Hazardous substances in frequently usedprofessional cleaning products

Fabian Melchior Gerster1,2, David Vernez1,2, Pascal Pierre Wild1,2,3,Nancy Brenna Hopf1,2

1IST, Institute for Work and Health, University of Lausanne, Switzerland, 2University of Geneva, Lausanne,Switzerland, 3INRS, National Institute for Research and Security, Institut National de Recherche et de Securite,Department of Epidemiology, Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France

Background: A growing number of studies have identified cleaners as a group at risk for adverse healtheffects of the skin and the respiratory tract. Chemical substances present in cleaning products could beresponsible for these effects. Currently, only limited information is available about irritant and healthhazardous chemical substances found in cleaning products. We hypothesized that chemical substancespresent in cleaning products are known health hazardous substances that might be involved in adversehealth effects of the skin and the respiratory tract.Methods: We performed a systematic review of cleaning products used in the Swiss cleaning sector. Wesurveyed Swiss professional cleaning companies (n51476) to identify the most used products (n5105) forinclusion. Safety data sheets (SDSs) were reviewed and hazardous substances present in cleaningproducts 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 morethan 132 different chemical substances were identified in 105 products. The main groups of chemicalswere 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 chemicalsubstances. 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 inthis study contains important information for future occupational exposure assessment studies.

Keywords: Health risk, Irritant, Harmful, Corrosive, Cleaning products, Occupational exposure

IntroductionProfessional cleaning is a basic service occupation

worldwide, and cleaning products are used daily in

different environments, both indoors and outdoors.1,2

In recent years, a growing number of scientific studies

have shown an association of cleaning work with

respiratory adverse effects including asthma.3–5 In

addition, skin diseases such as dermatitis of the hand

have also been reported.6–8 One explanation for the

observed respiratory adverse health effects among

cleaning workers is chemical exposures deriving from

cleaning products.2,9–11

Several studies have investigated the relationship

between adverse health effects, cleaning activity, and

cleaning products.12–19 Several risk factors were

identified including exposure to chemical substances

via application of cleaning products and other cleaning

activities. Researchers have called for objective and

more accurate estimates of occupational exposure to

cleaning products in order to better understand their

adverse effects.12 One major difficulty in this context

is the multitude of cleaning products used, and the

large number of chemical substances present in these

products. Moreover, cleaning products are constantly

changing because of ecological, economic, and con-

sumer demands.

Safety data sheets (SDSs) for professional cleaning

products are made available to provide workers with

health hazard information regarding substances

or mixtures. The current EU classification system

(Directives 1999/45/EC and 67/548/EEC) defines sub-

stances and preparations as dangerous if they are

explosive (E), oxidizing (O), extremely or highly

flammable (Fz, F), very toxic (Tz), toxic (T),

Correspondence to: Nancy Brenna Hopf, Institute for Work and Health(IST), Route de la Corniche 2, CH-1066 Epalinges, Lausanne,Switzerland. Email: Nancy.Hopf@hospvd.ch

46� W. S. Maney & Son Ltd 2014DOI 10.1179/2049396713Y.0000000052 International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 2014 VOL. 20 NO. 1

harmful (Xn), corrosive (C), irritant (Xi), sensitizing

(Xn or Xi), carcinogenic (T, Xn), mutagenic (T, Xn),

toxic for reproduction (T, Xn), or dangerous for the

environment (N). These labels are accompanied by

risk phrases (R-phrases), and typical R-phrases used

for cleaning products are listed in the Methods section.

We identified frequently used professional cleaning

products in Switzerland and through a systematic

SDS analysis of these products, hazardous (C, Xn,

Xi) substances were identified and listed. We plan to

use these results in a future exposure study to better

characterize exposures to substances presenting a

health hazard among professional cleaning workers.

MethodsSelection of cleaning productsTo select a representative group of frequently used

cleaning products, we mailed a letter to cleaning

companies located in the French- and German-

speaking cantons of Switzerland (n51476, Fig. 1).

The letter mailed to cleaning services was not available

in Romansh and Italian languages, thereby excluding

cleaning companies in the Romansh and Italian

cantons of Switzerland. Cleaning companies were

asked to specify cleaning activity, company size, and

cleaning products used. Cleaning companies were

identified from the Federal Office of Statistics using

the code for cleaning companies (‘Nomenclature

Generale des Activites economiques’ (NOGA code)

(2008)). The NOGA data contained estimates about

company size by number of employees. Companies

were grouped into small (5–49 employees), medium

(50–250 employees), and large (§250 employees).

Technical terms (both French and German) used in

the cleaning sector were retrieved from the training

manual used for professional cleaners in Switzerland.20

To process the large number of responses, we used the

TeleForm software (Cardiff TeleForm, Version 10.5.2,

San Diego, USA).

The letter included a list of cleaning products

(n5488) from four major companies that manu-

factured, produced, and/or supplied products in

Switzerland. This list of cleaning products by brand

names was finalized after discussions with a profes-

sional cleaning association, a medium-sized cleaning

company, and a training center for professional

cleaners. The cleaning companies were asked to mark

the cleaning products they used from the provided

list, and in the case where the cleaning products they

used were not listed, the company was asked to write

down these names before mailing the responses back.

An Excel spreadsheet was generated from TeleForm

and imported to Stata (Stata 12, Stata Corp Lp,

Lakeway Drive, USA). Response rates by company

size were calculated. Cleaning products marked as

being used by at least 10 cleaning companies were

included in the systematic SDS analysis.

Safety data sheet analysisSafety data sheets for cleaning products were

obtained from the companies’ web sites. If SDSs

were not available, products were excluded from the

SDS analysis. Selected products were grouped into 10

product categories: floor cleaners (FCs), general

purpose cleaners (GPCs), polishing products (PPs),

carpet cleaners (CCs), scale removing products

(SRPs), bathroom cleaners (BCs), glass cleaners

(GCs), disinfection products (DPs), kitchen cleaners

(KCs), and other surfaces cleaners (OSCs).

A comprehensive table was created listing all

substances mentioned in the SDSs under section 3.

Section 3 in the SDS lists all the ingredients in a

mixture (chemical name, CAS number, and concen-

trations) that are classified as health hazards and are

present above their cut-off/concentration limits. The

frequency of a chemical substance’s occurrence in

selected products was recorded. Section 3 of SDSs is

titled ‘Composition/information on ingredients’ and

provides details about hazardous substances in the

mixtures. Names, substance identifier (CAS number),

concentration or concentration ranges, and classifica-

tions according to current danger letters and R-

phrases (Directives 1999/45/EC and 67/548/EEC) as

well as new hazard classes and statements (Regulation

(EC) No. 1272/2008) are presented in the table.21–23

This was possible because Switzerland has from 1

December 2010 to 1 June 2017 to replace the current

classification system (Directives 1999/45/EC and

67/548/EEC) with the new (Regulation (EC) No.

1272/2008), meeting the requirements of the Globally

Figure 1 Flow-chart of the decision process for including

and excluding (non-French- and non-German-speaking can-

tons, unknown addresses, or uncommon types of cleaning)

cleaning companies in the study. 1 Number of cleaning

services selected for the study. The table shows response

rates by company size.

Gerster et al. Hazardous substances in cleaning products

International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 2014 VOL. 20 NO. 1 47

Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of

Chemicals (GHS).24 Therefore, both the current

classification and the new GHS labeling were available

for this study. The regulations (Directive 67/548/EEC,

Directive 1999/45/EC, EC No. 1272/2008) define

substance concentration restrictions regarding the

listing of substances in this section.21–23 Table 1

includes also the types(s) of cleaning products (FC,

GPC, PP, CC, SRP, BC, GC, DP, KC, OSC) where

the chemical substances were present. A literature

search was performed in PubMed (http://

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/, 15 October 2013)

by searching for ‘substance name’z‘exposure’ and

‘CAS number’z‘exposure’. If available, up to three

studies were chosen for each chemical substance that

was present in at least two selected cleaning products.

Further criteria for the selection of references were

‘publishing date’, ‘health aspects’, ‘dermal and respira-

tory exposure studies’, ‘occupational exposure stu-

dies’, ‘exposure assessment methods’, ‘cleaning’, and

‘cleaning products’.

Fragrances sometimes do not meet the criteria to be

listed in section 3 ‘Composition/information on

ingredients’ of the SDSs (e.g. low concentration).

However fragrances, preservatives, and others are

mentioned in section 15 ‘Regulatory Information’ if

they are subjected to other regulations such as

substances depleting the ozone layer ((EC) No. 2037/

2000, persistent organic pollutants (EC) No. 850/2004,

and export/import of dangerous substances (EC) No.

689/2008).25–27 Names of fragrances, preservatives,

and other chemical substances listed under section 15

of SDSs are reported in the Results section.

Cleaning products containing at least one substance

listed with corrosive, irritant, and harmful symbols

under the current EU classification system were

counted and expressed in percentage for each of the

10 product categories. Similar results were presented

for the R-phrases. R-phrases relevant in this study are

harmful by inhalation (R20), are harmful in contact

with skin (R21), are harmful if swallowed (R22),

causes burns (R34), causes severe burns (R35), is

irritating to eyes (R36), is irritating to respiratory

system (R37), is irritating to skin (R38), has risk of

serious damage to eyes (R41), may cause sensitization

by skin contact (R43), has danger of serious damage to

health by prolonged exposure (R48), has possible risk

of impaired fertility (R62), has possible risk of harm to

the unborn child (R63), is harmful: may cause lung

damage if swallowed (R65), repeated exposure may

cause skin dryness or cracking (R66), and vapors may

cause drowsiness and dizziness (R67).The fractions of

cleaning products, with at least one substance listed

with the R-phrases R20, R21, R22, R34, R35, R36,

R37, R38, R41, R43, R48, R62, R63, R65, R66, and

R67, were expressed in percentage.

ResultsThe response rate to the letter sent to cleaning

companies was the highest (50%) for large companies

(§250 employees), and lower for medium (24%) and

small (11%) companies (Fig. 1). Based on company

responses, respondent companies employed .40 000

employees. A total of 116 products were selected for

SDS analysis and 11 products were excluded because

of missing SDSs. In the 105 remaining selected

products, 132 different chemical substances were

listed in the SDSs reviewed. In average, one cleaning

product contained 3.5 (¡2.8) chemical substances

listed in section 3 of the SDSs. The composition of

the cleaning products varied depending on their

intended use. The substances we identified are listed

in Table 1. Although the type of glycol ethers varied

greatly across cleaning products, they were often

(20% of the products) present in both small and large

amounts (0.1–50% in the products). Most glycol

ethers were found in PPs (48%), SRPs (42%), GPCs

(37%), and FCs (36%); some (20%) were found in

DPs and KCs, and few (10–11%) were found in GCs,

BCs, and CCs. The choice of surfactants was diverse

but were present in 19% of the products and their

concentration ranges varied greatly (0.1–30% in the

products). We particularly focused on ethanolamines,

known for their sensitizing properties.28 Three

ethanolamines were identified: monoethanolamine,

triethanolamine, and 2-diethylaminoethanol. The

most frequently used was monoethanolamine, which

was present in eight products (n58): five FCs, two

GPCs, and one KC. In all, 16% of the products

contained organic solvents and the concentration

ranges varied enormously (0.1–75%) making up

75% of one of the products (PP). Other typical

ingredients, although in lower concentrations,

accounted for 18% of our substance list (Table 1):

phosphates, salts, detergents, pH-stabilizers, acids,

and bases. Quaternary ammonium compounds or

‘quats’, a substance class known for sensitizing and

allergic responses among cleaners, were found in

two products in 3–10% concentrations.2,29

Fragrances were commonly (27% of identified

substances) found in low concentrations (0.01–5%),

except when they also acted as a solvent (30%).

Interestingly, up to 91% of the selected cleaning

products contained at least one substance that was

subject to other regulations and are listed under

section 15 of SDSs. In total, 26 substances were

found under section 15 of the SDS (Table 2).

In all, 11 substances listed in section 3 of SDSs

were neither classified with danger symbol letters and

R-phrases nor with hazard classes and categories.

The remaining 117 substances were classified with

danger symbol letters and R-phrases as well as with

hazard classes and categories. Of these, 82 substances

Gerster et al. Hazardous substances in cleaning products

48 International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 2014 VOL. 20 NO. 1

Ta

ble

1L

ist

of

su

bs

tan

ce

sid

en

tifi

ed

ins

ec

tio

n3

of

sa

fety

da

tas

he

ets

(SD

Ss

)fo

r1

05

se

lec

ted

cle

an

ing

pro

du

cts

,lis

ted

ind

ec

rea

sin

go

rde

ro

fo

cc

urr

en

ce

inp

rod

uc

ts

Su

bsta

nce

EU

1G

HS

2P

rod

uct3

Nam

eC

AS

L5

R6

C7

S8

%9

N10

Pro

du

ct

typ

eR

efe

ren

ce

4

Isop

rop

ylalc

ohol

67-6

3-0

FR

11

Fla

m.L

iq2

H225

1–75

16

FC

,G

PC

,C

C,

BC

,P

P34–36

Xi

R20/2

1/2

2E

yeIr

rit.

2H

319

Xn

R36

STO

TS

E3

H336

R36/3

8R

67

Die

thyle

ne

gly

colm

onoeth

yleth

er

111-9

0-0

Xi

R36

Skin

Corr

.1B

H314

0.1

–10

15

PP

,G

PC

,FC

37–39

EyeD

am

1H

318

Acute

Tox4

H302

Aq

uaticA

cute

1H

400

Poly

(oxy-1

,2-e

thaned

iyl),

alp

ha-t

rid

ecyl-

om

eg

a-h

yd

roxy-,

bra

nched

69011-3

6-5

Xn

R22

EyeD

am

1H

318

1–20

14

FC

,G

PC

,D

P,

CC

,S

RP

,B

Cna

R41

Acute

Tox4

H302

Dip

rop

yle

ne

gly

colm

onom

eth

yleth

er

34590-9

4-8

na

na

na

na

1–20

12

PP

,FC

,G

PC

,C

C,

BC

40–42

Citric

acid

77-9

2-9

Xi

R36

EyeIr

rit.

2H

319

1–30

9S

RP

,B

C,

FC

43

Deceth

-426183-5

2-8

Xi

R22

na

na

1–15

9S

RP

,K

C,

FC

,B

C,

GP

Cna

Xn

R41

Eth

anol

64-1

7-5

FR

11

Fla

m.L

iq.2

H225

1–20

9G

PC

,P

P,

FC

,B

C,

OS

C44–46

Sulfonic

acid

s,

C13–17-

sec-a

lkane,

sod

ium

salts

85711-6

9-9

Xi

R38

R41

EyeD

am

1H

318

1–15

8G

PC

,FC

na

Skin

Irrit.

2H

315

Skin

Corr

.1b

H314

Acute

Tox4

H302

Aq

uaticA

cute

1H

400

Monoeth

anola

min

e141-4

3-5

CR

20

Skin

Corr

.1b

H314

1–15

8FC

,D

P,

GP

C9,

47–49

Xn

R21

STO

TS

E3

H335

R22

EyeD

am

1H

318

R34

Acute

Tox4

[H302

H312

H332]

R37

Benzenesulfonic

acid

,(1

-meth

yle

thyl)-,

sod

ium

salt

(1:1

)28348-5

3-0

Xi

R36

EyeIr

rit.

2H

319

1–10

7FC

,G

PC

,C

C,

BC

na

Alc

ohols

,C

13–15-b

ranched

and

linear,

buto

xyla

ted

eth

oxyla

ted

111905-5

3-4

Xi

R36/3

8S

kin

Irrit2

H315

1–30

6FC

,G

PC

,C

Cna

EyeIr

rit.

2H

319

Pro

pane

74-9

8-6

Fz

R12

Fla

m.G

as1

H220

1–30

6C

C,

GP

C50

Pre

ss.G

as

H280

Alc

ohols

,C

12–14,

eth

oxyla

ted

68439-5

0-9

Xn

R22

EyeD

am

1H

318

1–10

5FC

,G

PC

,S

RP

na

R41

Acute

Tox4

H302

Benzylalc

ohol

100-5

1-6

Xn

R20/2

2E

yeIr

rit.

2H

319

1–20

5FC

,G

PC

51–53

NR

36

Acute

Tox4

[H302,

H332]

Buta

ne

106-9

7-8

Fz

R12

Fla

m.G

as1

H220

15–75

5C

C54–56

Pre

ss.G

as

H280

Buto

xyp

rop

anol

5131-6

6-8

Xi

R36/3

8S

kin

Irrit2

H315

1–30

557

EyeIr

rit.

2H

319

Gerster et al. Hazardous substances in cleaning products

International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 2014 VOL. 20 NO. 1 49

Su

bsta

nce

EU

1G

HS

2P

rod

uct3

Nam

eC

AS

L5

R6

C7

S8

%9

N10

Pro

du

ct

typ

eR

efe

ren

ce

4

C12–15

Pare

th-1

168131-3

9-5

Xi

R22

EyeD

am

1H

318

0.1

–15

5P

P,

FC

,G

PC

58

Xn

R41

Aq

uaticA

cute

1H

400

NR

50

Acute

Tox4

H302

Die

thyle

ne

gly

colm

ono-n

-buty

leth

er

112-3

4-5

Xi

R36

EyeIr

rit.

2H

319

5–30

5FC

,S

RP

,P

P59–61

Eth

yle

ne

gly

col

107-2

1-1

Xn

R22

Acute

Tox4

H302

1–20

5G

PC

,FC

,P

P62–64

Eth

yle

ne

gly

colm

ono-n

-buty

leth

er

111-7

6-2

Xi

R20

Skin

Irrit.

2H

315

1–20

5G

PC

,FC

,G

C65–67

Xn

R21

EyeIr

rit.

2H

319

R22

Skin

Sens.1

[H302,

H312,

H332]

R36

Acute

Tox4

R38

PE

G-1

0tr

idecyleth

er

24938-9

1-8

Xi

R41

EyeD

am

1H

318

1–15

5FC

,P

P,

GP

Cna

NR

50

Phenoxyeth

anol

122-9

9-6

Xi

R22

Acute

Tox4

H302

1–10

5P

P,

FC

,G

PC

68

Xn

R36

EyeIr

rit2

H319

Poly

(oxy-1

,2-e

thaned

iyl),

alp

ha-isod

ecyl-om

eg

a-h

yd

roxy-

61827-4

2-7

Xi

R22

na

na

1–15

5G

PC

,P

P,

OS

Cna

Xn

R41

Sulfam

icacid

5329-1

4-6

Xi

R36/3

8S

kin

Irrit2

H315

3–15

5S

RP

na

R52/5

3E

yeIr

rit.

2H

319

Aq

uaticC

hro

nic

3H

412

Poly

(oxy-1

,2-e

thaned

iyl),

alp

ha-

isod

ecyl-om

eg

a-h

yd

roxy-

107-9

8-2

na

R10

Fla

m.L

iq.3

H226

0.1

–,

10

4FC

,C

C,

GP

Cna

Phosp

horic

acid

7664-3

8-2

CR

34

Skin

Corr

.1B

H314

5–30

4G

PC

,S

RP

na

Met.

Corr

.1H

290

Poly

(oxy-1

,2-e

thaned

iyl),

alp

ha-s

ulfo-o

meg

a-

hyd

roxy-,

C10–16-a

lkyle

thers

,sod

ium

salts

68585-3

4-2

Xi

R38

EyeD

am

1H

318

1–15

4G

C,

BC

,K

C,

GP

Cna

R41

Skin

Irrit.

2H

315

Sod

ium

eth

asulfate

126-9

2-1

Xi

R22

EyeD

am

1H

318

1–5

4FC

,B

Cna

Xn

R38

Skin

Irrit.

2H

315

R41

Tri(2

-buto

xyeth

yl)

phosp

hate

78-5

1-3

na

na

na

na

1–5

4P

P69

Alk

yla

lkohola

lkoxyla

tna

Xi

R36

Skin

Irrit2

H315

1–10

4FC

,G

PC

na

R38

EyeIr

rit.

2H

319

Alc

ohols

,C

10–12,

eth

oxyla

ted

pro

poxyla

ted

68154-9

7-2

NR

51

Aq

uaticC

hro

nic

2H

411

1–5

3S

RP

,FC

na

R53

Alp

ha-t

erp

ineol

98-5

5-5

Xi

R22

Skin

Irit.2

H315

0.0

1–15

3G

PC

,G

C33,

70,

71

Xn

R41

R38

Am

moniu

mhyd

roxid

e1336-2

1-6

CR

34

Skin

Corr

.1B

H314

0.0

1–1

3P

P,

GP

C72

NR

50

Aq

uaticA

cute

1H

400

Cyclo

hexanol,

4-(

1,1

-dim

eth

yle

thyl)-,

1-a

ceta

te32210-2

3-4

NR

51/5

3A

quaticC

hro

nic

2H

411

0.1

–,

53

GP

C,

CC

na

Ta

ble

1C

on

tin

ue

d

Gerster et al. Hazardous substances in cleaning products

50 International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 2014 VOL. 20 NO. 1

Su

bsta

nce

EU

1G

HS

2P

rod

uct3

Nam

eC

AS

L5

R6

C7

S8

%9

N10

Pro

du

ct

typ

eR

efe

ren

ce

4

(D)-

Lim

onene

5989-2

7-5

Xi

R10

Fla

m.L

iq3

H226

0.1

–1

3G

C,

CC

73–75

NR

38

Aq

uaticA

cute

1H

400

R43

Aq

uaticC

hro

nic

1H

410

R50/5

3S

kin

Irrit.

2H

315

Skin

Sens.1

H317

Genap

olX

080

9043-3

0-5

Xi

R22

EyeD

am

1H

318

0.1

–5

3P

P,

GP

Cna

Xn

R41

Acute

Tox4

H302

R51

R53

Hyd

rocarb

ons,

terp

ene

pro

cessin

gb

y-p

rod

ucts

68956-5

6-9

Xn

R51/5

3A

sp

.Tox.1

H304

0.0

1–1

3G

C,

GP

Cna

NR

65

Aq

uaticC

hro

nic

2H

411

Fatt

yacid

s,

coconut

oil,

pota

ssiu

msalts

61789-3

0-8

Xi

R36/3

8E

yeIr

rit2

H319

1–5

3G

PC

,FC

na

Skin

Irrit.

2H

316

Nap

hth

a(p

etr

ole

um

),hyd

rotr

eate

dheavy

64742-4

8-9

Xn

R10

na

na

3–.

30

3G

PC

,FC

76

R65

R66

Sili

cic

acid

,d

isod

ium

salt,

penta

hyd

rate

10213-7

9-3

CR

34

Skin

Corr

1B

H314

1–15

3K

C,

FC

na

Xi

R37

STO

TS

E3

H335

Sod

ium

hyd

roxid

e1310-7

3-2

CR

35

Skin

Corr

.1A

H314

0.0

1–10

3FC

,G

C,

KC

77

Alk

yla

lkohole

thoxyla

tna

Xi

R22

na

na

,5–15

2FC

,G

PC

na

Xn

R41

1-P

rop

oxy-2

-pro

panol

1569-0

1-3

na

R10

Fla

m.L

iq3

H226

1–50

2G

C,

GP

C78

EyeIr

rit2

H319

Nero

l106-2

5-2

FR

12

Skin

Irrit2

H315

0.0

1–10

2G

C,

GP

C79–81

Xi

R38

Fla

m.G

as1

H220

Pre

ss.G

as

H280

2-t

-Buty

lcyclo

hexylaceta

te88-4

1-5

NR

51,

R53

Aq

uaticC

hro

nic

2H

411

0.1

–1

2C

C,

BC

na

Ala

nin

e,

N,N

-bis

(carb

oxym

eth

yl)-,

sod

ium

salt

(1:3

)164462-1

6-2

na

na

na

na

1–,

52

CC

,FC

na

Alk

anes,

C9–12-iso-

90622-5

7-4

Xn

R10

na

na

30–75

2C

C,

FC

82

R53

R65

R66

Coconut

acid

61788-4

7-4

Xi

R36/3

8S

kin

Corr

.1B

H314

na

2G

PC

,FC

83

EyeD

am

1H

318

Acute

Tox4

H302

Aq

uaticA

cute

1H

400

Decyl

D-g

lucosid

e54549-2

5-6

Xi

R36

na

na

1–5

2K

C,

SR

Pna

Dip

hosp

horic

acid

,te

trap

ota

ssiu

msalt

7320-3

4-5

Xi

R36

EyeIr

rit.

2H

314

1–3

2G

PC

,FC

na

Ta

ble

1C

on

tin

ue

d

Gerster et al. Hazardous substances in cleaning products

International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 2014 VOL. 20 NO. 1 51

Su

bsta

nce

EU

1G

HS

2P

rod

uct3

Nam

eC

AS

L5

R6

C7

S8

%9

N10

Pro

du

ct

typ

eR

efe

ren

ce

4

Hep

tane

142-8

2-5

FR

11

Fla

m.L

iq.2

H225

5–20

2C

C84,

85

Xn

R38

Asp

.Tox.1

H304

NR

50/5

3A

quaticA

cute

1H

400

R65

Aq

uaticC

hro

nic

1H

410

R67

Skin

Irrit.

2H

315

STO

TS

E3

H336

Isob

uta

ne

75-2

8-5

Fz

R12

Fla

m.G

as1

H220

3–20

2C

C86

Pre

ss.G

as

H281

Lin

alo

ol

78-7

0-6

Xi

R38,

R43

Skin

Irrit2

,S

kin

Sens.1

H315,

H317

0.0

1–3

2G

C,

CC

87,

88

Non-ionic

tensid

es

na

Xi

R22

na

na

5–30

2FC

na

Xn

R38

NR

50

Oxirane,

meth

yl,

poly

mer

and

oxib

ane,

buty

leth

er

9038-9

5-3

Xn

R22

Acute

Tox4

H302

3–10

2FC

na

Poly

mer

dis

pers

ion

na

na

na

na

na

na

2P

Pna

Quate

rnary

am

moniu

mcom

pound

s,

benzyl-C

12–16-a

lkyld

imeth

yl,

chlo

rid

es

68424-8

5-1

CR

21/2

2S

kin

Corr

.1B

H314

3–10

2G

PC

na

NR

34

Aq

uaticA

cute

1H

400

PE

G-1

5cocoate

61791-2

9-5

Xi

R36

na

na

1–5

2FC

,G

PC

na

Sod

ium

chlo

rid

e7647-1

4-5

CR

34

Skin

Corr

.1B

H314

0.0

1–10

2G

C,

SR

PS

ulfuric

acid

,m

ono-C

12–16-a

lkyleste

rs,

sod

ium

salts

73296-8

9-6

Xi

R38

na

na

5–15

2C

Cna

R37

Met.

Corr

.1H

290

STO

TS

E3

H335

(L)-

(2)-

Eth

ylla

cta

te687-4

7-8

Xi

R10

EyeD

am

1H

318

3–10

1C

CR

37

Fla

m.L

iq.3

H226

R41

STO

TS

E3

H335

1,4

-Dio

xacyclo

hep

tad

ecane-5

,17-d

ione

105-9

5-3

NR

10

na

na

,5

1G

PC

R51

R53

1-P

ente

n-3

-one,

1-(

2,6

,6-t

rim

eth

yl-2-c

yclo

hexen-1

-yl)-

7779-3

0-8

NR

51/5

3A

quaticC

hro

nic

2H

411

0.1

–1

1C

C2-D

ieth

yla

min

oeth

anol

100-3

7-8

CR

10

Skin

Corr

.1B

H314

1–3

1G

PC

R20/2

1/2

2Fla

m.L

iq.3

H226

R34

Acute

Tox4

[H302,

H312,

H332]

2-T

rans-3

,7-d

imeth

yl-2,6

-octa

die

n-1

-ol

106-2

4-1

na

R38

EyeD

am

1H

318

0.0

1–0.1

1G

CR

41

Skin

Sens.1

H317

R43

Skin

Irrit.

2H

315

3,7

-Dim

eth

yl-6-o

cte

n-1

-ol

106-2

2-9

Xi

R38

Skin

Irrit2

H315

,0.0

11

GC

NR

43

Skin

Sens1

H317

R51/5

3A

quaticC

hro

nic

2H

411

6-O

cte

nenitrile

,3,7

-dim

eth

yl-

51566-6

2-2

na

R52/5

3A

quaticC

hro

nic

3H

412

0.0

1–0.1

1G

CA

cety

lced

rene

32388-5

5-9

NR

50/5

3A

quaticA

cute

1H

400

0.1

–1

1C

CA

quaticC

hro

nic

1H

410

Alc

ohols

,C

12–18,

eth

ers

with

poly

eth

yle

ne

gly

colm

ono-B

ueth

er

146340-1

6-1

NR

50

Skin

Irrit2

H315

1–5

1FC

Xi

R38

Aq

uaticA

cute

1H

400

Acid

blu

e3

3536-4

9-0

na

na

na

na

,0.0

11

GC

Ta

ble

1C

on

tin

ue

d

Gerster et al. Hazardous substances in cleaning products

52 International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 2014 VOL. 20 NO. 1

Su

bsta

nce

EU

1G

HS

2P

rod

uct3

Nam

eC

AS

L5

R6

C7

S8

%9

N10

Pro

du

ct

typ

eR

efe

ren

ce

4

Alc

ohols

,C

10–16,

eth

oxyla

ted

pro

poxyla

ted

69227-2

2-1

Xi

R22

na

na

5–15

1FC

Xn

R41

Alc

ohols

,C

16–18

and

C18–unsatd

.,eth

oxyla

ted

68920-6

6-1

Xn

R22

EyeD

am

1H

318

1–3

1P

PN

R38

Aq

uaticA

cute

1H

400

R41

Acute

Tox4

H302

R50

Skin

Irrit.

2H

315

Alk

yle

therp

hosp

hate

sod

ium

salt

na

Xi

R36

na

na

1–5

1S

RP

R38

Alp

ha-D

-glu

cop

yra

nosid

e,

2-e

thylh

exyl

125590-7

3-0

Xi

R41

EyeD

am

1H

318

3–10

1B

CA

lpha-isom

eth

ylio

none

127-5

1-5

Xi

R43

Skin

Sens1

H317

0.1

–1

1C

CR

52/5

3A

quaticC

hro

nic

3H

412

Alp

ha-m

eth

yl-4-(

1-m

eth

yle

thyl)b

enzenep

rop

anal

103-9

5-7

Xn

R38

Rep

r.2

H361

0.1

–1

1C

CN

R43

Skin

Irrit.

2H

315

R51/5

3S

kin

Sens.1

H317

R62

Aq

uaticC

hro

nic

2H

411

Am

ides,

coconut

oil,

N-(

2-(

(sulfosuccin

yl)

oxy)e

thyl),

sod

ium

salts

68784-0

8-7

Xi

R41

na

na

na

1C

C

Am

ylsalic

yla

te2050-0

8-0

NR

51/5

3na

na

,5

1G

PC

Aneth

ole

,tr

ans

4180-2

3-8

NR

51/5

3na

na

,5

1G

PC

Aro

matic

nap

hth

a,

typ

eI

64742-9

5-6

Xi

R10

na

na

0.1

–1

1FC

Xn

R37

NR

53

R65

R66

R67

R51

Benzald

ehyd

e100-5

2-7

Xn

R22

na

na

na

1G

PC

Benzenesulfonic

acid

,4-C

10–13-s

ec-a

lkyld

erivs.

85536-1

4-7

CR

22

Skin

Corr

.1C

H314

3–10

1S

RP

R34

Acute

Tox4

H302

Benzenesulfonic

acid

,m

ono-C

10–13-a

lkyl

derivs.,

com

pd

s.

With

eth

anola

min

e85480-5

5-3

Xn

R22

EyeD

am

1H

318

3–10

1FC

R38

Acute

Tox4

H302

R41

Skin

Irrit.

2H

315

Benzenesulfonic

acid

,m

ono-C

10–

13-a

lkyld

erivs.,

sod

ium

salts

90194-4

5-9

Xn

R22

EyeD

am

1H

318

3–10

1G

PC

R38

Acute

Tox4

H302

R41

Skin

Irrit.

2H

315

Benzylaceta

te140-1

1-4

Xi

R36/3

7/3

8S

kin

Irrit.

2H

315

oct.

20

1C

CE

yeIr

rit.

2H

319

STO

TS

E3

H335

Benzylb

enzoate

120-5

1-4

Xn

R22

Acute

Tox4

H302

1–3

1C

CN

R51/5

3A

quaticC

hro

nic

2H

411

Benzylsalic

yla

te118-5

8-1

Xi

R43

Skin

Sens1

H317

0.1

–1

1C

CN

R51/5

3A

quaticC

hro

nic

2H

411

Ta

ble

1C

on

tin

ue

d

Gerster et al. Hazardous substances in cleaning products

International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 2014 VOL. 20 NO. 1 53

Su

bsta

nce

EU

1G

HS

2P

rod

uct3

Nam

eC

AS

L5

R6

C7

S8

%9

N10

Pro

du

ct

typ

eR

efe

ren

ce

4

Beta

-pin

ene

127-9

1-3

Xn

R65

Skin

Corr

.1B

H314

na

1P

GP

CN

R50

EyeD

am

1H

318

R53

Acute

Tox4

H302

Aq

uaticA

cute

1H

400

Buta

ned

ioic

acid

,sulfo-,

1-e

ste

rw

ith

N-(

2-

hyd

roxyeth

yl)d

od

ecanam

ide,

dis

od

ium

salt

25882-4

4-4

Xi

R36/3

8S

kin

Irrit2

H315

3–10

1C

CE

yeIr

rit.

2H

319

C11–15

Pare

th-2

068131-4

0-8

Xi

R22

na

na

1–5

1G

PC

Xn

R41

Cam

phene

79-9

2-5

FR

11

Skin

Corr

.1B

H314

na

1FC

Xi

R36

EyeD

am

1H

318

NR

50

Acute

Tox4

H302

R53

Aq

uaticA

cute

1H

400

Citra

l5392-4

0-5

Xi

R38

Skin

Irrit2

H315

0.0

1–0.1

1G

CR

43

Skin

Sens.1

H317

Coum

arin

91-6

4-5

Xn

R22

Acute

Tox3

H301

0.1

–1

1C

CR

43

Skin

Sens.1

H317

D-G

lucop

yra

nose,

olig

om

eric,

decylocty

lg

lycosid

es

68515-7

3-1

Xi

R41

na

na

1–5

1B

C

Die

thyle

ne

gly

colm

onom

eth

yleth

er

111-7

7-3

na

R63

na

na

na

1P

PD

imeth

yleth

er

115-1

0-6

Fz

R12

na

na

50–75

1C

CD

isod

ium

phosp

hate

7558-7

9-4

na

na

na

na

0.1

–1

1C

CE

thyle

ne

gly

colm

onom

onta

nate

73138-4

5-1

na

na

na

na

3–10

1P

PE

ug

enol

97-5

3-0

Xi

R36

EyeIr

rit.

2H

319

0.1

–1

1C

CR

43

Skin

Sens.1

H317

Fatt

yacid

s,

coco,

2-(

2-b

uto

xyeth

oxy)e

thyleste

rs91031-8

3-3

Xi

R36

na

na

1–5

1FC

Fatt

yacid

am

ides

na

Xi

R38

na

na

,5

1G

PC

R41

Gala

xolid

e1222-0

5-5

NR

50/5

3A

quaticA

cute

1H

400

0.1

–1

1C

CA

quaticC

hro

nic

1H

410

Hyd

roxyacetic

acid

79-1

4-1

CR

34

na

na

1–5

1S

RP

Isoeug

enol

97-5

4-1

Xn

R21/2

2S

kin

Irrit.

2H

315

0.1

–1

1C

CR

36/3

8E

yeIr

rit.

2H

319

R43

Skin

Sens.1

H317

Acute

Tox4

[H302,

H312]

Laury

lam

ine

dip

rop

yle

ned

iam

ine

2372-8

2-9

CR

22

Acute

Tox.3

H301

0.1

–1

1D

PN

R35

Skin

Corr

.1A

H314

R48/2

2S

TO

TR

E2

H373

R50

Aq

uaticA

cute

1H

400

Lili

al

80-5

4-6

Xi

R22

Rep

r.2

H361

,0.0

11

GC

Xn

R38

Acute

Tox4

H302

NR

43

Skin

Irrit.

2H

315

R62

Skin

Sens.1

H317

R51/5

3A

quaticC

hro

nic

2H

411

Ta

ble

1C

on

tin

ue

d

Gerster et al. Hazardous substances in cleaning products

54 International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 2014 VOL. 20 NO. 1

Su

bsta

nce

EU

1G

HS

2P

rod

uct3

Nam

eC

AS

L5

R6

C7

S8

%9

N10

Pro

du

ct

typ

eR

efe

ren

ce

4

Lyra

l31906-0

4-4

Xi

R43

Skin

Sens1

H317

0.1

–1

1C

CR

52/5

3A

quaticC

hro

nic

3H

412

Meth

anesulfonic

acid

75-7

5-2

CR

34

Skin

Corr

.1B

H314

3–10

1B

CM

inera

loil

8012-9

5-1

Xn

R65

5–15

1FC

Nap

hth

a(p

etr

ole

um

),heavy

alk

yla

te64741-6

5-7

Xn

R10

Acute

Tox.3

H331

.75

1P

PR

53

Asp

.Tox.1

H304

R65

Fla

m.L

iq.3

H226

R66

Aq

uaticC

hro

nic

4[H

413,

EU

H006]

Natr

ium

laury

leth

oxyls

ulfate

na

Xi

R38

na

na

,5

1G

PC

R41

n-O

cty

l-p

oly

oxyeth

yle

ne

27252-7

5-1

Xi

R41

na

na

1–5

1FC

Penta

pota

ssiu

mtr

iphosp

hate

13845-3

6-8

Xi

R36/3

8na

na

5–15

1G

PC

Phenol,

2-m

eth

oxy-4

-pro

pyl-

2785-8

7-7

Xi

R36

EyeIr

rit.

2H

319

0.1

–1

1C

CR

43

Skin

Sens.1

H317

Poly

(oxy-1

,2-e

thaned

iyl),

alp

ha-s

ulfo-o

meg

a-

hyd

roxy-,

C12–14-a

lkyleth

ers

,sod

ium

salts

68891-3

8-5

Xi

R38

EyeD

am

1H

318

,10

1FC

R41

Sin

Irrit.

2H

315

Poly

(oxy-1

,2-e

thaned

iyl),

alp

ha-

(2-p

rop

ylh

ep

tyl)-o

meg

a-h

yd

roxy-

160875-6

6-1

Xi

R41

EyeD

am

1H

318

03–10

1FC

Poly

oxyl20

ceto

ste

ary

leth

er

68439-4

9-6

NR

41

na

na

0.1

–1

1P

PR

50

Pota

ssiu

mhyd

roxid

e1310-5

8-3

CR

22

na

na

1–5

1FC

Xn

R35

Sili

con

dio

xid

e7631-8

6-9

na

na

na

na

0.1

–1

1C

CS

od

ium

2-b

uto

xyeth

ylsulfate

67656-2

4-0

Xi

R36/3

8na

na

1–5

1FC

Sod

ium

benzoate

532-3

2-1

na

na

na

na

0.1

–1

1C

CS

od

ium

carb

onate

497-1

9-8

Xi

R36

EyeIr

rit.

2H

319

1–3

1D

PS

od

ium

sulfate

7757-8

2-6

na

na

na

na

0.0

1–0.1

1G

CS

olv

ent

nap

hth

a(p

etr

ole

um

),heavy

aro

m.

64742-9

4-5

Xn

R51/5

3A

sp

.Tox.1

H304

0.1

–1

1P

PN

R65

STO

TS

E3

H336

R66

Aq

uaticC

hro

nic

2[H

411,

EU

H006]

Solv

ent

nap

hth

a(p

etr

ole

um

),m

ed

ium

alip

h.

64742-8

8-7

Xn

R10

na

na

25–50

1O

SC

R56

Sulfuric

acid

,m

ono-C

10–16-a

lkyleste

rs,

sod

ium

salts

68585-4

7-7

Xi

R38

EyeD

am

1H

318

3–10

1C

CR

41

Skin

Irrit.

2H

315

Sulfuric

acid

,m

ono-C

12–14-a

lkyleste

rs,

sod

ium

salts

85586-0

7-8

Xi

R38

na

na

na

1C

CR

41

Sulfuric

acid

,m

ono-C

12–16-a

lkyleste

rs,

sod

ium

salts

73296-8

9-6

Xi

R38

na

na

5–15

2C

CR

41

Sod

ium

C14–16

ole

fin

sulfonate

68439-5

7-6

Xi

R38

Skin

Irrit.

2H

315

1–5

1C

CR

41

EyeD

am

1H

318

Ta

ble

1C

on

tin

ue

d

Gerster et al. Hazardous substances in cleaning products

International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 2014 VOL. 20 NO. 1 55

were listed in addition to hazard classifications and

statements (GHS). In all, 4 substances were listed in

SDSs of more than 10 products, 17 substances in

SDSs of 5–10 products, 38 in SDSs of 2–4 products,

and 69 were mentioned only once in the SDSs of the

105 selected cleaning products.

By product categories, usually less than 40% of

cleaning products were labeled corrosive (C) in

section 3 of SDSs, with exception SRPs (78%,

Fig. 2). In most product categories, more than 70%

of the products were labeled irritant (Xi), except for

PPs (33%). More than 50% of the products were

Table 2 Fraction of selected cleaning products (%) thatcontain the listed chemical substance

Substance name P (%)

Linalool 20Butylphenyl methylpropional 16Benzisothiazolinone 16Hexyl cinnamal 15Limonene 14Methylisothiazolione 12Aliphatic carbohydrates 9–10Amyl cinnamal 9–10Benzyl salicylate 9–10Citronellol 9–10Formaldehyde deposit alpha mixture with5-chloro-2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one

9–10

Hydroxycitronellol 9–10Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxyaldehyde 9–10Isoeugenol 9–10Sodium hydroxymethylglycinate 9–10Alpha-isomethyl ionone ,7Benzyl alcohol ,7Benzyl benzoate ,7Cinnamal, citral ,7Coumarin ,7Eugenol ,7Geraniol ,7Glutaral ,7Octylisothiazolinone ,7Phenoxyethanol ,7

Figure 2 Percentages of products by product categories

containing at least one substance labeled as corrosive (C),

irritant (Xi), and harmful (Xn) in section 3 of SDSs. Floor

cleaner (FC), general purpose cleaner (GPC), polishing

product (PP), carpet cleaner (CC), scale removing product

(SRP), bathroom cleaner (BC), glass cleaner (GC), disinfec-

tion product (DP), kitchen cleaner (KC), and other surfaces

cleaner (OSC).

Su

bsta

nce

EU

1G

HS

2P

rod

uct3

Nam

eC

AS

L5

R6

C7

S8

%9

N10

Pro

du

ct

typ

eR

efe

ren

ce

4

Terp

inole

ne

586-6

2-9

Xn

R10

na

na

,5

1G

PC

NR

51/5

3R

65

Trieth

anola

min

e102-7

1-6

Xi

R36/3

8na

na

1–5

1G

PC

Waxm

ixtu

rena

na

na

na

na

na

1P

P

NA

:not

availa

ble

;FC

:floor

cle

aner;

GP

C:

genera

lp

urp

ose

cle

aner;

PP

:p

olis

hin

gp

rod

uct;

CC

:carp

et

cle

aner;

SR

P:

scale

rem

ovin

gp

rod

uct;

BC

:b

ath

room

cle

aner;

GC

:g

lass

cle

aner;

DP

:d

isin

fection

pro

duct;

KC

:kitchen

cle

aner;

OS

C:

oth

er

surf

aces

cle

aner.

1D

irectives

1999/4

5/E

Cand

67/5

48/E

EC

.2

Reg

ula

tion

(EC

)N

o.

1272/2

008.

3In

form

ation

ab

out

am

ount

and

freq

uency

insele

ction

of

pro

fessio

nalcle

anin

gp

rod

uct.

4S

tud

ies

ab

out

sub

sta

nces

liste

din

Tab

le1,

when

sub

sta

nces

where

pre

sent

inat

least

two

cle

anin

gp

rod

ucts

.5

Dang

er

lett

er.

6R

isk-p

hra

se.

7H

azard

cla

ss.

8H

azard

sta

tem

ent.

9A

mount

of

sub

sta

nce

insele

cte

dp

rofe

ssio

nalcle

anin

gp

rod

ucts

.10

Num

ber

of

sele

cte

dp

rofe

ssio

nalcle

anin

gp

rod

ucts

that

conta

inth

elis

ted

chem

icalsub

sta

nce.

Ta

ble

1C

on

tin

ue

d

Gerster et al. Hazardous substances in cleaning products

56 International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 2014 VOL. 20 NO. 1

labeled harmful (Xn), except for product category

CCs (31%).

A total of 15 R-phrases regarding human health

were identified (Fig. 3): corrosive (R34, R35), irritant

(R36, R37, R38), harmful (R20, R21, R22), sensitiz-

ing (R43), and others (R41, R62, R63, R65, R66,

R67). Figure 3 shows the percentages of products (all

categories) that have been labeled with these R-

phrases in section 3 of SDSs.

DiscussionFrequently used professional cleaning products con-

tain a multitude of chemical substances with known

health effects. Cleaners may therefore be exposed to

mixtures of health hazardous substances during their

cleaning activity.

It is important to note that SDSs do not list all

chemical substances present in a product, as regula-

tions define substances and concentrations that must

be listed.21,23 Depending on the characteristics of the

substances (e.g. persistence, bioaccumulation, and

toxicity), the concentration levels requiring listing are

1 or 0.1%.30 Sensitizers were listed as a cleaning

product ingredient under section 15 in the SDSs only

if required by other regulations.25–27 Interestingly,

several substances found under section 15 of SDSs

have been associated with sensitizing mechanisms

and/or allergic reactions.

In our study, we selected frequently used cleaning

products known from cleaning companies with five or

more employees. The cleaning products included the

four most popular brands that, according to a

professional association for cleaning companies in

Switzerland, account for .50% of the Swiss profes-

sional cleaning products market.

As mentioned above, we estimated that our results

include products used by about 50% of the Swiss

cleaning workforce. This is because the large cleaning

companies reported to have high numbers of employ-

ees (more than several thousand). Most cleaning

products identified in this study were sold by global

companies that sell and distribute their products

worldwide. The results of this study may hold true for

other industrialized countries similar to Switzerland,

although the cleaning product might be given a

different brand name.

Not only is there a great diversity of chemical

substances within cleaning products but also numerous

companies offer hundreds of different cleaning pro-

ducts, which makes the task of assessing chemical

substances used in professional cleaning products

complicated. Indeed, responses showed cleaning com-

panies using products from 36 different product

companies, and some reported that they produced their

own products. Thus when investigating exposures

among professional cleaners, a SDS review is a

requirement. We believe our results provide important

information regarding type of cleaning products used in

this industry, and common chemical substance classes

found in these products and their health hazards. This

knowledge should help in monitoring professional

cleaners and their exposures to cleaning products and

substances with known health effects. In addition, not

only cleaning workers or those who are cleaning are at

risk of exposure but also persons in rooms that were

recently cleaned can potentially be exposed.31–33

The main challenges in conducting an occupational

exposure assessment for professional cleaners are the

great number of cleaning products available and the

large number of substances in these products. For

further investigation, we recommend to focus on the

21 substances found in §5 products (Table 1).

Especially of interest are the recognized sensitizers

monoethanolamine and glycol ethers, frequently

found in cleaning products. Substances found in

professional cleaning products may likely also be

ingredients in cleaning products sold to the general

public; however, we did not survey these products.28

ConclusionThis work contributes to the efforts to better under-

stand possible exposures to chemicals during the use of

professional cleaning products. We found that hazar-

dous substances in cleaning products are in particular

fragrances, glycol ethers, surfactants, solvents, and to a

lesser extent phosphates, salts, detergents, pH-stabili-

zers, acids, and bases. Cleaning workers who are

handling these products are therefore a group at risk

for several occupational exposures. Section 15 in the

SDS should be consulted, as several substances

involved in sensitizing mechanisms and/or allergic

reactions were also listed here. Especially glycol ethers

and ethanolamines are frequently used in cleaning

products, and could therefore be involved in the

development of adverse health effects like irritant or

sensitizer-induced asthma, which has been found to

be elevated among professional cleaners. Concerning

asthma, the presence of different aldehydes as

Figure 3 Percentages of cleaning products that have been

labeled with corrosive (R34, R35), irritant (R36, R37, R38),

harmful (R20, R21, R22), sensitizing (R43), and other (R41,

R62, R63, R65, R66, R67) R-phrases in section 3 of safety

data sheets (SDSs).

Gerster et al. Hazardous substances in cleaning products

International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 2014 VOL. 20 NO. 1 57

fragrances is also of special interest. Besides some

sensitizers like ethanolamines, mainly irritants were

found, suggesting that pathologies of the skin and the

respiratory tract may also occur without mechanisms

of sensitization. A simultaneous exposure to several

hazardous chemical substances could potentially be

involved in these pathologies. As professional cleaners

represent a large workforce, and cleaning products are

widely used, including in private cleaning, it is of great

environmental and public health importance to better

understand the exposures that may be caused by the

use of cleaning products. Our list of substances

provides important information about which chemi-

cals and hazards are relevant for further investigations

in this field, and we plan to use these results for field

exposure studies.

Conflict of InterestThe authors have declared no conflict of interest.

AcknowledgementsThe authors thank the Federal Office for Public

Health of Switzerland (Office federale de la sante

publique [OFSP], Bundesamt fur Gesundheit [BAG])

for funding this study.

References1 Zock JP. World at work: cleaners. Occup Environ Med.

2005;62(8):581–4.2 Quirce S, Barranco P. Cleaning agents and asthma. J Investig

Allergol Clin Immunol. 2010;20(7):542–50.3 Arif AA, Delclos GL, Whitehead LW, Tortolero SR, Lee ES.

Occupational exposures associated with work-related asthmaand work-related wheezing among U.S. workers. Am J IndMed. 2003;44(4):368–76.

4 Zock JP, Vizcaya D, Le Moual N. Update on asthma andcleaners. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;10(2):114–20.

5 Jaakkola JJ, Jaakkola MS. Professional cleaning and asthma.Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006;6(2):85–90.

6 Lynde CB, Obadia M, Liss GM, Ribeiro M, Holness DL, TarloSM. Cutaneous and respiratory symptoms among professionalcleaners. Occup Med. 2009;59(4):249–54.

7 Diepgen TL, Coenraads PJ. The epidemiology of occupationalcontact dermatitis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health.1999;72(8):496–506.

8 Gawkrodger DJ, Lloyd MH, Hunter JA. Occupational skindisease in hospital cleaning and kitchen workers. ContactDermatitis. 1986;15(3):132–5.

9 Bello A, Quinn M, Perry M, Milton D. Characterization ofoccupational exposures to cleaning products used for commoncleaning tasks-a pilot study of hospital cleaners. EnvironHealth. 2009;8(1):11.

10 Medina-Ramon M, Zock JP, Kogevinas M, Sunyer J, TorralbaY, Borrell A, et al. Asthma, chronic bronchitis, and exposure toirritant agents in occupational domestic cleaning: a nested case-control study. Occup Environ Med. 2005;62(9):598–606.

11 Le Moual N, Kennedy SM, Kauffmann F. Occupationalexposures and asthma in 14,000 adults from the generalpopulation. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;160(11):1108–16.

12 Dumas O, Donnay C, Heederik DJ, Hery M, Choudat D,Kauffmann F, et al. Occupational exposure to cleaningproducts and asthma in hospital workers. Occup EnvironMed. 2012;69(12):883–9.

13 Zock JP, Plana E, Jarvis D, Anto JM, Kromhout H, KennedySM, et al. The use of household cleaning sprays and adultasthma: an international longitudinal study. Am J Respir CritCare Med. 2007;176(8):735–41.

14 Zock JP, Plana E, Anto JM, Benke G, Blanc PD, Carosso A,et al. Domestic use of hypochlorite bleach, atopic sensitization,

and respiratory symptoms in adults. J Allergy Clin Immunol.2009;124(4):731–8.e1.

15 Makela R, Kauppi P, Suuronen K, Tuppurainen M, Hannu T.Occupational asthma in professional cleaning work: a clinicalstudy. Occup Med (Lond). 2011;61(2):121–6.

16 Vizcaya D, Mirabelli MC, Anto J-M, Orriols R, Burgos F,Arjona L, et al. A workforce-based study of occupationalexposures and asthma symptoms in cleaning workers. OccupEnviron Med. 2011;68(12):914–9.

17 Wieslander G, Norback D. A field study on clinical signs andsymptoms in cleaners at floor polish removal and application ina Swedish hospital. Int Arch Occup Environ Health.2010;83(5):585–91.

18 Arif AA, Delclos GL. Association between cleaning-relatedchemicals and work-related asthma and asthma symptomsamong healthcare professionals. Occup Environ Med.2012;69(1):35–40.

19 Zock JP, Kogevinas M, Sunyer J, Almar E, Muniozguren N,Payo F, et al. Asthma risk, cleaning activities and use of specificcleaning products among Spanish indoor cleaners. Scand JWork Environ Health. 2001;27(1):76–81.

20 Allpura. Manuel de formation ‘La technique du nettoyage’,edn. Zurich, Verlag USTER-Info GmbH; 2009.

21 European Parliament C. Directive 1999/45/EC of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council of 31 May 1999 concerning theapproximation of the laws, regulations and administrativeprovisions of the Member States relating to the classification,packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations. 1999.Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

22 European Parliament C. Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations andadministrative provisions relating to the classification, packa-ging and labelling of dangerous substances. 1967. Availablefrom: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

23 European Parliament C. Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008on classification, labelling and packaging of substances andmixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006(Text with EEA relevance). 2008. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

24 European Parliament C. Commission Regulation (EU) No 453/2010 of 20 May 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006of the European Parliament and of the Council on theRegistration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction ofChemicals (REACH) (Text with EEA relevance). 2010.Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

25 European Parliament C. Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 onsubstances that deplete the ozone layer. 2000. Available from:http://eur-lex.europa.eu

26 European Parliament C. Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 onpersistent organic pollutants and amending Directive 79/117/EEC. 2004. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

27 European Parliament C. Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals.2008. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

28 Lessmann H, Uter W, Schnuch A, Geier J. Skin sensitizingproperties of the ethanolamines mono-, di-, and triethanola-mine. Data analysis of a multicentre surveillance network(IVDK) and review of the literature. Contact Dermatitis.2009;60(5):243–55.

29 Purohit A, Kopferschmitt-Kubler MC, Moreau C, Popin E,Blaumeiser M, Pauli G. Quaternary ammonium compoundsand occupational asthma. Int Arch Occup Environ Health.2000;73(6):423–7.

30 European Parliament C. Commission Regulation (EU) No 451/2010 of 25 May 2010 establishing the standard import valuesfor determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables.2010. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu. edn

31 Bello A, Quinn M, Perry M, Milton D. Quantitative assessmentof airborne exposures generated during common cleaning tasks:a pilot study. Environ Health. 2010;9(1):76.

32 Nazaroff WW, Weschler CJ. Cleaning products and airfresheners: exposure to primary and secondary air pollutants.Atmos Environ. 2004;38(18):2841–65.

33 Singer BC, Destaillats H, Hodgson AT, Nazaroff WW.Cleaning products and air fresheners: emissions and resulting

Gerster et al. Hazardous substances in cleaning products

58 International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 2014 VOL. 20 NO. 1

concentrations of glycol ethers and terpenoids. Indoor Air.2006;16(3):179–91.

34 Capron A, Destree J, Jacobs P, Wallemacq P. Permeability ofgloves to selected chemotherapeutic agents after treatment withalcohol or isopropyl alcohol. Am J Health Syst Pharm.2012;69(19):1665–70.

35 Desy O, Carignan D, Caruso M, de Campos-Lima PO.Immunosuppressive effect of isopropanol: down-regulation ofcytokine production results from the alteration of discretetranscriptional pathways in activated lymphocytes. J Immunol.2008;181(4):2348–55.

36 Carignan D, Desy O, de Campos-Lima PO. The dysregulationof the monocyte/macrophage effector function induced byisopropanol is mediated by the defective activation of distinctmembers of the AP-1 family of transcription factors. ToxicolSci. 2012;125(1):144–56.

37 Hardy CJ, Coombs DW, Lewis DJ, Klimisch HJ. Twenty-eight-day repeated-dose inhalation exposure of rats to diethyleneglycol monoethyl ether. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1997;38(2):143–7.

38 Williams J, Reel JR, George JD, Lamb JC. Reproductiveeffects of diethylene glycol and diethylene glycol monoethylether in Swiss CD-1 mice assessed by a continuous breedingprotocol. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1990;14(3):622–35.

39 Hobson DW, D’Addario AP, Bruner RH, Uddin DE. Asubchronic dermal exposure study of diethylene glycol mono-methyl ether and ethylene glycol monomethyl ether in the maleguinea pig. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1986;6(2):339–48.

40 Koontz M, Price P, Hamilton J, Daggett D, Sielken R, BretzlaffR, et al. Modeling aggregate exposures to glycol ethers from useof commercial floor products. Int J Toxicol. 2006;25(2):95–107.

41 Robinson V, Bergfeld WF, Belsito DV, Klaassen CD, MarksJG Jr, Shank RC, et al. Final report on the safety assessment ofPPG-2 methyl ether, PPG-3 methyl ether, and PPG-2 methylether acetate. Int J Toxicol. 2009;28(6 Suppl):162S–74S.

42 Shih HC, Tsai SW, Kuo CH. Time-weighted average samplingof airborne propylene glycol ethers by a solid-phase micro-extraction device. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2012;9(7):427–36.

43 Franova S, Joskova M, Sadlonova V, Pavelcikova D,Mesarosova L, Novakova E, et al. Experimental model ofallergic asthma. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2013;756:49–55.

44 Hautemaniere A, Ahmed-Lecheheb D, Cunat L, Hartemann P.Assessment of transpulmonary absorption of ethanol fromalcohol-based hand rub. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41(3):e15–9.

45 Hautemaniere A, Cunat L, Ahmed-Lecheheb D, Hajjard F,Gerardin F, Morele Y, et al. Assessment of exposure to ethanolvapors released during use of Alcohol-Based Hand Rubs byhealthcare workers. J Infect Public Health. 2013;6(1):16–26.

46 Phalen RN, Wong WK. Chemical resistance of disposablenitrile gloves exposed to simulated movement. J Occup EnvironHyg. 2012;9(11):630–9.

47 Takeuchi A, Kitade T, Jukurogi A, Hendricks W, Kaifuku Y,Shibayama K, et al. Determination method for mono- anddiethanolamine in workplace air by high-performance liquidchromatography. J Occup Health. 2012;54(4):340–3.

48 Gerster FM, Hopf NB, Huynh CK, Plateel G, Charriere N,Vernez D. A simple gas chromatography method for theanalysis of monoethanolamine in air. J Sep Sci.2012;35(17):2249–55.

49 Arias Irigoyen J, Garrido Borrero P. Occupational allergiccontact dermatitis from monoethanolamine in a metal worker.Allergol Immunopathol. 2011;39(3):187–8.

50 Sahmel J, Devlin K, Burns A, Ferracini T, Ground M,Paustenbach D. An analysis of workplace exposures to benzeneover four decades at a petrochemical processing and manu-facturing facility (1962–1999). J Toxicol Environ Health A.2013;76(12):723–46.

51 Kawai T, Yamauchi T, Miyama Y, Sakurai H, Ukai H, TakadaS, et al. Benzyl alcohol as a marker of occupational exposure totoluene. Ind Health. 2007;45(1):143–50.

52 [Indoor air guide values for benzyl alcohol]. Bundesgesund-heitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2010;53(9):984–7.

53 Schnuch A, Mildau G, Kratz EM, Uter W. Risk of sensitizationto preservatives estimated on the basis of patch test data andexposure, according to a sample of 3541 leave-on products.Contact Dermatitis. 2011;65(3):167–74.

54 Sirdah MM, Al Laham NA, El Madhoun RA. Possible healtheffects of liquefied petroleum gas on workers at filling anddistribution stations of Gaza governorates. East MediterrHealth J. 2013;19(3):289–94.

55 Bessonneau V, Mosqueron L, Berrube A, Mukensturm G,Buffet-Bataillon S, Gangneux JP, et al. VOC contamination inhospital, from stationary sampling of a large panel ofcompounds, in view of healthcare workers and patientsexposure assessment. PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e55535.

56 Jezewska A, Szewczynska M. [Chemical hazards in the work-place environment of painting restorer]. Med Pr.2012;63(5):547–58.

57 IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of CarcinogenicRisks to Humans. Formaldehyde, 2-butoxyethanol and 1-tert-butoxypropan-2-ol. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum.2006;88:1–478.

58 Wong DC, Toy RJ, Dorn PB. A stream mesocosm study on theecological effects of a C12-15 linear alcohol ethoxylatesurfactant. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2004;58(2):173–86.

59 Laitinen J, Pulkkinen J. Biomonitoring of 2-(2-alkoxyethox-y)ethanols by analysing urinary 2-(2-alkoxyethoxy)acetic acids.Toxicol Lett. 2005;156(1):117–26.

60 Gijsbers JH, Tielemans E, Brouwer DH, van Hemmen JJ.Dermal exposure during filling, loading and brushing withproducts containing 2-(2-butoxyethoxy)ethanol. Ann OccupHyg. 2004;48(3):219–27.

61 Gibson WB, Keller PR, Foltz DJ, Harvey GJ. Diethylene glycolmono butyl ether concentrations in room air from applicationof cleaner formulations to hard surfaces. J Exposure AnalEnviron Epidemiol. 1991;1(3):369–83.

62 Kruse JA. Methanol and ethylene glycol intoxication. Crit CareClin. 2012;28(4):661–711.

63 Saghir SA, Bartels MJ, Snellings WM. Dermal penetration ofethylene glycol through human skin in vitro. Int J Toxicol.2010;29(3):268–76.

64 Upadhyay S, Carstens J, Klein D, Faller TH, Halbach S,Kirchinger W, et al. Inhalation and epidermal exposure ofvolunteers to ethylene glycol: kinetics of absorption, urinaryexcretion, and metabolism to glycolate and oxalate. ToxicolLett. 2008;178(2):131–41.

65 Hung PC, Cheng SF, Liou SH, Tsai SW. Biological monitoringof low-level 2-butoxyethanol exposure in decal transfer workersin bicycle manufacturing factories. Occup Environ Med.2011;68(10):777–82.

66 Boatman R, Corley R, Green T, Klaunig J, Udden M. Reviewof studies concerning the tumorigenicity of 2-butoxyethanol inB6C3F1 mice and its relevance for human risk assessment. JToxicol Environ Health, Part B. 2004;7(5):385–98.

67 Jones K, Cocker J. A human exposure study to investigatebiological monitoring methods for 2-butoxyethanol.Biomarkers. 2003;8(5):360–70.

68 Warshaw EM, Raju SI, Fowler JF Jr, Maibach HI, Belsito DV,Zug KA, et al. Positive patch test reactions in older individuals:retrospective analysis from the North American ContactDermatitis Group, 1994–2008. J Am Acad Dermatol.2012;66(2):229–40.

69 Saitoh M, Umemura T, Kawasaki Y, Momma J, MatsushimaY, Matsumoto M, et al. [Subchronic toxicity study oftributoxyethyl phosphate in Wistar rats]. Eisei ShikenjoHokoku. 1994;112:27–39.

70 Forester CD, Wells JR. Hydroxyl radical yields from reactionsof terpene mixtures with ozone. Indoor Air. 2011;21(5):400–9.

71 Ham JE, Wells JR. Surface chemistry of a pine-oil cleaner andother terpene mixtures with ozone on vinyl flooring tiles.Chemosphere. 2011;83(3):327–33.

72 Kollef MH. Chronic ammonium hydroxide exposure. AnnIntern Med. 1987;107(1):118.

73 Kim YW, Kim MJ, Chung BY, Bang du Y, Lim SK, Choi SM,et al. Safety evaluation and risk assessment of D-Limonene. JToxicol Environ Health, Part B. 2013;16(1):17–38.

74 Krol S, Namiesnik J, Zabiegala B. Alpha-Pinene, 3-carene andD-limonene in indoor air of Polish apartments: the impact onair quality and human exposure. Sci Total Environ. 2013;468–469C:985–95.

75 Api AM, Ritacco G, Hawkins DR. The fate of dermally applied[14C]D-limonene in rats and humans. Int J Toxicol. 2013;32(2):130–5.

76 Sagunski H, Mangelsdorf I. States’ Departments of H andFederal Environmental Protection A. [Reference values forindoor air: dearomatized hydrocarbon solvents (C(9)-C(14))].Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitss-chutz. 2005;48(7):803–12.

77 Sharma N, Singh D, Sobti A, Agarwal P, Velpandian T, TitiyalJS, et al. Course and outcome of accidental sodium hydroxideocular injury. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;154(4):740–9.e2.

Gerster et al. Hazardous substances in cleaning products

International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 2014 VOL. 20 NO. 1 59

78 Ballantyne B, Myers RC, Losco PE. The acute toxicity andprimary irritancy of 1-propoxy-2-propanol. Vet Hum Toxicol.1988;30(2):126–9.

79 Gilpin S, Hui X, Maibach H. In vitro human skin penetrationof geraniol and citronellol. Dermatitis. 2010;21(1):41–8.

80 Juarez A, Goiriz R, Sanchez-Perez J, Garcia-Diez A. Disseminatedallergic contact dermatitis after exposure to a topical medicationcontaining geraniol. Dermatitis. 2008;19(3):163.

81 Hagvall L, Backtorp C, Svensson S, Nyman G, Borje A,Karlberg AT. Fragrance compound geraniol forms contactallergens on air exposure. Identification and quantification ofoxidation products and effect on skin sensitization. Chem ResToxicol. 2007;20(5):807–14.

82 Zahlsen K, Eide I, Nilsen AM, Nilsen OG. Inhalation kineticsof C8 to C10 1-alkenes and iso-alkanes in the rat after repeatedexposures. Pharmacol Toxicol. 1993;73(3):163–8.

83 National Toxicology Program. Toxicology and carcinogenesisstudies of coconut oil acid diethanolamine condensate (CASNo. 68603-42-9) in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice (dermal

studies). Natl Toxicol Program Tech Rep Ser. 2001;479:5–226.

84 Rossbach B, Kegel P, Letzel S. Application of headspace solidphase dynamic extraction gas chromatography/mass spectro-metry (HS-SPDE-GC/MS) for biomonitoring of n-heptane andits metabolites in blood. Toxicol Lett. 2012;210(2):232–9.

85 Bahima J, Cert A, Menendez-Gallego M. Identification ofvolatile metabolites of inhaled n-heptane in rat urine. ToxicolAppl Pharmacol. 1984;76(3):473–82.

86 Gharsallah H, Lamine K, Hajjaj Z, Nasri M, Ferjani M.[Exposure to butane gas and hyperbaric oxygenation therapy].Tunis Med. 2010;88(1):63.

87 Brared Christensson J, Andersen KE, Bruze M, Johansen JD,Garcia-Bravo B, Gimenez Arnau A, et al. Air-oxidized linalool:a frequent cause of fragrance contact allergy. ContactDermatitis. 2012;67(5):247–59.

88 Christensson JB, Matura M, Gruvberger B, Bruze M, KarlbergAT. Linalool–a significant contact sensitizer after air exposure.Contact Dermatitis. 2010;62(1):32–41.

Gerster et al. Hazardous substances in cleaning products

60 International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 2014 VOL. 20 NO. 1