Solvents digest No 24 - Poison Centre survey of methylene chloride

In 1998, DG Enterprise of the European Commission decided to undertake a study of the advantages and drawbacks of market restrictions on methylene chloride. TNO was awarded the contract and in 1999 produced an extensive document pointing at some concerns in three consumer markets: aerosols, paint removers and adhesives. As a consequence, DG Enterprise looked at possible restrictions on the marketing of paint strippers.

In order to address these concerns, ECSA has launched two separate enquiries among some 55 poison centres spread throughout West and Central Europe. The first enquiry in 2000 focused on incidents relating to methylene chloride in all three applications highlighted in the TNO report. In 2002, a second enquiry looked at chemical alternatives of methylene chloride in paint stripping. The rate of reply was 40%, with responses received from 21 countries.

The results can be summarised as follows.

  1. The number of incidents reported to poison centres related to methylene chloride is limited, especially compared to the number of units of paint stripper sold. There are other chemicals of much greater concern. However, the absence of incidents with methylene chloride in some countries might be due to deficiencies in the reporting system or to the fact that enquiries are based on trademarks and not chemical substances.
  2. When there are incidents, they are mostly benign. Only a few serious cases were reported, and then they stem mainly from professional use, when workplace safety standards were not implemented, or from misuse, like ingestion despite warning labels and instructions.
  3. When there are severe incidents, they are often due to hazardous substances accompanying methylene chloride in some paint strippers. For example, serious skin irritant/corrosive effects are due to other components, such as hydrofluoric acid. However, methylene chloride itself might cause a severe irritant effect if the exposure is occlusive and prolonged-so each case needs to be assessed carefully.
  4. Alternatives to methylene chloride present their own and different risks, whether they are solvents or alkalies or mechanical methods. In the few Centres where data have been reported for other paint strippers, there are usually no more incidents with methylene chloride than with the alternatives. In these countries, incidents with alternatives have been shown to be more severe than with methylene chloride.
  5. Adequate ventilation is the best protection against high exposure. Furthermore, many incidents could have been avoided by the use of appropriate protection devices recommended by the manufacturers of paint strippers, such as gloves, spectacles, mask, and breathing apparatus if a large amount of product is used.

This reinforces the opinion of ECSA that "experience demonstrates that there have not been any negative effects on the estimated risk to consumers from the use of methylene chloride in adhesives, aerosols and paint strippers, as long as it is used under the right conditions. Therefore no additional measures are required."

The detailed results of the Poison Centre survey are available on request from André Orban at the address on the last page of this issue.