Occupational Safety Agencies Research Articles

Occupational exposure to sevoflurane following topical application to painful wounds.

Background:Occupational exposure to halogenated anesthetics employed for general anesthesia has been extensively studied. Conversely, a new modality of treatment of painful wounds with topical sevoflurane lacks exposure studies.Objectives:To evaluate the magnitude of acute occupational exposure to sevoflurane following topical application to painful wounds.Methods:Four patients with chronic painful wounds were treated with topical sevoflurane (20, 20, 20 and 10 mL) following an approved therapeutic protocol in our Pain Management Unit. Eight passive dosimeters were placed at different locations of a treatment room with a volume of 163 m3 and 3.3 air changes per hour: 3 for near peak (for 20-50 min) and 1 overall exposure (for 3.4 h) at the nurse’s breathing zone, and 4 for area exposure (for 3-3.4 h). Worst-case scenario theoretical concentrations of sevoflurane were also calculated.Results:The highest levels were obtained for two dosimeters worn by the nurse at the breathing zone (8.28 and 9.12 ppm-TWA [parts per million-Time-Weighted Average]), while the lowest level was obtained from the dosimeter placed on the most distant wall from patients (0.73 ppm-TWA). Theoretical concentrations were calculated from standard volatilization principles and were in agreement with the concentrations measured.Discussion-Conclusions:All air concentrations measured were lower than exposure limits set by occupational safety agencies from Finland, Sweden and Norway, which range from 10 ppm for a TWA of 8 hours to 20 ppm for short-term exposures (15 min). Application of topical sevoflurane on wounds seems to be environmentally safe for health-care professionals as it produces exposure levels lower than the established limits for anesthetic procedures.

The costs and effects of screening for cancer among asbestos-exposed workers

Several million workers previously exposed to asbestos are at risk each year for developing asbestosis or cancer as a result of this exposure. We have reviewed the data on the general effectiveness of screening for the two most common cancers found in these workers (lung cancer and colo-rectal cancer) and have compared the relative benefits expected from screening workers for colon or lung cancer 10, 15, 20 or 25 yr after their initial exposure. Although lung cancer is common, there is little evidence at present that screening for this disease is effective in reducing mortality. Colon cancer is less common, there is more evidence that screening is effective, and the relatively high risk of dying from this disease in asbestos workers makes screening useful. The cost per additional year of life extended by screening is only a few hundreds of dollars, making colon cancer screening programs for asbestos workers considerably more cost-effective than most other screening programs. We conclude that occupational safety agencies should consider implementing screening programs for colon cancer in workers exposed to asbestos over 10 yr ago.