Assessment of exposure to ethanol vapors released during use of Alcohol-Based Hand Rubs by healthcare workers

A phase I clinical trial assessing the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of inhaled ethanol in humans as a potential treatment for respiratory tract infections

Background

Current treatments for respiratory infections are severely limited. Ethanol's unique properties including antimicrobial, immunomodulatory, and surfactant-like activity make it a promising candidate treatment for respiratory infections if it can be delivered safely to the airway by inhalation. Here, we explore the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of inhaled ethanol in a phase I clinical trial.

Methods

The study was conducted as a single-centre, open-label clinical trial in 18 healthy adult volunteers, six with no significant medical comorbidities, four with stable asthma, four with stable cystic fibrosis, and four active smokers. A dose-escalating design was used, with participants receiving three dosing cycles of 40, 60%, and then 80% ethanol v/v in water, 2 h apart, in a single visit. Ethanol was nebulised using a standard jet nebuliser, delivered through a novel closed-circuit reservoir system, and inhaled nasally for 10 min, then orally for 30 min. Safety assessments included adverse events and vital sign monitoring, blood alcohol concentrations, clinical examination, spirometry, electrocardiogram, and blood tests.

Results

No serious adverse events were recorded. The maximum blood alcohol concentration observed was 0.011% immediately following 80% ethanol dosing. Breath alcohol concentrations were high (median 0.26%) following dosing suggesting high tissue levels were achieved. Small transient increases in heart rate, blood pressure, and blood neutrophil levels were observed, with these normalising after dosing, with no other significant safety concerns. Of 18 participants, 15 completed all dosing cycles with three not completing all cycles due to tolerability. The closed-circuit reservoir system significantly reduced fugitive aerosol loss during dosing.

Conclusion

These data support the safety of inhaled ethanol at concentrations up to 80%, supporting its further investigation as a treatment for respiratory infections.Clinical trial registration: identifier ACTRN12621000067875.

Assessment of Ethanol Exposure from Hand Sanitizer Use and Potential for Developmental Toxicity in Nursing Infants

Ingestion of ethanol during pregnancy is known to have detrimental effects on the fetus. Although the potential developmental effects of maternal ethanol intake during lactation are less well characterized, public health guidelines recommend avoidance of alcohol or, if alcohol is consumed, to allow for 1–2 h to pass before nursing. A proposal to classify ethanol as potentially harmful to breast‐fed children warrants an investigation of the potential adverse neurodevelopmental effects of low‐dose ethanol exposure during lactation. There currently are no studies that have examined neurodevelopmental outcomes from lactational exposure to ethanol from the use of topical products that contain ethanol, such as alcohol‐based hand sanitizers (ABHS). Furthermore, the epidemiological literature of lactational ethanol exposures from maternal alcohol consumption is limited in design, provides equivocal evidence of neurological effects in infants, and is insufficient to characterize a dose–response relationship for developmental effects. Toxicological studies that observed neurodevelopmental effects in pups from ethanol via lactation did so at exceedingly high doses that also caused maternal toxicity. In this investigation, blood ethanol concentrations (BECs) of breastfeeding women following typical‐to‐intense ABHS use were computationally predicted and compared to health benchmarks to quantify the risk for developmental outcomes. Margins of 2.2 to 1000 exist between BECs associated with ABHS use compared to BECs associated with neurotoxicity adverse effect levels in the toxicology literature or oral ethanol intake per public health guidelines. Neurodevelopmental effects are not likely to occur in infants due to ABHS use by breastfeeding women, even when ABHSs are used at intense frequencies.

Adverse neurodevelopmental effects of ethanol exposure are supported by toxicological studies; ethanol as a potential “lactation hazard” needs evaluation. A lactation hazard may not be applicable for all ethanol‐containing products, such as hand sanitizers. Furthermore, internal dose assessments of hand sanitizer use are lacking. Computationally modeled blood ethanol concentrations following hand sanitizer use are lower than concentrations associated with toxicological and guideline benchmarks. Therefore, there is low potential for the use of ethanol‐containing hand sanitizers to be a lactation hazard.

Ethanol-based disinfectant sprays drive rapid changes in the chemical composition of indoor air in residential buildings

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in increased usage of ethanol-based disinfectants for surface inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 in buildings. Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and particles from ethanol-based disinfectant sprays were characterized in real-time (1 Hz) via a proton transfer reaction time-of-flight mass spectrometer (PTR-TOF-MS) and a high-resolution electrical low-pressure impactor (HR-ELPI+), respectively. Ethanol-based disinfectants drove sudden changes in the chemical composition of indoor air. VOC and particle concentrations increased immediately after application of the disinfectants, remained elevated during surface contact time, and gradually decreased after wiping. The disinfectants produced a broad spectrum of VOCs with mixing ratios spanning the sub-ppb to ppm range. Ethanol was the dominant VOC emitted by mass, with concentrations exceeding 103 μg m-3 and emission factors ranging from 101 to 102 mg g-1. Listed and unlisted diols, monoterpenes, and monoterpenoids were also abundant. The pressurized sprays released significant quantities (104-105 cm-3) of nano-sized particles smaller than 100 nm, resulting in large deposited doses in the tracheobronchial and pulmonary regions of the respiratory system. Inhalation exposure to VOCs varied with time during the building disinfection events. Much of the VOC inhalation intake (>60 %) occurred after the disinfectant was sprayed and wiped off the surface. Routine building disinfection with ethanol-based sprays during the COVID-19 pandemic may present a human health risk given the elevated production of volatile chemicals and nano-sized particles.

Assessment of occupational exposure to nebulized isopropyl alcohol as disinfectant during aseptic compounding of parenteral cytotoxic drugs in cleanrooms

Pharmacy technicians are exposed to volatile organic compounds, like the disinfectant isopropyl alcohol (IPA), during the process of aseptic compounding of parenteral cytotoxic drugs. The occupational exposure to nebulized IPA during aseptic compounding has not been investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate the exposure to IPA during aseptic compounding of parenteral cytotoxic drugs and to assess compliance with legal and regulatory limits. As a secondary endpoint, the difference between two disinfection methods was compared regarding the exposure to IPA. The exposure to IPA was measured during five working shifts of 8 hr and one shift of 4 hr. The concentration IPA was measured by using a six-gas monitor. Total daily exposure was calculated as 8-hr Time Weighted Average (TWA) air concentration in mg/m³ and compared with an Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL) value of 500 mg/m³ and incidental peak exposure of 5,000 mg/m³. To assess whether the 8-hr TWA air concentration meets the legal and regulatory limits the Similar Exposure Groups (SEG) compliance test was used. A paired sample t-test was conducted to assess difference in exposure between two disinfection methods. The average 8-hr TWA exposure to IPA during the six measurements varied from 2.6 mg/m³ to 43.9 mg/m³ and the highest momentary concentration measured was 860 mg/m³. The result of the SEG compliance test was 3.392 (U_r value) and was greater than the U_t value of 2.187 which means the exposure to IPA is in compliance with the OEL value. No significant difference in exposure was shown between two disinfection methods (p = 0.49). In conclusion, exposure to IPA during aseptic compounding of parenteral cytotoxic drugs showed compliance to the OEL values with no significant difference in exposure between two disinfection methods.

Washout kinetics of ethanol from the airways following inhalation of ethanol vapors and use of mouthwash

Introduction: Breath analyzers are commonly used to test for alcohol intoxication, i.e., elevated systemic levels of ethanol, at workplaces and among vehicle drivers. However, local low-dose exposure to ethanol in the mouth or airways may temporarily increase the breath-alcohol concentration (BrAC) without the systemic ethanol level being affected, leading to false positive test results. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of local ethanol exposure on the BrAC.Methods: Eleven healthy adults (six women) were exposed to on average 856 mg/m³ ethanol vapor for 15 min, followed by repeat collection of exhaled breath in Tedlar bags. One hour later, the subjects washed their mouth for 30 s with a typical mouthwash containing 22% ethanol and post-exposure breaths were again collected repeatedly. Negligible systemic uptake of ethanol was confirmed by analysis of blood sampled before, between and after the exposures. Ethanol in breath and blood was analyzed by gas chromatography.Results: No or very low levels (less than 0.002 mg/g) of ethanol were detected in blood at any time point, indicating negligible systemic uptake. The decline in breath was mono-exponential after both exposures with average half times of 0.4 (range 0.3-0.8) min after inhalation exposure and 1.9 (1.1-3.0) min after mouthwash. BrAC levels in the first sample, collected a few seconds after exposure, were 0.14 (0.07-0.13) mg/L after inhalation and 4.4 (2.7-6.0) mg/L after mouth wash. On average, it took 0.5 (0.06-0.7) min and 11 (6-15) min, respectively, for the BrAC to fall below the Swedish statutory limit of 0.1 mg/L air.Conclusion: In practice, use of breath analysis should not be a problem even if the subject inhaled ethanol vapors before the test. In contrast, use of ethanol-containing mouthwash results in a false positive test if sampling is done within 15 min.

Inhalation of Alcohol Vapor: Measurement and Implications

Decades of alcohol research have established the health risks and pharmacodynamic profile of oral alcohol consumption. Despite isolated periods of public health concern, comparatively less research has evaluated exposure to alcohol vapor. Inhaled alcohol initially bypasses first-pass metabolism and rapidly reaches the arterial circulation and the brain, suggesting that this route of administration may be associated with pharmacological effects that increase the risk of addiction. However, detailed reviews assessing the possible effects of inhaled alcohol in humans are lacking. A comprehensive, systematic literature review was conducted using Google Scholar and PubMed to examine manuscripts studying exposure to inhaled alcohol and measurement of biomarkers (biochemical or functional) associated with alcohol consumption in human participants. Twenty-one publications reported on alcohol inhalation. Fourteen studies examined inhalation of alcohol vapor associated with occupational exposure (e.g., hand sanitizer) in a variety of settings (e.g., naturalistic, laboratory). Six publications measured inhalation of alcohol in a controlled laboratory chamber, and 1 evaluated direct inhalation of an e-cigarette with ethanol-containing "e-liquid." Some studies have reported that inhalation of alcohol vapor results in measurable biomarkers of acute alcohol exposure, most notably ethyl glucuronide. Despite the lack of significantly elevated blood alcohol concentrations, the behavioral consequences and subjective effects associated with repeated use of devices capable of delivering alcohol vapor are yet to be determined. No studies have focused on vulnerable populations, such as adolescents or individuals with alcohol use disorder, who may be most at risk of problems associated with alcohol inhalation.

Hazardous substances in frequently used professional cleaning products

Background:

A growing number of studies have identified cleaners as a group at risk for adverse health effects of the skin and the respiratory tract. Chemical substances present in cleaning products could be responsible for these effects. Currently, only limited information is available about irritant and health hazardous chemical substances found in cleaning products. We hypothesized that chemical substances present in cleaning products are known health hazardous substances that might be involved in adverse health effects of the skin and the respiratory tract.

Methods:

We performed a systematic review of cleaning products used in the Swiss cleaning sector. We surveyed Swiss professional cleaning companies (n = 1476) to identify the most used products (n = 105) for inclusion. Safety data sheets (SDSs) were reviewed and hazardous substances present in cleaning products were tabulated with current European and global harmonized system hazard labels.

Results:

Professional cleaning products are mixtures of substances (arithmetic mean 3.5±2.8), and more than 132 different chemical substances were identified in 105 products. The main groups of chemicals were fragrances, glycol ethers, surfactants, solvents; and to a lesser extent, phosphates, salts, detergents, pH-stabilizers, acids, and bases. Up to 75% of products contained irritant (Xi), 64% harmful (Xn) and 28% corrosive (C) labeled substances. Hazards for eyes (59%) and skin (50%), and hazards by ingestion (60%) were the most reported.

Conclusions:

Cleaning products potentially give rise to simultaneous exposures to different chemical substances. As professional cleaners represent a large workforce, and cleaning products are widely used, it is a major public health issue to better understand these exposures. The list of substances provided in this study contains important information for future occupational exposure assessment studies.