Butyl 2,3-epoxypropyl ether

Direct observations: clinical cases, poisoning incidents and other

Administrative data

Endpoint:

direct observations: clinical cases, poisoning incidents and other

Type of information:

other: Case Reports

Adequacy of study:

weight of evidence

Reliability:

2 (reliable with restrictions)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

study well documented, meets generally accepted scientific principles, acceptable for assessment

Data source

Reference

Reference Type:

publication

Title:

Effects of n-Butyl Glycidyl Ether Exposure

Author:

Wallace E.,

Year:

1979

Bibliographic source:

J. Soc. Occup. Med. (1979) 29, 141-143

Materials and methods

Study type:

clinical case study

Endpoint addressed:

acute toxicity: inhalation

Principles of method if other than guideline:

In the accident reported here two men were exposed to a spillage of approximately 3,5 liters of grouting compound containing the test substance. One man was exposed for one and a half hours and the other for four hours. In spite of the persistent smell, they continued with their work. The symptoms which the men found to be most distressing were those relating to the digestive and nervous systems and not the respiratory tract.

GLP compliance:

no

Test material

Test material information

Constituent 1

Reference substance name:

Butyl 2,3-epoxypropyl ether

EC Number:

219-376-4

EC Name:

Butyl 2,3-epoxypropyl ether

Cas Number:

2426-08-6

Molecular formula:

C7H14O2

IUPAC Name:

2-(butoxymethyl)oxirane

Test material form:

liquid

Specific details on test material used for the study:

Report describes the spillage of a grouting compound containing the test substance. Purity unknown.

Method

Type of population:

occupational

Subjects:

- Number of subjects exposed: 2
- Sex: Male
- Age: Mr. A 21 years and Mr B 42 years

Ethical approval:

not applicable

Route of exposure:

inhalation

Reason of exposure:

accidental

Exposure assessment:

not specified

Details on exposure:

Whilst unloading stores in a warehouse on a construction site, two men knocked over a 5 L can of grouting compound containing the test substance. Approximately three-quarters of the can was spilt on to the floor. The spillage was covered with absorbent granules, but no other steps were taken to deal with the incident. The two men continued with their work in spite of the persisting odor to which they became accustomed.

The symptoms reported by the men were due to inhalation as both were adamant that none of the liquid spilt on to their clothes which had eventually to be thrown away because of the persistent odor. This odor was noticed by others when one of the men went for his tea break half an hour after the accident.

Results and discussion

Clinical signs:

The signs and symptoms produced by the men showed a remarkable similarity both on their admission to hospital and when seen 10 days later. It was interesting to note that, when interviewed, both men had forgotten the cough observed on their admission to hospital.

Subject A:
Between 1 and 1.5 h following exposure to the test substance, Mr A, developed vomiting, runny nose and eyes and ataxia. On his way to the first aid room he fell over twice. He was admitted to hospital at about 2 a.m. for observation for 24 hours where he was treated symptomatically for his headache. It was also noticed that he had a cough. Mr A remembers being admitted to hospital, but does not remember any more until 7 a.m.; his workmate, however, informed him that he became violent and tried to hit a nurse. His headache persisted for 6 to 7 days after his discharge and he had anorexia for ten days. The vomiting, which had persisted for about 18 h whilst under observation, became intermittent but was sufficiently troublesome that he had to return to the outpatients department a week later and his doctor subsequently telephoned the hospital to report a further severe episode. The nausea and vomiting continued intermittently for the next nine weeks, when he developed hematemesis and was readmitted overnight for observation. A gastroscopy was arranged for the following week but before this could be carried out he was admitted to a second hospital with a history of central abdominal pain for the previous 17 days. On examination, he was tender in the right side of the abdomen. His temperature was normal but he had a slight tachycardia, Hb 14.29 g/dL and a white cell count of 16.5. An appendicetomy was carried out following which he developed retention of urine and had to be catheterized. Urine examination on four occasions failed to reveal red cells or pus. At a follow-up visit three months later he was recovering from his appendicectomy.

Subject B:
About 1.5 h after exposure to the test substance, Mr B, became dizzy and, whilst Mr A went to the first aid room, Mr B decided to go up into the loft of the warehouse to rest. He fell asleep and awoke about 2 h later suffering with nausea. On going outside, he was found staggering around and vomiting as though he was drunk. Mr B was admitted to hospital for observation for 48 h. Whilst an inpatient, he was given Stemetil injections and Largactil orally for the vomiting. In addition, he had a cough, headache, bloodshot eyes and diplopia on looking to the right. The latter had disappeared by the next morning, but his headache persisted for a week and he noticed difficulty in concentration. About four weeks later, Mr B collapsed at his new job with hematemesis and melena. He was admitted to hospital where a gastroscopy was carried out. No ulcer or inflammation was seen, but during his admission his Hb fell from 12.3 to 11.6 g/dL

Outcome of incidence:

Subject A:
At a follow-up visit three months later he was recovering from his appendicectomy.
Subject B:
At a follow-up visit three months later he was still complaining of spasmodic headaches, lethargy, anorexia, and was vomiting occasionally specked with blood.

The inhalation of the test substance in a poorly ventilated space produced irritation of the gastrointestinal tract, resulting in anorexia and marked vomiting, the severity of which was related to the length of exposure. The central nervous system was affected to a lesser extent, the main symptom being a persistent and severe headache. It was of interest to note that the expected irritation of the respiratory tract was only mild by comparison and of short duration.