Mikey P said:
I'm more worried about things I have to breath 5 times day then a liquid I may get on my skin once every ten years.
Yeah, I have to agree with Mike here, ...sort of.
Take Rust Remover as an example. If properly used, even Hydrofluoric Acid type is no more hazardous than a sharpened knife when used correctly. Yet both can maim when used carelessly.
On the other hand, a traffic lane cleaner with a high level of hazardous VOC's will be cumulatively harmful
if used exactly as directed, and there's not much in practical terms you can do, as long as you continue to use such a product. Thankfully, most TLC's have been radically improved, healthwise, but there are still quite a few off brands that use "old school" chemistry that the smart cleaner will avoid.
As to the original question.... Chemicals that present hazards fall into two distinct categories, and some fall into both. A chemical hazard can be acute, or chronic. An acute hazard is one that may cause immediate harm, such as unconsciousness or is a burn hazard. While an example of a chronic health effect is like respiratory disease, or cancer.
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) can guard us from both hazards, but an alternative is to not use hazardous chemicals if a safe or safer alternative is available.
First a short list of primary acute hazard chemicals. Far from complete, because of the variety of users and suppliers.
Alcohol (fire)
Hydrogen Peroxide (fire, reactivity, and chemical burn) As strength increases, so does the hazard.
Sodium Hydrosulfite (respiratory)
Sodium Bisulfite (respiratory and allergy)
Sodium Hydroxide (chemical burn, without PPE)
Hydrofluoric acid (chemical burn, without PPE)
Ammonia is found in a wide range of cleaning products, especially upholstery cleaning formulations. It can burn the skin on contact, and fumes can also irritate and damage the eyes. Ammonia also aggravates the respiratory tract and can trigger asthma attacks. Note: NEVER mix ammonia-containing products with bleach. The combination makes a deadly gas.
Chronic hazards are often harder to define because of the varying sensitivities people have to such chemicals. As well, there is often contradictory evidence or incomplete study of actual effects that can be traced to chemical. Sometimes competitors making products will even produce "findings" that are disseminated falsely or over-exaggerated/under-exaggerated, which further muddies conclusive judgments. Then there is also how the product is used. Some chemicals are extremely dangerous in seemingly innocuous quantities like a single gram, yet the formulator may only have a tiny fraction of the quantity required to present a significant hazard.
Take the chemical known as Metacresol. This chemical can be extremely hazardous, poisonous, irritating and a strong carcinogen in relatively small quantities. This chemical was once used in fair quantities in some carpet-cleaning agents. If one wanted to, a competitor could jump all over the potential ill effects of this substance. However, to be useful in a carpet cleaning detergent, only a tiny fraction of the level considered even reportable on a MSDS is plenty, and presents almost no risk, even without PPE! So here you have a chemical that has both acute and chronic hazards, showing little or no hazard risk to the users of this chemical.
Now, lets look at some of the chemicals which do present both documented and possible chronic health risks.
Glycol ethers
It is important to understand that there is a whole range of glycol ethers, many of which are relatively safe. Contrary to the opinion widely held in this industry, the jury remains out on 2-butoxyethanol, (Butyl Cellosolve) commonly used in presprays. European authorities reviewed claims of carcinogenicity as recently as 2005, dismissing the classification because tumors observed in animals can be explained by mechanisms that do not occur in humans. The so-called "P series" glycol ethers are considered to be safer (by some) substitutes: these include Propylene glycol monomethyl ether (PM), Dipropylene glycol monomethyl ether (DPM), and Propylene Glycol n-butyl ether (PnB). In my opinion, some of these alternatives actually present clear acute health hazards that remain completely ignored as to real cause. But I hear the complaints of wheezing and light-headedness on some products that contain thee “safer” alternatives.
Petroleum Distillates
Petroleum Distillates, Naphthas, such as toluene, xylene, Napthalene, & mineral spirits are all petrochemicals that have the potential to cause eye, skin and respiratory irritation. But also chronic health issues such as, neurotoxic effects leading to organic brain damage if used long term without some measure of protection. Adequate ventilation can go a long way here.
Surfactants
Alkylphenol ethoxylates , are often found in detergent cleaning agents. They are suspected hormone disruptors. Here I think the concern is a tad exaggerated, but can be reasoned.
Disinfectants
Phenols found in some disinfectants are toxic to respiratory and circulatory systems. Quaternary Ammonium Chlorides may be toxic to kidneys, liver, heart, gastrointestinal tract, cardiovascular system, central nervous system. Here PPE, cautious use with ventilation is recommended. The standards we use for mold, water damage, and even carpet cleaning are pushing us away from reliance on these chemicals for health considerations.
Delimonene
Delimonene is one of those chemicals that can have a demonstrable dual nature. You will find this chemical both on lists of chemicals to avoid, and other lists of chemicals that one might want to select as an alternative to others, which present greater potential risk. Heck, some entities are even pointing out that delimonene has had some application in pharmaceuticals as potential treatment for some cancers. Here we have a chemical that may kill the right cells if applied correctly. I guess the sharp knife analogy has another application. A scalpel can both save a life, or a sharp blade can take one if used in another manner.
Some, if not most of these chemicals present their hazards to varying degrees depending on concentrations, particular type, volume and nature of use. In no way can one really make secure blanket statements that adequately cover the realized hazard, and again one has to understand that often chemicals are condemned due primarily to competitive advertising.
I want to stress the shortness of my lists, as it is a subject that could certainly fill athread, if not a book as I said.
More later... I'm tired. LOL
