishments (DfE). Retrieved 03/23/07, from http://www.ep a.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/salon/milestones.htm Estill, C.F., Jones, J.H., Lushniak, B.D., & McCammon, J.B. (2000). Hazards of Ethyl Methacrylate. American Journal of Contact Dermatitis 11(2), 119. Fisher, A.A. (1980). Cross Reactions betw een Methyl Methacrylate Monomer and Acrylic Monomers Presently Used in Acrylic Nail Preparations. Contact Dermatitis 6, 345-368. Fisher, A.A., & Baran, R.L. (1991). Adverse reac tions to acrylate scul ptured nails with particular refere nce to prolonged paresthesia. American Journal of Contact Dermatitis 2(1), 38-42. Froines, F.R., & Garabrant, D.H. (1986). Quan titative evaluation of manicurists exposure to methyl, ethyl, and isobutyl methacrylate during prod uction of synthetic fingernails. Applied Industrial Hygiene 1(2), 70-74. Haz-Map. Occupational exposure to hazardous agents. Retrieved 03/15/07, from http://hazmap.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/hazmap_generic?tbl=TblAgents&id=825 Health Council of the Netherlands: Dutch Expert Committee on Occ upational Standards (DECOS). Ethyl Methacrylate, n-butyl methacrylate, and isobut yl methacrylate. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands, 1994; publication no. 1994/11. Hiipakka, D & Samimi, B (1987). Exposure of acrylic finge rnail sculptors to organic vapors and ethacrylate dusts. American Industrial Hygi ene Association Journal 48(3), 230-237. Jackson, E. (1999). The sensitization potential of methyl methacrylate and ethyl methacrylate. American Journal of Contact Dermatitis 10(1), 49-50. Jackson E. (2000). Response. American Journal of Contact Dermatitis 11(2), 120. Jayjock, M.A. (2003). Modeling inhalation exposures. In The occupational environment: Its evaluation, control, and management, 2nd ed (pgs. 128-141), Salvatore R. DiNardi (Ed.). Virginia: AIHA Press.
47 Jedrychowski, W. (1982) Styren e and methyl methacrylate in the industrial environment as a risk factor of chronic obstructive lung disease. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 51, 151-157. Jones, J. (2003). Pointing fingers at some shady discount nail salons The Pueblo Business Journal 10(28), 3. Retrieved 11/11/05, from http://proquest.umi.com. Kanerva, L., Estlander, T., Jolanki R., and Pekkarinen E. (1992). Occupational pharyngitis associated with alle rgic patch test reactions from acrylics. Allergy, 47, 571-573. Kanerva, L., Jolanki, R., & Estlander, T. ( 1997). 10 years of patch testing with the (meth)acrylate series. Contact Dermatitis 37, 255-258. Klonne, D.R. (2003). Occupational exposure limits. In The occupational environment: Its evaluation, control, and management, 2nd ed (pgs. 50-69), Salvatore R. DiNardi (Ed.). Virginia: AIHA Press. LoSasso, G.L., Rapport, L.J., & Axelrod, B. N. (2001). Neuropsychological systems associated with low-level exposur e to solvents and (meth)acrylates among nail technicians. N europsychiatry, Neuropsychology, and Behavioral Neurology, 14(3), 183-189. Lowenstein, E.J. (2006). The dange rs that lurk in nail salons. Radius: For Health, Healing, Happiness March issue. Lozewicz, S., Davison, A.G., Hopkirk, A., Bu rge, P.S., Boldy, D.A.R., Riordan J.F. et al (1985). Occupational asthma due to methyl methacrylate and cyanoacrylates. Thorax 40, 836-839 Marez, T., Edm, J.L., Boulenguez, C., Shirali, P., & Haguenoer, J.M. (1993). Bronchial symptoms and respiratory function in workers exposed to methylmethacrylate. British Journal of Indusrial Medicine, 50, 894-897. Mathias, C.G.T. (1994). Occupational Dermatoses. In Occupational Medicine, 3rd ed (pgs. 93-131), Carl Zenz, O. Bruce Dickerson, & Edwa rd Horvath (Eds.). St. Louis: Mosby. NIOSH. (1999). Controlling chemical hazards during the application of artificial fingern ails. Retrieved 03/15/07, from h ttp://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hc28.html. NIOSH (2005). Pocket guide to chemical hazards and ot her databases (CD-ROM). DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2005-151.
48 OSHA (2007). OSHA technical ma nual. Retrieved 3/15/07, from http://www.osha gov/dts/osta/otm/otm_ii/otm_ii_1.html. Pickering, C.C., Bainbridge, D., Birtwistle, I. H., & Griffiths, D.L. (1986). Occupational asthma due to methyl methacr ylate in an orthopaedic theatre sister. British Medical Journal, 292, 1362-1363. Piirila, P., Kanerva, L., Keskinen, H., Es tlander, T., Hytonen, M., Tuppurainen, M., and Nordman, H. (1998) Occupatio nal respiratory hypersensitivity caused by preparations containi ng acrylates in dental personnel. Clinical and Experimental Allergy 28, 1404-1411. Roelofs, C. (2006). Verbal Communicati on. AIHce Podium 125. Chicago, May 17, 2006. Sandmeyer, E.E. & Kirwin, C.J. (1981). Pattys Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, G.D. Clayton and F.E. Clayton, Eds. 3rd ed (pp. 2298-2302). New York: WileyInterscience Publishers. Sipkoff, M. (2006). A largely avoi dable drain on company resources. Asthma in the workplace (1), 3-9. Spencer, A.B., Estill, C.F., McCammon, J.B., Mickelson, R.L., & Johnston, O.E. (1997). Control of ethyl methacrylate exposures during the appl ication of artificial fingernails. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 58, 214-218. Thorne, P.S. (2001). Occupational To xicology. In C.D. Klaassen (Ed.), Casarett and Doulls Toxicology : The basic science of poisons 6th ed. (pp. 1123-1140). New York: McGraw-Hill. Van Der Walle, H.B., Klecak, G., Geleick, H., & Bensink, T. (1982). Sensitizing potential of 14 mono (meth) acrylates in the guinea pig. Contact Dermatitis 8, 223235.
49 BIBLIOGRAPHY EZ Facts. Safety in Nail Salons. LLS. com. Safety Info Online. Document # 281 Le, Nhu-Ha. Health Hazards in Sculptured Nails & Their Prevention. NailVent2000 on the News. Spencer, A.B., Estill, C.F., McCammon, J.B., Mickelson, R.L., & Johnston, O.E. (1994). In-depth survey report: C ontrol of ethyl methacrylate exposures during the application of artificial finge rnails. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Report # ECTB 171-22a).
Appendix A: OSHA Method 7 51
Appendix A (Continued) 52
Appendix A (Continued) 53
Appendix A (Continued) 54
Appendix A (Continued) 55
Appendix A (Continued) 56
Appendix A (Continued) 57
Appendix A (Continued) 58
Appendix A (Continued) 59
Appendix A (Continued) 60
Appendix B: Desorption/QC development spreadsheet 61
Appendix B (continued) 62
Appendix B (Continued) 63
Appendix B (Continued) 64
65 Appendix C: Ventilation assessm ents for both nail salons Table 9: Ventilation assessment for both nail salons* Nail Salon 1 Nail Salon 2 Door/Window Door/Window Door/Window Door/Window Diffuser # Open (cfm) Closed (cfm) Open (cfm) Closed (cfm) 0 118 120 184 177 1 140 137 197 200 2 135 137 168 164 3 176 178 197 199 4 94 92 178 167 5 NA NA 175 171 6 NA NA 182 181 7 NA NA 197 200 8 NA NA 187 180 9 NA NA 160 150 Total Supply (cfm) 663 664 1825 1789 Return Volume (cfm) 735 713 1497 1480 ACH 5.9 6.0 12.0 11.8 One door and one window
66 Appendix D: Pump calibration information Location/Site Nail salon 1 Method WOHL WG006 WOHL WG006 WOHL WG006 Pump Info AP Buck A AP Buck B AP Buck C WOHL Lot # 2000 2000 2000 Tube # 1676418010 1676418 1676418824 Sample ID A1 B1 C1 Pre-cal 1024 Post-Cal 1334 Pre-cal 1033 Post-Cal 1508 Pre-cal 1042 Post-Cal 1408 0.0412 0.0403 0.0422 0.0415 0.0412 0.0433 0.0410 0.0392 0.0419 0.0415 0.0413 0.0435 Calibration Date 02/02/07 0.0413 0.0392 0.0419 0.0414 0.0410 0.0437 Average L/min 0.0412 0. 0396 0.0420 0.0415 0.0412 0.0435 Percent Difference 4.0 1.3 -5.5 AVERAGE L/min 0.0404 0.0417 0.0423 Total Sample Time (min) 190 275 206 Total Air Volume (L) 7.670 11.477 8.721 Location/Site Nail Salon 1 Method WOHL WG006 WOHL WG006 WOHL WG006 Pump Info AP Buck D AP Buck E AP Buck A WOHL Lot # 2000 2000 2000 Tube # 1676418009 1676418013 1676418819 Sample ID D1 Area E1 (chem storage) A2 Pre-cal 1155 Post-Cal 1704 Pre-cal 1213 Post-Cal 1938 Pre-cal 1435 Post-Cal 1753 0.0425 0.0419 0.0399 0.0400 0.0391 0.0365 0.0423 0.0411 0.0397 0.0403 0.0391 0.0366 Calibration Date 02/02/07 0.0425 0.0412 0.0396 0.0397 0.0389 0.0364 Average L/min 0.0424 0. 0414 0.0397 0.0400 0.0390 0.0365 Percent Difference 2.5 -0.7 6.7 AVERAGE L/min 0.0419 0.0399 0.0378 Total Sample Time (min) 309 445 198 Total Air Volume (L) 12.952 17.741 7.478
67 Appendix D (Continued) Location/Site Nail salon 1 Method WOHL WG006 WOHL WG006 Pump Info AP Buck B AP Buck D WOHL Lot # 2000 2000 Tube # 1676418011 1676418826 Sample ID B2 D2 Pre-cal 1512 Post-Cal 1930 Pre-cal 1709 Post-Cal 1823 0.0415 0.0425 0.0419 0.0431 0.0415 0.0421 0.0414 0.0433 Calibration Date 02/02/07 0.0414 0.0417 0.0412 0.0434 Average L/min 0.0415 0.0421 0.0415 0.0433 Percent Difference -1.5 -4.2 AVERAGE L/min 0.0418 0.0424 Total Sample Time (min) 258 74 Total Air Volume (L) 10.780 3.136
68 Appendix D (Continued) Location/Site Nail Salon 2 Method WOHL WG006 WOHL WG006 WOHL WG006 Pump Info AP Buck E AP Buck D AP Buck B WOHL Lot # 2000 2000 2000 Tube # 1676418012 1676418016 1676418818 Sample ID TTP1 (area chem storage) TTM1 TTN1 (attached to Light) Pre-cal 1019 Post-Cal 1817 Pre-cal 1012 Post-Cal 1416 Pre-cal 0930 Post-Cal 1421 0.0398 0.0390 0.0439 0.0440 0.0400 0.0405 0.0401 0.0392 0.0437 0.0443 0.0396 0.0402 Calibration Date 02/03/07 0.0400 0.0390 0.0437 0.0436 0.0396 0.0407 Average L/min 0.0400 0. 0391 0.0438 0.0440 0.0397 0.0405 Percent Difference 2.3 -0.5 -1.8 AVERAGE L/min 0.0395 0.0439 0.0401 Total Sample Time (min) 478 244 291 Total Air Volume (L) 18.889 10.703 11.669 Location/Site Nail Salon 2 Method WOHL WG006 WOHL WG006 Pump Info AP Buck D AP Buck B WOHL Lot # 2000 2000 Tube # 1676418015 1676418823 Sample ID TTM2 TTN2 (attached to light) Pre-cal 1421 Post-Cal 1758 Pre-cal 1430 Post-Cal 1808 0.0440 0.0434 0.0398 0.0398 0.0443 0.0437 0.0399 0.0395 Calibration Date 02/03/07 0.0436 0.0439 0.0398 0.0398 Average L/min 0.0440 0.0437 0.0398 0.0397 Percent Difference 0.7 0.3 AVERAGE L/min 0.0438 0.0398 Total Sample Time (min) 217 218 Total Air Volume (L) 9.508 8.669
Appendix E: Analytical La boratory Reports and COCs 69
Appendix E (Continued) 70
Appendix E (Continued) 71
Appendix E (Continued) 72
Appendix E (Continued) 73
Appendix E (Continued) 74
Appendix E (Continued) 75
Appendix E (Continued) 76
Appendix E (Continued) 77
Appendix E (Continued) 78
Appendix E (Continued) 79
Appendix E (Continued) 80