Occupational Asthma Reference

Heinzer R, Fitting JW, Ribordy V, Kuzoe B, Lazor R, Fitting JW, Recurrence of acute respiratory failure following use of waterproofing sprays, Thorax, 2004;59:541-542,

Keywords: waterproof, leather spray, ptfe, HP, pneumonitis, Switzerland

Known Authors

If you would like to become a known author and have your picture displayed along with your papers then please get in touch from the contact page. Known authors can choose to receive emails when their papers receive comments.

Abstract

Between January and March 2003 six patients were admitted to hospital in the Lausanne area of Switzerland with acute respiratory failure following use of a waterproofing spray for clothes and leather. Within hours of exposure all patients developed a dry cough and rapidly progressive dyspnoea. The clinical picture included severe hypoxaemia, increased white blood cell count, raised Creactive protein, and reduced carbon monoxide. All patients had diffuse bilateral ground glass opacities on a high resolution CT scan, most often sparing the subpleural areas. Every patient improved following treatment with oral prednisone (0.5–0.9 mg/kg) but residual dyspnoea and reduced TLCO (<80% of predicted value) could be seen for more than 2 weeks. Acute respiratory failure was attributed to inhalation of the waterproofing spray in view of the sudden occurrence of symptoms following exposure, the diffuse ground glass opacities without other abnormalities on the CT scan, and the absence of any other detected cause. In particular, BAL fluid was sterile for bacteria, mycobacteria, viruses and fungi. Serological tests for chlamydia and mycoplasma were performed on two patients and were negative. A nasal swab for influenza was performed on one patient and was negative. We were, however, surprised that the patients used three different spray brands. Waterproofing sprays contain three types of components—a propellant gas (propane butane), a waterproofing agent (fluorocarbon resin), and a solvent. It appeared that the manufacturer of the fluorinated resin changed during the summer of 2002 (the same for the three brands) and that the isopropanol solvent had to be replaced with a heptane solvent. Consumers started complaining of respiratory symptoms in October 2002 and the first severe case requiring admission was reported in January 2003. The three products were withdrawn from the market at the beginning of March. During this 6 month period 153 cases of respiratory symptoms related to waterproofing sprays were reported to the Swiss Toxicological Information Centre, whereas less than 10 cases per year had been reported in the previous 7 years. The same fluorinated resin was also distributed in Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK. In Germany the waterproofing sprays were withdrawn before they reached the consumers. During the same period five patients were admitted to hospital in the Netherlands with the same complaints.1 These sprays were also withdrawn from the Dutch market. Surprisingly, no case has yet been recorded in the UK. However, only sprays for public use were withdrawn, not the industrial liquids. In Switzerland two additional patients developed a chemical pneumonitis with similar symptoms and diffuse bilateral ground glass opacities after using industrial waterproofing liquid with a nebuliser. Workers in the above mentioned countries should therefore be warned not to use the liquid form with nebulisers. In the past, several outbreaks of acute respiratory symptoms have been recorded in different countries including 550 in Oregon in 1992,2 3 in Pennsylvania and Virginia in 1993,4 in Quebec in 1993,5 and in Japan between 1992 and 1993.6 Most of these epidemics followed a modification of the composition of the spray. One untreated
patient developed a pulmonary fibrosis during a German outbreak in the 1980s7 and one death was reported in Japan in the 1990s.8 Following these outbreaks, various suggestions were proposed to explain these intoxications.9 In our opinion, the most likely explanation for the present outbreak is that the heptane solvent, which is more volatile than the previous one (isopropanol), allows the mist containing the new fluorinated resin to spread further in the tracheobronchial tree and to reach the alveoli where it might produce reactive metabolites inducing an alveolitis. However, the exact chemical reaction remains unknown. Because of the potentially lethal aspect of these intoxications and the po ssibility of new outbreaks, we consider that more research is needed on the effect of mist particle size and large analytical epidemiological studies are required to investigate this phenomenon further.

References
1 Bonte F, Rudolphus A, Tan KY, et al. Severe respiratory symptoms following the use of
waterproofing sprays. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2003;147:1185–8.
2 From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Acute respiratory illness linked to use of aerosol leather conditioner—Oregon, 1992. JAMA 1993;269:568–9.
3 Smilkstein MJ, Burton BT, Keene W, et al. Acute respiratory illness linked to use of aerosol leather conditioner—Oregon, December 1992. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1993;41:965–7.
4 Burkhart KK, Britt A, Petrini G, et al. Pulmonary toxicity following exposure to an aerosolised leather protector. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 1996;34:21–4.
5 Laliberte´ M, Sanfacon G, Blais R. Acute toxicity linked to use of a leather protector. Ann Emerg Med 1995;25:841–4.
6 Shintani S, Ishizawa J, Endo Y, et al. A progress report of toxicovigilance activity for acute inhalation poisonings by waterproofing spray in Japan (abstract). Clin Toxicol 1996;34:589.
7 Schicht R, Hartjen A, Still V. Alveolitis after inhalation of leather impregnation spray. Dsch Med Wochenschr 1982;107:688.
8 Ota H, Koge K, Tanaka H, et al. Acute respiratory failure due to inhalation of aerosol water proof agent (Japanese). Nihon Kokyuki Gakkai Zasshi 2000 Jun;38:485–9.
9 Hubbs AF, Castranova V, Ma JY, et al. Acute lung injury induced by a commercial leather conditioner. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1997;143:37–46.

Plain text: Between January and March 2003 six patients were admitted to hospital in the Lausanne area of Switzerland with acute respiratory failure following use of a waterproofing spray for clothes and leather. Within hours of exposure all patients developed a dry cough and rapidly progressive dyspnoea. The clinical picture included severe hypoxaemia, increased white blood cell count, raised Creactive protein, and reduced carbon monoxide. All patients had diffuse bilateral ground glass opacities on a high resolution CT scan, most often sparing the subpleural areas. Every patient improved following treatment with oral prednisone (0.5-0.9 mg/kg) but residual dyspnoea and reduced TLCO (<80% of predicted value) could be seen for more than 2 weeks. Acute respiratory failure was attributed to inhalation of the waterproofing spray in view of the sudden occurrence of symptoms following exposure, the diffuse ground glass opacities without other abnormalities on the CT scan, and the absence of any other detected cause. In particular, BAL fluid was sterile for bacteria, mycobacteria, viruses and fungi. Serological tests for chlamydia and mycoplasma were performed on two patients and were negative. A nasal swab for influenza was performed on one patient and was negative. We were, however, surprised that the patients used three different spray brands. Waterproofing sprays contain three types of components-a propellant gas (propane butane), a waterproofing agent (fluorocarbon resin), and a solvent. It appeared that the manufacturer of the fluorinated resin changed during the summer of 2002 (the same for the three brands) and that the isopropanol solvent had to be replaced with a heptane solvent. Consumers started complaining of respiratory symptoms in October 2002 and the first severe case requiring admission was reported in January 2003. The three products were withdrawn from the market at the beginning of March. During this 6 month period 153 cases of respiratory symptoms related to waterproofing sprays were reported to the Swiss Toxicological Information Centre, whereas less than 10 cases per year had been reported in the previous 7 years. The same fluorinated resin was also distributed in Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK. In Germany the waterproofing sprays were withdrawn before they reached the consumers. During the same period five patients were admitted to hospital in the Netherlands with the same complaints.1 These sprays were also withdrawn from the Dutch market. Surprisingly, no case has yet been recorded in the UK. However, only sprays for public use were withdrawn, not the industrial liquids. In Switzerland two additional patients developed a chemical pneumonitis with similar symptoms and diffuse bilateral ground glass opacities after using industrial waterproofing liquid with a nebuliser. Workers in the above mentioned countries should therefore be warned not to use the liquid form with nebulisers. In the past, several outbreaks of acute respiratory symptoms have been recorded in different countries including 550 in Oregon in 1992,2 3 in Pennsylvania and Virginia in 1993,4 in Quebec in 1993,5 and in Japan between 1992 and 1993.6 Most of these epidemics followed a modification of the composition of the spray. One untreated patient developed a pulmonary fibrosis during a German outbreak in the 1980s7 and one death was reported in Japan in the 1990s.8 Following these outbreaks, various suggestions were proposed to explain these intoxications.9 In our opinion, the most likely explanation for the present outbreak is that the heptane solvent, which is more volatile than the previous one (isopropanol), allows the mist containing the new fluorinated resin to spread further in the tracheobronchial tree and to reach the alveoli where it might produce reactive metabolites inducing an alveolitis. However, the exact chemical reaction remains unknown. Because of the potentially lethal aspect of these intoxications and the po ssibility of new outbreaks, we consider that more research is needed on the effect of mist particle size and large analytical epidemiological studies are required to investigate this phenomenon further. References 1 Bonte F, Rudolphus A, Tan KY, et al. Severe respiratory symptoms following the use of waterproofing sprays. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2003;147:1185-8. 2 From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Acute respiratory illness linked to use of aerosol leather conditioner-Oregon, 1992. JAMA 1993;269:568-9. 3 Smilkstein MJ, Burton BT, Keene W, et al. Acute respiratory illness linked to use of aerosol leather conditioner-Oregon, December 1992. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1993;41:965-7. 4 Burkhart KK, Britt A, Petrini G, et al. Pulmonary toxicity following exposure to an aerosolised leather protector. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 1996;34:21-4. 5 Laliberte' M, Sanfacon G, Blais R. Acute toxicity linked to use of a leather protector. Ann Emerg Med 1995;25:841-4. 6 Shintani S, Ishizawa J, Endo Y, et al. A progress report of toxicovigilance activity for acute inhalation poisonings by waterproofing spray in Japan (abstract). Clin Toxicol 1996;34:589. 7 Schicht R, Hartjen A, Still V. Alveolitis after inhalation of leather impregnation spray. Dsch Med Wochenschr 1982;107:688. 8 Ota H, Koge K, Tanaka H, et al. Acute respiratory failure due to inhalation of aerosol water proof agent (Japanese). Nihon Kokyuki Gakkai Zasshi 2000 Jun;38:485-9. 9 Hubbs AF, Castranova V, Ma JY, et al. Acute lung injury induced by a commercial leather conditioner. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1997;143:37-46.

Full Text

Full text of this reference not available

Please Log In or Register to add the full text to this reference

Associated Questions

There are no associations for this paper.

Please Log In or Register to put forward this reference as evidence to a question.

Comments

Please sign in or register to add your thoughts.


Oasys and occupational asthma smoke logo