Odor data, animal

Health Hazards Information - Recommended Personal Protective Equipment Goggles or face shield dust mask Symptoms Following Exposure Inhalation of dust may causes irritation of nose and throat. Contact with eyes or skin causes irritation. Ingestion has been observed to cause tremors and muscle spasms in test animals General Treatment for Exposure INHALATION move to fresh air. EYES flush with water for at least 15 min. SKIN flush with water wash with soap and water. INGESTION get medical attention Toxicity by Inhalation (Thresholdlimit Value) Data not available Short-Term Inhalation limits Data not available Toxicity by Ingestion Grade 2 oral LDjq = 3,800 mg/kg (rat) Late Toxicity Causes cancer in rats Vapor (Gas) Irritant Characteristics Data not available liquid or Solid Irritant Characteristics Data not available Odor Threshold Not pertinent. 

Troop exposure to these materials could result from leaking DF containers, accidents that disrupt packaging, spills at production or storage facilities, or accidents during transport. Because DF and DC are relatively volatile compounds, the primary route of exposure is expected to be the respiratory system. However, ingestion also results from inhalation exposures in animals and could occur in humans. DF and DC vapors have a pungent odor and may cause severe and painful irritation of the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs. Data provided are for DF only, DC has similar properties. 

Based upon the available data, derivation of AEGL-1 values was considered inappropriate. The continuum of arsine-induced toxicity does not appear to include effects consistent with the AEGL-1 definition. The available human and animal data affirm that there is a very narrow margin between exposures that result in little or no signs or symptoms of toxicity and those that result in lethality. The mechanism of arsine toxicity (hemolysis that results in renal failure and death), and the fact that toxicity in humans and animals has been reported at concentrations at or below odor detection levels (-0.5 parts per million (ppm)) also support such a conclusion. The use of analytical detection limits (0.01 to 0.05 ppm) was considered as a basis for AEGL-1 values but was considered to be inconsistent with the AEGL-1 definition. 

Reference The available human and animal data indicate that there is very little margin between seemingly inconsequential exposures and lethal exposures. The mechanism of arsine toxicity (hemolysis and subsequent renal failure) and the fact that toxicity has been demonstrated at or below the odor threshold justify the inappropriateness of AEGL-1 values for any exposure period. 

When comparing the dust-borne concentrations of butyric acid and p-cresol with the odour thresholds it seems that the concentrations are too small to be relevant for an odour nuisance. However, if the dust is removed from the gas phase of the air from animal houses the odour disappears (39), (40), (14). This supports the opinion of HAMMOND et al. (40) that the odor is concentrated on the dust particles. The authors conclude from their data that the concentration of the two odorants butyric acid and p-cresol is about 4TO7 greater on an aerosol particle than it is in an equal volume of air. Thus, an aerosol particle deposited on the olfactory organ carries odour equivalent to a much greater volume of air (40). These considerations indicate that dust from animal houses should be taken into account in connection with odour emission/immission measurements not only by chemical analysis but by sensory evaluations using olfactometers without dustfilters, as well. 

The subcommittee reviewed data that came primarily from human experimental studies and from toxicity studies in various animal species. The evaluation focused on inhalation exposure studies that measured respiratory irritation and tolerance to odor. Human case studies, accident reports, and epidemiologic studies of industrial exposures were extensive but of limited use to the subcommittee because they lack quantitative exposure measurements. Controlled human experiments were most important to the subcommittee for establishing the SEALs for ammonia. There appears to be a broad range of sensitivity to ammonia s pungent odor and in irritation caused by exposures to low concentrations... 

On the basis of its review of human and experimental animal health-effects and related data, the subcommittee concludes that the Navy s proposed SEAL 1 of 25 ppm for ammonia is too conservative. The Navy s proposed SEAL 1 could be below the threshold for odor or perception for some crew members, and it is well below the concentrations shown consistently to cause minimal eye and throat irritation. The subcommittee recommends 75 ppm for SEAL 1. The... 

---