• Journal of Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.52-60
• /
• 2005

This study was carried to assess the accuracy of material safety data sheets (MSDS) for some water-soluble metalworking fluid (MWF) with respect to mono- ethanolamine(MEA), di-ethanolamine(DEA) and tri-ethanolamine (TEA). 39 fresh and 52 used MWFs for this study were taken from the workplace. The quantification and qualification of MEA, DEA and TEA were done using ion-chromatography. Three main findings of this study were 1) EA that was not addressed in material safety & data sheets (MSDS) was found to be enough higher than 1%, 2) 33.3% of 39 fresh MWF showed ingredient and concentration of MEA, DEA and TEA in MSDS and 3) the concentrations of MEA(20.5%), DEA(41.3%) and TEA(15.4%) were much higher than those indicated in MSDS. Consequently, we concluded that the accuracy on ingredients and concentrations of MEA, DEA and TEA provided in MWF was very low. Our study recommends that the limit concentration of chemical except for carcinogen that employer has to indicate in MSDS should be lowered from 1% to 0.1% .

• Safety and Health at Work
• /
• v.1 no.2
• /
• pp.175-182
• /
• 2010

Objectives: This study examined how ethanolamines (EAs) with the same functional alcohol group ($HOCH_2CH_2$), such as mono-EA (MEA), di-EA (DEA), and tri-EA (TEA), in water-based metalworking fluids (wbMWFs) are vaporized, condensed, and transformed by heat generated during metalworking. Methods: Two types of experimental apparatus were manufactured to achieve these objectives. Results: Vaporization tests using a water bath showed that the vaporization rate increased markedly from $0.19\;mg/m^2{\cdot}min$ at $23.5^{\circ}C$ to $8.04\;mg/m^2{\cdot}min$ at $60^{\circ}C$. Chamber tests with a heat bulb revealed that "spiked" MEA was fully recovered, while only 13.32% of DEA and no TEA were recovered. Interestingly, non-spiked types of EAs were detected, indicating that heat could convert EAs with more alcohol groups (TEA or DEA) into other EAs with fewer group(s) (DEA or MEA). The EA composition in fresh fluid was 4% DEA, 66% TEA, and 30% MEA, and in used fluids (n = 5) was 12.4% DEA, 68% TEA, and 23% MEA. Conversion from TEA into DEA may therefore contribute to the DEA increment. Airborne TEA was not detected in 13 samples taken from the central coolant system and near a conveyor belt where no machining work was performed. The DEA concentration was $0.45\;mg/m^3$ in the only two samples from those locations. In contrast, airborne MEA was found in all samples (n = 53) regardless of the operation type. Conclusion: MEAs easily evaporated even when MWFs were applied, cleaned, refilled, and when they were in fluid storage tanks without any metalworking being performed. The conversion of TEA to DEA and MEA was found in the machining operations.