Preventing occupational chemical eye injuries: important lessons from poison information centres

BACKGROUND: Occupational exposure to hazardous substances is a major public health problem. In the workplace, eye exposures are common and can be a major cause of morbidity and disability. This commentary discusses the role of poison information centres in providing valuable information on the circumstances and causes of these incidents. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SURVEILLANCE: As many eye exposures are easily preventable, there is a need to establish better safety practices in the workplace. Currently, both governments and labour organizations primarily employ injury statistics for the purpose of occupational health surveillance. Identifying risk factors associated with acute exposures in the workplace requires a comprehensive approach using a variety of information resources. Using information from poison information centres can provide invaluable insight into the specifics of the exposure, including the route(s) of exposure, the substances involved and the cause of the exposure. CIRCUMSTANCES OF OCCUPATIONAL EYE EXPOSURES: Exposure to hazardous substances can occur at various time points during work. A prospective study performed by the Dutch Poisons Information Centre showed that cleaning is a high-risk activity for occupational eye exposure. Patients were often exposed to chemical mixtures that frequently contained alkalis or acids. CHEMICAL EYE INJURIES: Symptoms following eye contact with chemicals can vary greatly depending on factors such as the type and concentration of the substance(s) involved, the duration of exposure and the time and duration of irrigation (first-aid measure). Eye contact will usually cause irritation, but in more severe cases, chemical burns will result. Recent studies demonstrate that occupational eye exposures often result in only relatively mild symptoms, such as pain, redness, lacrimation or temporary loss of vision. More severe symptoms, such as corneal abrasion, were reported rarely, which may be explained by prompt eye irrigation. ROOT CAUSES OF OCCUPATIONAL EYE EXPOSURES: To control risks to workers, a hierarchy of prevention and control measures has been established, which employers must take. If elimination or substitution of the dangerous substance is not possible, the exposure can be prevented or reduced by taking organizational (e.g., providing work instructions), technical (e.g., ventilation) and personal (e.g., wearing personal protective equipment) measures. The study performed by the Dutch Poisons Information Centre showed that organizational factors (such as lack of work instructions) and personal factors (such as time pressure and fatigue, and not (adequately) using personal protective equipment), were the main causes of occupational eye exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Poison information centres provide valuable information that can be used to develop prevention strategies to reduce the number of acute occupational exposures in the future. A multidisciplinary approach is essential to ensure that these preventive measures are actually applied in practice. Therefore, all organizations involved (including governments, labour organizations, medical professionals, occupational physicians, occupational hygienists, safety experts and poison information centres) must work closely together

Clinical toxicology of exposures to chemicals from clandestine drug laboratories: a literature review

INTRODUCTION: The synthesis of clandestine drugs is a widespread worldwide phenomenon, with clandestine drug laboratories occurring both in rural and urban areas. There is considerable unfamiliarity among medical professionals about the health risks that are associated with chemicals used in clandestine drug laboratories. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the adverse health effects resulting from exposure to chemicals involved in the production of clandestine drugs. METHODS: The US National Library of Medicine PubMed database and the Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE) were searched from their date of inception to October 26, 2021 using combinations of relevant search terms. This yielded 1,558 unique articles, which were subjected to two eligibility criteria: (i) exposure to clandestine drug laboratory chemicals resulting in adverse health effects; (ii) subjects were human. A total of 22 unique articles were retrieved, consisting of 10 reviews, eight case reports/series and four retrospective studies. Further searches among the references cited in these publications yielded another seven case reports/series and six retrospective studies. RESULTS: Inhalation: Surveillance studies reported respiratory symptoms (including cough, throat irritation, nasal irritation, and dyspnea) in 59% (n = 1,657 of 2,803) of those exposed. The case reports/series described respiratory symptoms in 43% of the cases (n = 36 of 84). Lung edema was reported occasionally (n = 2). Eye exposure: Surveillance studies reported eye irritation and burns in 23% (n = 647 of 2,803) of those exposed. The case reports/series described ocular adverse events in 36% of the cases (n = 30 of 84). More severe ocular effects, such as corneal damage and conjunctival necrosis, were reported after direct eye contact with caustic fluids. Skin exposure: Surveillance studies reported dermal effects, ranging from skin irritation to severe burns, in 6% of those exposed (n = 174 of 2,803). The case reports/series described dermal effects in 30% of the cases (n = 25 of 84). Ingestion: Gastrointestinal burns were observed after ingestion of caustic substances in 5% of the patients reported in the case reports/series (n = 4 of 84). Systemic effects: Surveillance studies reported headache and dizziness in 31% (n = 882 of 2,803) and 7% (n = 187 of 2,803) of those exposed, respectively. The case reports/series described sympathomimetic effects, including mydriasis, hypertension, tachycardia, in 4% of the cases (n = 3 of 84). Fatalities: Surveillance studies reported death in 1% of those exposed (n = 29 of 2803). Ten percent of the people reported in the cases report/series died (n = 8 of 84). Death was reported after inhalation of phosphine (n = 5), hydrogen sulfide (n = 1), methanol (n = 1), and after ingestion of sulfuric acid (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to chemicals involved in the production of clandestine drugs mostly resulted in mild to moderate respiratory, ocular or dermal effects, usually caused by caustic chemicals or solvents. Systemic effects were generally mild, but severe symptoms and eight deaths were reported after exposure to phosphine, hydrogen sulfide, methanol and sulfuric acid

Causal factors of work-related chemical eye injuries reported to the Dutch Poisons Information Center

This study investigated the circumstances of chemical occupational eye exposures reported to the Dutch Poisons Information Center. During a 1-year prospective study, data were collected through a telephone survey of 132 victims of acute occupational eye exposure. Victims were often exposed to industrial products (35%) or cleaning products (27%). Most patients developed no or mild symptoms. Organizational factors (such as lack of work instructions (52%)), and personal factors (such as time pressure and fatigue (50%), and not adequately using personal protective equipment (PPE, 14%), were the main causes of occupational eye exposures. Exposure often occurred during cleaning activities (34%) and personal factors were reported more often during cleaning (67%) than during other work activities (41%). Data from Poison Control Centers are a valuable source of information, enabling the identification of risk factors for chemical occupational eye exposure. This study shows that personal factors like time pressure and fatigue play a significant role, although personal factors may be related to organizational issues such as poor communication. Therefore, risk mitigation strategies should focus on technical, organizational, and personal factors. The need to follow work instructions and proper use of PPE should also have a prominent place in the education and training of workers

Functional mechanisms underlying pleiotropic risk alleles at the 19p13.1 breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility locus

A locus at 19p13 is associated with breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC) risk. Here we analyse 438 SNPs in this region in 46,451 BC and 15,438 OC cases, 15,252 BRCA1 mutation carriers and 73,444 controls and identify 13 candidate causal SNPs associated with serous OC (P=9.2 × 10-20), ER-negative BC (P=1.1 × 10-13), BRCA1-associated BC (P=7.7 × 10-16) and triple negative BC (P-diff=2 × 10-5). Genotype-gene expression associations are identified for candidate target genes ANKLE1 (P=2 × 10-3) and ABHD8 (P<2 × 10-3). Chromosome conformation capture identifies interactions between four candidate SNPs and ABHD8, and luciferase assays indicate six risk alleles increased transactivation of the ADHD8 promoter. Targeted deletion of a region containing risk SNP rs56069439 in a putative enhancer induces ANKLE1 downregulation; and mRNA stability assays indicate functional effects for an ANKLE1 3′-UTR SNP. Altogether, these data suggest that multiple SNPs at 19p13 regulate ABHD8 and perhaps ANKLE1 expression, and indicate common mechanisms underlying breast and ovarian cancer risk

Correction to: Acute occupational exposures reported to the Dutch Poisons Information Center: a prospective study on the root causes of incidents at the workplace (Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, (2022), 17, 1, (19), 10.1186/s12995-022-00360-4)

In the original version of this article [1], inhalation was mentioned as the most common route of occupational exposure (62%), followed by ocular (40%) and dermal contact (33%). Due to a calculation error, the percentage for inhalation was incorrect. The correct percentage is 34%, i.e. in 34% of patients, occupational exposure occurred via inhalation. Because of this error, the text of the abstract, results (exposure characteristics) and discussion, should be amended as follows: Abstract: Patients were often exposed via multiple routes (ocular contact 40%, inhalation 34% and dermal contact 33%). Results: Patients were often exposed via multiple routes, most commonly involving ocular contact (40.0%), followed by inhalation (33.9%), dermal contact (32.6%) and oral exposures (9.4%). Discussion: Patients were often exposed via multiple routes (ocular contact 40%, inhalation 34% and dermal contact 33%). A comparable exposure pattern was found in a previous Poison Control Center (PCC) study [7]. The original article has been corrected

Acute occupational exposures reported to the Dutch Poisons Information Center: a prospective study on the root causes of incidents at the workplace

Abstract Background Hazardous substances at the workplace can cause a wide variety of occupational incidents. This study aimed to investigate the nature and circumstances of acute occupational intoxications reported to the Dutch Poisons Information Center. Methods During a one-year prospective study, data on the circumstances and causes of the incident, the exposure(s) and clinical course, were collected by a telephone survey with victims of an acute occupational intoxication. Results We interviewed 310 patients. Most incidents occurred in industry (25%), building and installation industry (14%) and agriculture (10%). Patients were often exposed via multiple routes (ocular contact 40%, inhalation 34% and dermal contact 33%). Acids and alkalis were often involved. Exposure often occurred during cleaning activities (33%). The main root causes of these accidents were: technical factors such as damaged packaging (24%) and defective apparatus (10%), organizational factors such as lack of work instructions (44%) and poor communication or planning (31%), and personal factors such as disregarding work instructions (13%), not (adequately) using personal protective equipment (12%) and personal circumstances (50%) such as inaccuracy, time pressure or fatigue. The majority of the patients only reported mild health effects and recovered quickly (77% within 1 week). Conclusions Poison Center data on occupational exposures provide an additional source of knowledge and an important basis for poisoning prevention strategies related to hazardous substances at the workplace. These data are useful in deciding which risk mitigation measures are most needed in preventing future workplace injuries