Last data update: May 13, 2024. (Total: 46773 publications since 2009)
Records 1-3 (of 3 Records) |
Query Trace: Durgam S[original query] |
---|
Exposures to pharmaceutical dust at a mail order pharmacy
Fent KW , Durgam S . J Occup Environ Hyg 2012 9 (9) D161-6 Mail order pharmacies are the fastest growing sector of the U.S. prescription drug retail market. In 2004, they accounted for 6.1% of all prescriptions filled, which was an 18% increase over the previous year.(1) Although large volumes of prescriptions are filled at mail order pharmacies, the potential for employee exposures to pharmaceutical dust has not been fully evaluated. In 2010, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a health hazard evaluation request from managers at a mail order pharmacy concerning potential pharmaceutical dust exposures to employees. | The mail order pharmacy was divided into two areas: (1) the pharmacy, where automatic dispensing machines were located and most prescriptions were filled, and (2) the warehouse, where other activities such as manual counting and replenishment of canisters were performed. Two brands of automatic dispensing machines were used for filling high throughput prescriptions: Baker (one large customized machine made by McKesson Corporation, San Francisco, Calif.) and Optifill (two smaller customized machines made by AmerisourceBergen, Valley Forge, Pa.). All three machines used gravity to dispense pharmaceutical tablets and capsules. |
The identification of a sensitizing component used in the manufacturing of an ink ribbon
Anderson SE , Tapp L , Durgam S , Meade BJ , Jackson LG , Cohen DE . J Immunotoxicol 2012 9 (2) 193-200 Skin diseases including dermatitis constitute approximately 30% of all occupational illnesses, with a high incidence in the printing industry. An outbreak of contact dermatitis among employees at an ink ribbon manufacturing plant was investigated by scientists from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Employees in the process areas of the plant were exposed to numerous chemicals and many had experienced skin rashes, especially after the introduction of a new ink ribbon product. To identify the causative agent(s) of the occupational dermatitis, the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) was used to identify the potential of the chemicals used in the manufacture of the ink ribbon to induce allergic contact dermatitis. Follow-up patch testing with the suspected allergens was conducted on exposed employees. Polyvinyl butyral, a chemical component used in the manufacture of the ink ribbon in question and other products, tested positive in the LLNA, with an EC3 of 3.6%, which identifies it as a potential sensitizer; however, no employees tested positive to this chemical during skin patch testing. This finding has implications beyond those described in this report because of occupational exposure to polyvinyl butyral outside of the printing industry. |
A health hazard evaluation of antimony exposure in fire fighters
de Perio MA , Durgam S , Caldwell KL , Eisenberg J . J Occup Environ Med 2009 52 (1) 81-4 OBJECTIVES: Some firefighter station uniforms contain the flame-retardant, antimony trioxide. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health investigated a possible outbreak of antimony toxicity wherein 30 firefighters reported elevated antimony levels on hair analyses. METHODS: We surveyed and collected urine samples from firefighters not wearing (Fire Department A) and wearing (Fire Department B) antimony-containing pants. Urine antimony concentrations were measured and adjusted for creatinine. RESULTS: All 20 participating firefighters from Fire Department A and 41 (97.6%) of 42 participating firefighters from Fire Department B had urine antimony concentrations below or within the national reference range. No differences in urine antimony levels between departments were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Wearing antimony-containing uniforms does not pose a risk for antimony toxicity. This investigation highlights the importance of using validated methods for toxicity determination and of accurate, timely risk communication. |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:May 13, 2024
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure