Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Objectives To provide insights into exposure of Dutch dairy farmers to formaldehyde derived from formalin footbaths used for cows. Dutch safety norms are set at a limit of 0.122 ppm during an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) and 0.407 ppm for a 15-min TWA.
Methods At 20 farms formaldehyde air concentrations were determined using stationary active air sampling with impingers next to the footbath and in the milking parlour during footbath usage. Formalin footbath concentrations were tested and meteorological conditions were collected using a climate monitor to assess associations with formaldehyde concentrations. A structured interview inquired on potential exposure routes and exposure duration.
Results Formaldehyde concentrations next to the footbath ranged from <0.003 to 0.316 ppm, with seven measurements exceeding the 8-hour TWA threshold. None of the measurements exceeded the 15-min TWA threshold at either location. Formaldehyde air concentrations in the milking parlour were generally lower, yet at two farms exceeded the 8-hour TWA limit during sampling. Self-reported exposure time of the dairy farmers to the formalin footbath never exceeded 15 min. Although due to the small sample size, no significant associations between most predictor variables and formaldehyde levels in the air were found, the direction of effects were as expected.
Conclusions The exposure of Dutch dairy farmers presumably falls within the established safety norms. Nonetheless, substantial levels of formaldehyde could be detected. This study further emphasises the importance of substitution of formalin in dairy practice and the relevance of informing dairy farmers on proper handling of formalin to reduce exposure.
- formaldehyde
- occupational health
- air pollution
- chemical hazard release
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. Raw data is available upon request to the corresponding author.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. Raw data is available upon request to the corresponding author.
Footnotes
Contributors ERJ, MN and IMW contributed to the literature review, conceptualisation, study design, data analysis and writing of the manuscript. JJGS contributed to the study design, execution of laboratory experiments, analysis of the data and the method section of the manuscript. TvW assisted in farm recruitment, description of the recruitment process and provided valuable input in the revision process. IMW is the guarantor of the study. TS, PS, MT-Z and AV reviewed and provided valuable input for the research methods.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.