4.6 Review

Chemicals inhaled from spray cleaning and disinfection products and their respiratory effects. A comprehensive review

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2020.113592

关键词

Spray cleaning and disinfection products; Exposure; Respiratory effects; Asthma; Allergy; Hypotheses

资金

  1. Danish Working Environment Research Fund [06-2017-03/20175100199]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spray cleaning and disinfection products have been associated with adverse respiratory effects in professional cleaners and among residents doing domestic cleaning. This review combines information about use of spray products from epidemiological and clinical studies, in vivo and in vitro toxicological studies of cleaning chemicals, as well as human and field exposure studies. The most frequent chemicals in spray cleaning and disinfection products were compiled, based on registrations in the Danish Product Registry. The chemicals were divided into acids, bases, disinfectants, fragrances, organic solvents, propellants, and tensides. In addition, an assessment of selected cleaning and disinfectant chemicals in spray products was carried out. Chemicals of concern regarding respiratory effects (e.g. asthma) are corrosive chemicals such as strong acids and bases (including ammonia and hypochlorite) and quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs). However, the evidence for respiratory effects after inhalation of QACs is ambiguous. Common fragrances are generally not considered to be of concern following inhalation. Solvents including glycols and glycol ethers as well as propellants are generally weak airway irritants and not expected to induce sensitization in the airways. Mixing of certain cleaning products can produce corrosive airborne chemicals. We discuss different hypotheses for the mechanisms behind the development of respiratory effects of inhalation of chemicals in cleaning agents. An integrative assessment is needed to under stand how these chemicals can cause the various respiratory effects.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据