Hello Philipp,

you're welcome. The problem is sometimes more over contaminant exposure that 
cannot be seen - otherwise than through in-depht epidemiology monitoring / 
air & dust analysis - rather than more visible easily detectible toxicants. 
Seemlingly, the benzyl alcohol does'nt have a very strong acute or chronic 
toxicity (although the daily exposure of staff should be assessed) and 
does'nt have significant persistance in the body or environment.

Some invisible contaminants in dust and air might be much greater issue e.g. 
former fungicide-pesticide treatment from 1920 to 1990's with 
pentachlorphenols (Na-PCP and PCP-laurate) and Lindane (HCH), for all types 
of museologic or natural history collections made in replacement to the well 
known poisons used before then (e.g. arseniates and mercury dichloride). PCP 
& HCH concentrations may have reduced significantly through time but the two 
molecules are able, when aging, to build up dioxane bridges two by two, 
creating an extremly concerning type of time-reluctant molecules : the 
dichlorobenzo-para-dioxines and furens (known as "dioxins") and 
polychlorodiphenyls (known as PCB's) that have extreme chronic toxicity 
(DL's at ppm concentrations) and long lasting body (fats) and environmental 
persistance. These are, to my opinion, the greatest health issue for people 
working in Museum environment but are to this day far from being fully taken 
into account (combined lack of information and economic implications ...).

When a much more visible appearant contaminant (such as benzyl alcohol 
fumes) are there (and with possible synergic effects in combination with 
these odorless/colorless peristant organic pollutants) health issues 
recorded among the Museum staff will have much greater chance to be linked 
with what's more obvious rather than over other factors more difficult to 
evidence. And therefore the corrective measures might not give satisfacory 
results although expenses will have been made.

This is why a more in-depht survey of potential contaminants together with 
staff health inquiery should often be encouraged (with some extra costs but 
also much greater extra benefits to the community) in order to lead the 
corrective steps, rather than to focus at once over one specific type of 
chemical.

Indoor airborn dust, particulate matter and fumes are usually a complex 
organic/mineral dust + chemicals "cocktail". Only a small fraction of this 
"cocktail" may reveal as a significant health issue but for long term 
exposure should be taken into account : tireness, allergies and respiratory 
problems for the most common everyday aspects + heavier pathologies liable 
to occur after long term chronic exposure can be avoided in great part, with 
unvaluable benefits both to individuals (greater well being, better health) 
and to the scientific or cultural community (less costs, more efficiancy and 
better harmony).

Many encouragements
Best regards,

Bruno Bordenave
Botanist, PhD of the Paris MNHN

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Philipp Thalmann" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: High concentrations of benzylalcohol in the museum environment


Dear Bruno

Thank you very much for the info and the links. I will check those.

Philipp Thalmann