Preventing Asthma and Death from MDI Exposure During Spray-on Truck Bed Liner and Related Applications

The purpose of this Alert is to alert facility owners, MDI distributors, and workers of the respiratory and dermal hazards associated with the use of aerosolized MDI; to educate health professionals in identifying and eliminating respiratory hazards at spray-on bed liner facilities; and to provide general engineering control designs and work practice recommendations to reduce or eliminate worker exposure to MDI in the spray-on truck bed liner industry.

Material Under Consideration

NIOSH Alert—Preventing Asthma and Death from MDI Exposure During Spray-on Truck Bed Liner and Related Applications; DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2006-049 – September 2006 [PDF – 3,497 KB]

Reviews

Peer Reviewers’ Comments – posted December 31, 2009 [PDF – 15 KB]

Response to Peer Reviewers’ Comments – posted December 31, 2009 [PDF – 15 KB]

Peer Review

Title: Preventing Asthma and Death from MDI Exposure During Spray-on Truck Bed Liner and Related Applications

Subject: Expansion on existing related reports, using updated exposure data and control strategies.

Purpose: To alert facility owners, MDI distributors, and workers of the respiratory and dermal hazards associated with the use of aerosolized MDI; to educate health professionals in identifying and eliminating respiratory hazards at spray-on bed liner facilities; and to provide general engineering control designs and work practice recommendations to reduce or eliminate worker exposures to MDI in the spray-on truck bed liner industry. (Note: the bed liner is an isocyanate-based polyurethane or polyurea coating; it contains di- and polyfunctional isocyanates with varying percentages of diphenylmethane diisocyanate (MDI monomer), MDI prepolymers, and polymeric MDI.)

Timing of Review: March through May 2005

Primary Disciplines or Expertise Needed for Review: Risk assessment, toxicology, industrial hygiene

Type of Review: Individual

Number of Reviewers: 4

Reviewers Selected by: NIOSH

Public Nominations Requested for Reviewers: No

Opportunities for the Public to Comment: Yes

Peer Reviewers Provided with Public Comment Before Their Review: No

Peer Reviewers:

Dale Krupinski II
Academic and Professional Credentials: C.I.H., C.S.P., M.P.H.
Organizational Affiliation: Industrial Hygienist, Office of Construction Services, Directorate of Construction, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC
Areas of Expertise, Discipline, or Relevant Experience: OSHA regulation compliance, industrial hygiene, occupational safety and health standards
Recommended by: NIOSH

Dennis O’Brien
Academic and Professional Credentials: Ph.D., C.I.H., P.E.
Organizational Affiliation: Industrial Hygienist, Health and Safety Department, Internation Union, UAW Detroit, MI
Areas of Expertise, Discipline, or Relevant Experience: Industrial hygiene, occupational safety and health
Recommended by: NIOSH

Roy Rando
Academic and Professional Credentials: Sc.D., C.I.H.
Organizational Affiliation: Professor, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA
Areas of Expertise, Discipline, or Relevant Experience: Etiology and epidemiology of occupational and environmental lung disease; exposure assessment and environmental characterization
Recommended by: NIOSH

Susan Tarlo
Academic and Professional Credentials: MD, B.S., F.R.C.P.(C)
Organizational Affiliation: Professor, Department of Public Health Sciences and Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
Areas of Expertise, Discipline, or Relevant Experience: Clinical practice and research in occupational and environmental lung diseases and allergic responses, especially occupational asthma; occupational and environmental airway disease
Recommended by: NIOSH

Charge to Peer Reviewers:

1. Does the Background explain the problem and summarize relevant literature adequately?
2. Is the information provided technically accurate?
3. Are the conclusions justified?
4. Are the recommendations appropriate and clearly stated?
5. Are the Surveillance Guidelines (Appendix B, page 41) clear and appropriate?
6. Is the Worker Factsheet (pp. 42-43) clear, accurate and practical?
7. In general, is the organization of the manuscript satisfactory?
8. What is your recommendation for this manuscript? (Check One):
   1. Approve for publication/dissemination
   2. Approve after modification (please describe)
   3. Not Approve (please describe)