乾濕式皮膚去污方法於親脂性與親水性化學物之效能評估

Effectiveness evaluation of dry and wet skin decontamination methods on lipophilic and hydrophilic chemicals

楊翎(Ling Yang)

指導教授 ： 彭瓊瑜

高雄醫學大學/健康科學院/公共衛生學系公共衛生學碩士班/碩士(2020年)

摘要

近年來，科技發展與時俱進，化學品成為人類生活中不可或缺之角色，它具有便利性，亦具有化學品洩漏、農藥之施用、研發化學戰劑等危害性，面臨化學品產生之危害，我們應建立一套完善且有效率的除污程序，以避免危害造成之傷亡。除污程序包含濕式與乾式除污，而本研究之目的為建立乾式皮膚去污方法，並評估乾濕式皮膚去污程序的去污效率，此外亦會提出親脂性與親水性化學物適合的去污程序，望能使除污程序更加完善，並被推廣使用。
　　實驗全程於抽氣櫃中進行，選用與芥子氣(mustard gas)與沙林(sarin)物化性質相近之水楊酸甲酯(methyl salicylate, MS)與乳酸乙酯(ethyl lactate, EL)作為模擬污染物，暴露基質為豬皮(100 cm2)，評估之除污程序包含：濕式除污(水)與乾式除污(漂白土(fuller’s earth, FE)和活性皮膚去污乳液(Reactive Skin Decontamination Lotion, RSDL))。實驗方法為先將2.5 mL之EL或MS添加於豬皮，暴露30分鐘後，以1000 mL水、15 g漂白土或5 mL RSDL除污，濕式除污時間為1分鐘，乾式除污則為5分鐘(RSDL除污時要以玻璃棒對皮膚進行按摩)，除污完成後，對皮膚進行萃取分析皮膚化學物質殘留量，濕式除污亦會採集水樣本進行萃取分析。
　　研究結果以除污後皮膚殘留之模擬物來看，親水性之乳酸乙酯除污部分，皮膚平均殘留量水、漂白土與RSDL分別為7.56% (5.41% ~ 9.71%)、10.26%(7.38% ~ 13.14%)及4.60%(3.06% ~ 6.14%)。而對親脂性之水楊酸甲酯進行除污，皮膚平均殘留量則分別為2.76% (1.17%~3.81%)、0.28%(0.08 ~ 0.48%)及0.29%(0.04 ~ 0.54%)。就乾式除污方法而言，RSDL適合用於所有性質之化學物質，漂白土則較適合親脂性物質，而濕式除污(以水除污)，雖也適合所有物質，但其除污效果皆未比RSDL佳。
　　由研究結果得知，水除污非最適當的方式，但目前對於乾式除污方法較不熟悉，且部分除污產品在國內無法取得，故有必要進一步推廣乾式除污方法，使民眾在發生化學暴露災害時，可以得到妥善之除污與協助。

關鍵字

乾式除污方法 ； 漂白土 ； 活性皮膚去污乳液

並列摘要

Chemicals become indispensable roles in human life in fields of agriculture, industry, and commerce. Chemicals bring up a convenient life, but they also lead to property damage and casualties when they are used careless or terrorist organizations launch chemical warfare. It is important to establish a complete and efficient decontamination procedure to treat the accident and to avoid casualties caused by chemicals. There are several decontamination methods including wet and dry decontamination. The objectives of this study were (1) to establish dry skin decontamination methods, (2) to evaluate the decontamination efficiency of dry and wet skin decontamination methods, and to suggest optimal methods for different chemicals.
The experiment was carried out under a chemical fume hood. Methyl salicylate and ethyl lactate, which are similar to the physical and chemical properties of mustard gas and sarin, were selected as simulated pollutants. The exposed substrate was pig skin (100 cm2). The decontamination methods included: wet decontamination (water) and dry decontamination (fuller’s earth and Reactive Skin Decontamination Lotion). The experimental procedure described as follows: 2.5 mL of EL or MS was added on pigskin, then after 30-min exposure, pig skin was decontaminated with 1000 mL of water, 15 g of fuller’s earth or 5 mL of RSDL with the decontamination time of 1 min, 5 min, or 5 min, respectively. After decontamination was completed, the skin was extracted and analyzed for chemical residues. Water samples were collected and analyzed in wet decontamination.
Results show the average (range) skin residual amounts of hydrophilic ethyl lactate under water, fuller’s earth and RSDL decontamination were 7.56% (5.41% ~ 9.71%), 10.26% (7.38% ~ 13.14%) and 4.60% (3.06% ~ 6.14%) respectively. For the decontamination of lipophilic methyl salicylate, the average skin residues were 2.76% (1.17%~3.81%), 0.28% (0.08~0.48%) and 0.29% (0.04~0.54%). RSDL is suitable for these two chemicals, fuller’s earth is more suitable for lipophilic chemicals, and wet decontamination (decontamination with water), is suitable for hydrophilic chemicals, but its decontamination effect is worse than that of RSDL.
For some chemicals that cannot be decontaminated with water, dry decontamination is required. However, dry decontamination methods is seldom used for decontamination. There is lack of standard or appropriate dry decontamination procedures. Some decontamination products (such as RSDL) are not commercially available in Taiwan. Therefore, it is necessary to establish an appropriate dry decontamination method, to advocate its advantages on decontamination and, to apply it on real situations for better treatment and alleviation of skin chemical exposure.

並列關鍵字

Dry skin decontamination methods ； Fuller’s earth ； Reactive Skin Decontamination Lotion

參考文獻

1.Heo S, Kim M, Yu H, Lee W-K, Sohn JR, Jung S-Y, Moon KW, Byeon SH: Chemical accident hazard assessment by spatial analysis of chemical factories and accident records in South Korea. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2018, 27:37-47.

2.Damalas CA, Koutroubas SD: Farmers' Exposure to Pesticides: Toxicity Types and Ways of Prevention. Toxics 2016, 4(1).

3.Johnson NH, Larsen JC, Meek E: Historical Perspective of Chemical Warfare Agents. In: Handbook of Toxicology of Chemical Warfare Agents. 2015: 7-15.

4.Bertolini JCJTJoem: Hydrofluoric acid: a review of toxicity. 1992, 10(2):163-168.

5.王肇齡: 職業性氫氟酸中毒認定參考指引. In.; 2015.