2-(2-ethoxyethoxy)ethanol

Epidemiological data

Administrative data

Endpoint:

epidemiological data

Remarks:

not a true epidemiology study but provides information on exposure

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

supporting study

Reliability:

2 (reliable with restrictions)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

study well documented, meets generally accepted scientific principles, acceptable for assessment

Data source

Reference

Reference Type:

publication

Title:

Airborne Exposures to Monoethanolamine, Glycol Ethers, and Benzyl Alcohol During Professional Cleaning: A Pilot Study

Author:

Gerster FM, Hopf NB, Wild PP, Vernez D.

Year:

2014

Bibliographic source:

Ann. Occup. Hyg., 1–14.

Materials and methods

Study type:

other: Air exposure measurements during product use

Remarks:

Study did not look at specific adverse effects

Test guideline

Qualifier:

no guideline required

Principles of method if other than guideline:

The aim was to determine airborne concentrations of diethylene glycol ethyl ether during different cleaning tasks performed by professional cleaning workers and assess their determinants.

Test material

Test material information

Constituent 1

Reference substance name:

2-(2-ethoxyethoxy)ethanol

EC Number:

203-919-7

EC Name:

2-(2-ethoxyethoxy)ethanol

Cas Number:

111-90-0

Molecular formula:

C6H14O3

IUPAC Name:

2-(2-ethoxyethoxy)ethan-1-ol

Details on test material:

- Name of test material (as cited in study report): Ethyldiglykol

Specific details on test material used for the study:

Product in a cleaner

Method

Type of population:

occupational

Ethical approval:

not applicable

Details on study design:

Personal air samples were collected in 12 cleaning companies, and analyzed by conventional methods. Study region was French speaking cantons in Switzerland. 450 companies cleaning companies approached, 52 agreed to participate and of these 12 were recruited for the study. 2-4 workers were used for sampling observations per website. During sampling, workers were asked not to smoke.

Presence of DEGEE was confirmed by listing in safety data sheet.

Exposure assessment:

measured

Details on exposure:

Tasks were categorised for analysis and sampling took place from the start to the finishe of the cleaning task. Task categories were intensive floor cleaning, apartment cleaning, industrial cleaning, public space cleaning and patient room cleaning. Tasks can be considered as 'professional' rather than 'industrial'.

Sampling was using backpack containing air sampling pumps operating at 0.18L/min. Exposure determinants were: spray/non-spray, concentration in cleaner, ventilation level (cross ventilation, general ventilation, no ventilation) and room size (small, medium, large, very large).

Statistical methods:

geometric mean and standard deviation

Results and discussion

Results:

MEASUREMENTS WHEN DEGEE KNOWN TO BE PRESENT FROM DATASHEET
Sampling duration :38-274 mins
29 measurement, 14% below LOD (0.034mg/m3)
GM: 0.053mg/m3, GSD: 7.0, range 0.011 - 0.877mg/m3.

MEASUREMENTS WHEN DEGEE NOT KNOWN TO BE PRESENT FROM DATASHEET
Sampling duration :30-220 mins
68 measurement, 75% below LOD (0.029mg/m3)
GM: 0.005mg/m3, GSD: 8.4, range 0.009 - 0.983mg/m3.

MEASUREMENTS BY ACTIVITY
Intensive floor cleaning: n=6 (33% below LOD) GM: 0.083mg/m3, GSD: 10.1.
Apartment cleaning: n=3 (none below LOD) GM: 0.019mg/m3, GSD: 1.4.

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Executive summary:

A study of professional cleaners in Switzerland found that they were exposed to diethylene glycol ethyl ether during the use of cleaning compounds containing the solvent but that concentrations were well below those of concern. The highest concentrations observed were below 1mg/m3 with average values well below this. The highest exposures came during the use of intensive floor cleaning operations using stripping solutions.