Domestic cleaners have an increased risk of asthma-like and other respiratory symptoms and conditions. Uncertainty exists about which products are most hazardous. We aimed to investigate, among professional domestic cleaners, the associations of ocular/respiratory outcomes with using specific types of products at work and with the ability to choose their own products. Among domestic cleaners employed by \"service vouchers\" companies in Belgium, we administered an online questionnaire on ocular/respiratory symptoms (frequency and time relation to workdays), frequency of use of 40 types of products, and ability to choose one\'s own products. Work-relatedness was defined as symptoms improving/disappearing on days off-work. We studied associations between frequency of product-use with work-related outcomes (eye irritation, rhinitis symptoms, sore throat, laryngeal symptoms, asthma symptoms, cough) and with chronic bronchitis, using multivariable logistic and elastic net regression. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) with 95%-confidence intervals were obtained per time a product was used per week. Among 1,586 domestic cleaners (99% women), the number of times sprays were used (median 13/week) was significantly associated with all outcomes (ORs between 1.012 and 1.024 per time sprays were used per week). Bleach/disinfectant-containing liquid products were associated with all outcomes, except for laryngeal symptoms (ORs 1.086 to 1.150); ammonia with work-related upper airway symptoms and chronic bronchitis. Cleaners able to choose their own products had fewer work-related eye symptoms (OR 0.728;0.556-0.954), rhinitis (OR 0.735;0.571-0.946) and cough (OR 0.671;0.520-0.865). Using elastic net regression, work-related rhinitis was most strongly associated with mould removal spray (OR 1.108;1.006-1.248), carpet/seat/curtain spray (OR 1.099;1.001-1.304) and ammonia (OR 1.081;1.002-1.372); work-related asthma with carpet/seat/curtain spray (OR 1.103;1.017-1.322), mould removal spray (OR 1.029;0.995-1.199) and drain cleaner (OR 1.023;0.979-1.302). In a large group of domestic cleaners, we documented that cleaning products have a range of adverse respiratory effects. Empowering cleaners to choose their products may reduce the burden of symptoms.

Exposure to disinfectants among healthcare workers has been associated with respiratory health effects, in particular, asthma. However, most studies are cross-sectional and the role of disinfectant exposures in asthma development requires longitudinal studies. We investigated the association between occupational exposure to disinfectants and incident asthma in a large cohort of U.S. female nurses.
The Nurses\' Health Study II is a prospective cohort of 116 429 female nurses enrolled in 1989. Analyses included 61 539 participants who were still in a nursing job and with no history of asthma in 2009 (baseline; mean age: 55 years). During 277 744 person-years of follow-up (2009-2015), 370 nurses reported incident physician-diagnosed asthma. Occupational exposure was evaluated by questionnaire and a Job-Task-Exposure Matrix (JTEM). We examined the association between disinfectant exposure and subsequent asthma development, adjusted for age, race, ethnicity, smoking status, and body mass index.
Weekly use of disinfectants to clean surfaces only (23% exposed) or to clean medical instruments (19% exposed) was not associated with incident asthma (adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] for surfaces, 1.12 [0.87-1.43]; for instruments, 1.13 [0.87-1.48]). No association was observed between high-level exposure to specific disinfectants/cleaning products evaluated by the JTEM (formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, bleach, hydrogen peroxide, alcohol quats, or enzymatic cleaners) and asthma incidence.
In a population of late career nurses, we observed no significant association between exposure to disinfectants and asthma incidence. A potential role of disinfectant exposures in asthma development warrants further study among healthcare workers at earlier career stage to limit the healthy worker effect.

Objective: Local effects on the eye following cleaning product exposures are frequently reported. According to EU chemicals legislation many cleaning products are labelled with Hazard Phrase 318 indicating risk of irreversible eye damage. The objectives of this study were to identify cleaning products with potential for irreversible eye damage by collecting human exposure data from poisons centres (PC), and to clarify to what degree exact product identification is possible during a PC telephone call. Methods: MAGAM II was a multicentre binational prospective observational PC study. All human eye exposures to detergents or maintenance products reported to nine PCs taking calls from the public and medical professionals during an 18-month period were included. The severity of eye effects was rated according to the WHO Poisoning Severity Score. Results: Five hundred and eighty-six cases were included. Product identification by name leading to formula information was successful in 533 cases (91%). Follow-up was successful in 528 exposures. Irrigation was performed in 94% of cases. Duration of symptoms was ≥24 hours in 73 patients (25%). 33 (6%) patients developed moderate eye injury. Healing was reported in all cases. The percentage of moderate cases was highest in the group of drain cleaners (25%), toilet cleaners (18%) and oven cleaners (15%). Products intended for professional use caused relatively more moderate eye injuries than products also intended for consumer use. Conclusion: MAGAM II has shown that PCs are able to identify formulas in sufficiently high quality as needed for product-directed toxicovigilance. The results underline the potential of PC exposure case data for product safety monitoring. The results indicate that irreversible eye damage is very rare after cleaning product exposure.

Healthcare workers are highly exposed to various types of disinfectants and cleaning products. Assessment of exposure to these products remains a challenge. We aimed to investigate the feasibility of a method, based on a smartphone application and bar codes, to improve occupational exposure assessment among hospital/cleaning workers in epidemiological studies.
A database of disinfectants and cleaning products used in French hospitals, including their names, bar codes and composition, was developed using several sources: ProdHyBase (a database of disinfectants managed by hospital hygiene experts), and specific regulatory agencies and industrial websites. A smartphone application has been created to scan bar codes of products and fill a short questionnaire. The application was tested in a French hospital. The ease of use and the ability to record information through this new approach were estimated.
The method was tested in a French hospital (7 units, 14 participants). Through the application, 126 records (one record referred to one product entered by one participant/unit) were registered, majority of which were liquids (55.5%) or sprays (23.8%); 20.6% were used to clean surfaces and 15.9% to clean toilets. Workers used mostly products with alcohol and quaternary ammonium compounds (>90% with weekly use), followed by hypochlorite bleach and hydrogen peroxide (28.6%). For most records, information was available on the name (93.7%) and bar code (77.0%). Information on product compounds was available for all products and recorded in the database.
This innovative and easy-to-use method could help to improve the assessment of occupational exposure to disinfectants/cleaning products in epidemiological studies.

A growing body of epidemiologic evidence suggests an association between exposure to cleaning products and respiratory dysfunction. Due to the lack of quantitative assessments of respiratory exposures to airborne irritants and sensitizers among professional cleaners, the culpable substances have yet to be identified.
OBJECTIVE: Focusing on previously identified irritants, our aims were to determine (i) airborne concentrations of monoethanolamine (MEA), glycol ethers, and benzyl alcohol (BA) during different cleaning tasks performed by professional cleaning workers and assess their determinants; and (ii) air concentrations of formaldehyde, a known indoor air contaminant.
METHODS: Personal air samples were collected in 12 cleaning companies, and analyzed by conventional methods.
RESULTS: Nearly all air concentrations [MEA (n = 68), glycol ethers (n = 79), BA (n = 15), and formaldehyde (n = 45)] were far below (<1/10) of the corresponding Swiss occupational exposure limits (OEL), except for ethylene glycol mono-n-butyl ether (EGBE). For butoxypropanol and BA, no OELs exist. Although only detected once, EGBE air concentrations (n = 4) were high (49.48-58.72mg m(-3)), and close to the Swiss OEL (49mg m(-3)). When substances were not noted as present in safety data sheets of cleaning products used but were measured, air concentrations showed no presence of MEA, while the glycol ethers were often present, and formaldehyde was universally detected. Exposure to MEA was affected by its amount used (P = 0.036), and spraying (P = 0.000) and exposure to butoxypropanol was affected by spraying (P = 0.007) and cross-ventilation (P = 0.000).
CONCLUSIONS: Professional cleaners were found to be exposed to multiple airborne irritants at low concentrations, thus these substances should be considered in investigations of respiratory dysfunctions in the cleaning industry; especially in specialized cleaning tasks such as intensive floor cleaning.