Abstract:
Adverse and chronic pulmonary health effects have been associated with workers exposed to various types of
metal working fluids (MWF's). Within South Africa there is a lack of research dealing with specific agents in
MWF's which may be the source of pulmonary health problems. This occupational health study deals with the
acute pulmonary health effects ofMWF's among metal workers employed by an engineering company in South
Africa. A cross-sectional population of341 machine workers was sampled for full shift personal exposures
to MWF's according to a modified National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Method (NI0SH)
Number 0500. Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV,) tests were completed before and after the
worker's shift according to manoeuvers dictated by the American Thoracic Society (A TS). A written health
survey comprised from the British Medical Research Council and the International Union Against Tuberculosis
and Lung Diseases questionnaire, was utilised to determine the worker's present health condition during the
study.
Personal inhalation exposures were lower than the current 1999 American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists Threshold Limit Value (ACGIH TLV) of 5 mg/m3 (mean = 1.04 mg/m3
, arithmetic
standard deviation = 2.0). However, increasing personal exposures to MWF's were positively correlated to
decreases in FEV, (plant 1: r = 0.96, Plant 2: r = 0.94, Plant 3: r = 0.97). The change in FEV, of
nonsmoking workers exposed to MWF's was significantly different in comparison to unexposed nonsmoking
workers (ANOVA, P = 0.05, n = 297). Similarly, nonsmoking workers who were exposed to MWF's with
higher fractions of triethanolamine (TEA) and diethanolamine (DEA) had greater decreases in FEV, (ANOV A,
P = 0.02, n = 183). Workers who were current smokers and exposed to MWF's experienced the highest
decreases in FEV, in comparison to exposed nonsmoking workers (ANOV A, P = 0.05, n = 341). Workers
exposed to the four types of MWF' s experienced a logarithmic dose-response to the decrease in FEV,. This
dose-response was explained with a mathematical equation for each MWF type. Permissible safe limits derived from these equations (MWF Type l: 1.70 mglm' , MWF Type 2: 0.41 mglm',
MWF Type 3: 0.29 mglm' and MWF Type 4: 0.D35 mglm') reflect the validity ofNIOSH's recommendation
of a safe exposure limit of 0.5 mglm'-
It is concluded that workers who are exposed to MWF's, experience acute decreases in FEY,. Similarly,
