Video Exposure Assessments Demonstrate Excessive Laboratory Formaldehyde Exposures

Abstract

Video exposure assessments were conducted in a comparative anatomy laboratory using formaldehyde-preserved sharks and cats. Work in the facility using time-integrated samplers indicated personal and area concentrations generally below the current OSHA permissible exposure limit. However, complaints about room air quality were frequent and routine. Using a photoionization detector with an integral data logger, total ionizables present were sampled as a surrogate for formaldehyde. After synchronizing time tracks from the datalogger concentrations with simultaneously created videotapes of laboratory tasks, composite video exposure overlays were generated. Use of this video exposure method revealed very short-lived, excessively high peak exposure events, whereas conventional time-weighted averages indicated the majority (30/32) of personal exposures were below the OSHA limit of 0.75 ppm. These legally acceptable exposure levels were associated with self-reported symptoms of burning nose and eyes and eye irritation. Thus, transient peak formaldehyde concentrations not detected by longer term averaging studies could be responsible for the health effects reported. The video exposure monitoring method demonstrated that close dissection work, opening peritoneal cavities, and specimen selection activities were most likely the causes of elevated student exposures. Teaching assistants' exposures were the highest, exceeding OSHA limits on several occasions. The utility of the video monitoring method for conducting enhanced, critical task exposure assessments is discussed.

Exposure assessment: the influence of environmental monitoring methodology

“…The results obtained are similar to the ones presented in other studies [10][11][12]. Ceiling values indicated that formaldehyde levels exceed the ACGIH reference (0,3 ppm).…”

“…It is necessary to point out that this type of information (exposure determinants and sources) was only possible because video recording was performed. This resource gives the opportunity to directly correlate the performance with exposure [9,10,13].…”

Formaldehyde exposure and its effects during pregnancy: Recommendations for laboratory attendance based on available data

“…The levels of formaldehyde encountered within an average medical anatomy dissection laboratory are commonly reported as between 0.44 and 0.95 ppm; however, levels as high as 1.48 ppm have been reported (Akbar‐Khanadeh and Park, 1997; Keil et al, ; Ryan et al, ; Hisamitsu et al, ). These are ambient formaldehyde levels within medical anatomy dissection laboratories, but exposure levels have been shown to increase dramatically (from 0.42 to 11+ ppm) with greater proximity to preserved specimens, as during close dissection (Ryan et al, ). These data indicate that formaldehyde exposure levels are dependent upon proximity to a source (e.g., a preserved specimen), and that measurement of ambient room formaldehyde levels are not accurate for procedures commonly undertaken during medical dissection, such as close dissection of a preserved specimen.…”

“…The overall formaldehyde content of a gross anatomy dissection laboratory depends upon a number of factors, namely the number of cadavers, the concentration of formalin used as the fixative, the distribution of specimens within the laboratory, the size and shape of the laboratory, the ventilation flow rate, and vent location within the laboratory (Klein et al, ). In addition to the variability among dissection laboratories, the exposure level of formaldehyde varies with distance from the exposure source (e.g., preserved specimens); the levels are dramatically greater during close dissection (in excess of 11 ppm) than during passive viewing of dissected animal specimens (0.42 ppm; Ryan et al, ).…”

Genotoxic Effects of Exposure to Formaldehyde in Two Different Occupational Settings

“…This resource gives opportunity to directly relate performance with exposure (Mcglothlin, 2005;Ryan et al, 2003;Rosén et al, 2005). Additionally, real-time measurements are useful also for evaluating engineering controls and their efficacy (Yokel & MacPhail, 2011).…”