E34.50 - Health and Safety Standards for Metal Working Fluids

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method covers the gravimetric measurement4 of metal removal fluid aerosol concentrations in workplace atmospheres.  
5.2 This test method provides total particulate matter concentrations for comparison with historical exposure databases collected with the same technology.  
5.3 This test method provides an extension to current non-standardized methods by adding an extractable mass concentration which reduces interferences from nonmetal removal fluid aerosols.  
5.4 This test method does not address differences between metal removal fluid types, but it does include extraction with a broad spectrum of solvent polarity to adequately remove many of the current fluid formulations from insoluble background aerosol.5  
5.5 This test method does not identify or quantify any specific putative toxins in the workplace that can be related to metal removal fluid aerosols or vapors.  
5.6 This test method does not address the loss of semivolatile compounds from the filter during or after collection.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers a procedure for the determination of both total collected particulate matter and extractable mass metalworking fluid aerosol concentrations in the range of 0.07 to 5 mg/m3 in workplace atmospheres.  
1.2 This test method describes a standardized means of collecting worker exposure information that can be compared to existing exposure databases, using a test method that is also more specific to metal removal fluids.  
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
3.1 Personnel from a wide range of disciplines contribute to metalworking fluid management and plant environment health and safety management. Consequently, terms familiar to some stakeholders will be unfamiliar to others.  
3.2 This terminology standard provides, in a single document, a compilation of definitions used by personnel involved with both metalworking environment health and safety and fluid management.  
3.3 Use of terms as defined in this terminology standard will enable all stakeholders to use metalworking industry terms in the appropriate context, thereby improving interdisciplinary communications.
SCOPE
1.1 This terminology standard provides a compilation of ASTM and non-ASTM consensus definitions of terms used in the metalworking industry.  
1.2 This terminology standard does not purport to be an exhaustive lexicon. Rather, it defines terms relevant to metalworking fluid management and metalworking fluid health and safety.  
1.3 This terminology standard defines primary metalworking operations, fluid types, and other terms germane to the practice of metalworking fluid management.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Exposure to aerosols in the industrial metal removal environment has been associated with adverse respiratory effects.  
4.2 Use of this practice will mitigate occupational exposure and effects of exposure to aerosols in the metal removal environment.  
4.3 Through implementation of this practice, users should be able to reduce instances and severity of respiratory irritation and disease through the effective use of a metal removal fluid management program, appropriate product selection, appropriate machine tool design, proper air handling mechanisms, and control of microorganisms.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice sets forth guidelines to control respiratory hazards in the metal removal environment.  
1.2 This practice does not include prevention of dermatitis, which is the subject of Practice E2693, but it does adopt a similar systems management approach with many control elements in common.  
1.3 This practice focuses on employee exposure via inhalation of metal removal fluids and associated airborne agents.  
1.4 Metal removal fluids used for wet machining operations (such as cutting, drilling, milling, or grinding) that remove metal to produce the finished part are a subset of metalworking fluids. This practice does not apply to other operations (such as stamping, rolling, forging, or casting) that use metalworking fluids other than metal removal fluids. These other types of metalworking fluid operations are not included in this document because of limited information on health effects, including epidemiology studies, and on control technologies. Nonetheless, some of the exposure control approaches and guidance contained in this document may be useful for managing respiratory hazards associated with other types of metalworking fluids.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This practice allows for the recovery and enumeration of viable and culturable, non-tuberculosis, rapidly growing Mycobacteria  (M. immunogenum, M. chelonae, M. absessus, M. fortuitum, and M. smegmatis) in the presence of high Gram-negative background populations in metalworking fluid field samples. This population is predominantly comprised of Gram-negative bacteria and fungi. Mycobacterial contamination of metalworking fluids has been putatively associated with hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) amongst metalgrinding machinists. The detection and enumeration of these organisms will aid in better understanding of occupational health-related problems and a better assessment of antimicrobial pesticide efficacy.  
5.2 The measurement of viable and culturable mycobacterial densities (Guide E1326), combined with the total mycobacterial counts (including viable culturable (VC), viable nonculturable (VNC) and nonviable (NV) counts), is usually the first step in establishing any possible relationship between Mycobacteria and occupational health concerns (for example, HP).  
5.3 The practice can be employed in survey studies to characterize the viable-culturable mycobacterial population densities of metalworking fluid field samples.  
5.4 This practice is also applicable for establishing the mycobacterial resistance of metalworking fluid formulations by determining mycobacterium survival by means of plate count technique.  
5.5 This practice can also be used to evaluate the relative efficacy of microbicides against Mycobacteria in metalworking fluids.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers the detection and enumeration of viable and culturable rapidly growing Mycobacteria (RGM), or non-tuberculosis Mycobacteria (NTM) in aqueous metalworking fluids (MWF) in the presence of high non-mycobacterial background population using standard microbiological culture methods.  
1.2 The detection limit is one colony forming unit (CFU)/mL metalworking fluid.  
1.3 This practice involves culture of organisms classified as Level 2 pathogens, and should be undertaken by a trained microbiologist in an appropriately equipped facility. The microbiologist should also be capable of distinguishing the diverse colonies of Mycobacteria from other microorganism colonies on a Petri dish and capable of confirming Mycobacteria by acid-fast staining method.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Measurement of mycobacterial cell count densities is an important step in establishing a possible relationship between mycobacteria and occupational health-related allergic responses, for example, hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) in persons exposed to aerosols of metalworking fluids. It is known that the viable mycobacteria count underestimates the total mycobacterial levels by not counting the non-culturable, possibly dead or moribund population that is potentially equally important in the investigation of occupational health-related problems. The direct microscopic counting method (DMC) described here gives a quantitative assessment of the total numbers of acid-fast bacilli. It involves using acid-fast staining to selectively identify mycobacteria from other bacteria, followed by enumeration or direct microscopic counting of a known volume over a known area. Although other microbes—particularly the Actinomycetes—also stain acid-fast, they are differentiated from the mycobacteria because of their morphology and size. Non-mycobacteria, acid-fast microbes are 50 to 100 times larger than mycobacteria. This practice provides quantitative information on the total (culturable and non-culturable viable, and non-viable) mycobacteria populations. The results are expressed quantitatively as mycobacteria per mL of metalworking fluid sample.  
5.2 The DMC method using the acid-fast staining technique is a semi-quantitative method with a relatively fast turnaround time.  
5.3 The DMC method can also be employed in field survey studies to characterize the changes in total mycobacteria densities of metalworking fluid systems over a long period of time.  
5.4 The sensitivity detection limit of the DMC method depends on the MF and the sample volume (direct or centrifuged, etc.) examined.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice describes a direct microscopic counting method (DMC) for the enumeration of the acid-fast stained mycobacteria population in metalworking fluids. It can be used to detect levels of total mycobacteria population, including culturable as well as non-culturable (possibly dead or moribund) bacterial cells. This practice is recommended for all water-based metalworking fluids (Classification D2881).  
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. For additional safety information, see Laboratory Safety: Principle and Practices, 4th Edition.2  
1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Application of this guide will provide information on the acute toxicity of water-miscible metalworking fluids and will assist the user in evaluating the potential health hazards of the fluid and developing appropriate work practices. A water-miscible metalworking fluid is a concentrate designed to be diluted in water for use.  
4.2 Water-miscible metalworking fluids are complex chemical mixtures. The United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Hazard Communication Standard (see A1.8) outlines procedures for the hazard determination of mixtures and states that if a mixture has not been tested as a whole, then the mixture shall be assumed to present the same hazards as do the components that comprise 1 % (by weight or volume) or greater of the mixture, except that the mixture shall be assumed to present a carcinogenic hazard if it contains a component in concentrations of 0.1 % or greater, which is considered to be a carcinogen (as defined in OSHA Standard 29 CFR 1910.1200). The determination of when to test a mixture as a whole and which toxicity tests are appropriate for the product must be made by a health professional qualified in evaluating toxicological data.  
4.3 Acute toxicology testing of water-miscible metalworking fluids consists of several individual tests including acute oral, dermal, or inhalation toxicity, eye irritation, skin irritation or corrosion, or both, skin sensitization, and sensory irritation. Certain protocols for acute oral, dermal, and inhalation toxicity tests are limit tests; further multi-dose testing (for example, Test Method E1103) should take place if mortality is noted on any of these tests. The referenced protocols specify the species and number of animals required. Selection of tests conducted should be designed to minimize the number of animals used.  
4.3.1 Acute Oral Toxicity—Acute oral toxicity tests (see A1.1) provide information on health hazards likely to arise from short-term exposure by the ...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide defines acute animal toxicity tests and sets forth the references for procedures to assess the acute toxicity of water-miscible metalworking fluids as manufactured.  
1.2 Although water-miscible metalworking fluids are typically used at high dilution, dilution rates vary widely. Additionally, there is potential for exposure to the metalworking fluid as manufactured.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Use of this practice will improve management and control of metal removal fluids. The proper management and use will reduce dermal and other occupational hazards associated with these fluids.  
4.1.1 Guide E2148 covers information on how to use documents related to health and safety of metalworking and metal removal fluids, including this document. Documents referenced in Guide E2148 are grouped as applicable to producers, to users, or to all.  
4.1.2 Practices E2693 and E2889 augment the information provided in this practice by providing information on prevention of dermatitis and on approaches to reducing exposures to different types of metal removal fluid related aerosols.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice sets forth guidelines for the selection and safe use of metal removal fluids, additives, and antimicrobials. This includes product selection, storage, dispensing, and maintenance.  
1.2 Water-miscible metal removal fluids are typically used at high dilution, and dilution rates vary widely. Additionally, there is potential for exposure to undiluted metal removal fluid as manufactured, as well as metal removal fluid additives and antimicrobials.  
1.3 Straight oils generally consist of a severely solvent-refined or hydro-treated petroleum oil, a synthetic oil, or other oils of animal or vegetable origin, including oils that are modified for performance characteristics (for example, esterified rapeseed oil, and so forth). Straight oils are not intended to be diluted with water prior to use. Additives are often included in straight oil formulations.  
1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This practice summarizes the steps in the antimicrobial pesticide selection process, reviewing technical and regulatory considerations inherent in the process. It complements and amplifies information provided in Practice E1497.  
5.1.1 Steps in the antimicrobial selection process include: needs identification, use strategy selection, efficacy testing, chemical compatibility testing, regulatory consideration review, handling, and disposal issue review.  
5.2 This practice provides stakeholders in the microbicide selection process an overview of its complexities, including the process of obtaining pesticide registration from cognizant governing bodies.  
5.3 Personnel responsible for antimicrobial pesticide selection will be able to use this practice as a roadmap through the process.  
5.4 Personnel responsible for industrial hygiene, product or plant management will gain insight to the tradeoffs attendant with antimicrobial use and selection.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice provides recommendations for selecting antimicrobial pesticides (microbicides) for use in water-miscible metalworking fluids (MWF). It presents information regarding regulatory requirements, as well as technical factors including target microbes, efficacy, and chemical compatibility.  
1.2 This guide is not an encyclopedic compilation of all the concepts and terminology used by chemists, microbiologists, toxicologists, formulators, plant engineers, and regulatory affairs specialists involved in antimicrobial pesticide selection and application. Instead, it provides a general understanding of the selection process and its supporting considerations.  
1.3 The values in SI units are to be regarded as the standard.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The determination of endotoxin concentrations in MWF is a parameter that can be used in decision-making for prudent fluid management practices (fluid draining, cleaning, recharging, or biocide dosages).  
5.2 This standard provides a practice for analysts who perform quantitative endotoxin analyses of water-miscible MWF.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers quantitative methods for the sampling and determination of bacterial endotoxin concentrations in water-miscible metalworking fluids (MWF).  
1.2 Users of this practice need to be familiar with the handling of MWF.  
1.3 This practice gives an estimate of the endotoxin concentration in the sampled MWF.  
1.4 This practice replaces Method E2250.  
1.5 This practice seeks to minimize interlaboratory variation of endotoxin data but does not ensure uniformity of results.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Application of this guide will provide users with information on how to use the various documents listed in Section 2 related to health and safety of metalworking and metal removal fluids.  
4.2 Users of the documents listed in Section 2 may fall into several categories, such as producers of metalworking or metal removal fluids, suppliers of raw materials to those producers, users of metalworking or metal removal fluids, and other interested parties such as non-governmental organizations.  
4.3 While all parties may wish to be generally familiar with all the documents listed in Section 2, producers and users may each want to focus on certain documents which are directly applicable to them:  
4.4 Documents Applicable to Producers:  
4.4.1 E1687 Test Method for Determining Carcinogenic Potential of Virgin Base Oils in Metalworking Fluids:  
4.4.1.1 Test Method E1687 covers a microbiological test procedure based upon the Salmonella  mutagenesis assay of Ames et al.7 (see also Maron et al.).8 It can be used as a screening technique to detect the presence of potential dermal carcinogens in virgin base oils used in the formulation of metalworking oils. Persons who use this test should be well versed in the conduct of the Ames test and conversant with the physical and chemical properties of petroleum products.
4.4.1.2 Producers of metalworking fluids and metal removal fluids should assure themselves that virgin base oils used in the formulation of neat metalworking and metal removal oils and soluble and semi-synthetic metal removal fluids have an acceptable mutagenicity index or mutagenic potency index.  
4.4.2 E1302 Guide for Acute Animal Toxicity Testing of Water-Miscible Metal Removal Fluids:  
4.4.2.1 Guide E1302 defines acute animal toxicity tests and sets forth references for procedures to assess the acute toxicity of water-miscible metal removal fluids as manufactured.
4.4.2.2 Application of Guide E1302 will provide information on the acute toxicity ...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers information on how to use documents related to health and safety of metalworking and metal removal fluids. As such, this guide will provide the user with sufficient background information to effectively use the documents listed in Section 2. Documents referenced in this guide are grouped as applicable to producers, to users or to all.  
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Endotoxins in metalworking fluid aerosols present potential respiratory health hazards to workers who inhale them. Therefore, a consensus standard is needed to provide reliable data on workplace airborne endotoxin concentrations where metalworking fluids are used.  
5.2 This practice for measuring airborne endotoxin concentrations in metalworking fluid atmospheres will help to foster a better understanding of endotoxin exposure-response relationships.  
5.3 This practice facilitates comparisons of interlaboratory data from methods and field investigative studies.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers quantitative methods for the personal sampling and determination of bacterial endotoxin concentrations in poly-disperse metalworking fluid aerosols in workplace atmospheres. Users should have fundamental knowledge of microbiological techniques and endotoxin testing.  
1.2 Users of this practice may obtain personal or area exposure data of endotoxin in metalworking fluid aerosols, either on a short-term or full-shift basis in workplace atmospheres.  
1.3 This practice gives an estimate of the endotoxin concentration of the sampled atmosphere.  
1.4 This practice seeks to minimize interlaboratory variation but does not ensure uniformity of results.  
1.5 It is anticipated that this practice will facilitate interlaboratory comparisons of airborne endotoxin data from metalworking fluid atmospheres, particularly metal removal fluid atmospheres, by providing a basis for endotoxin sampling, extraction, and analytical methods.  
1.6 In 1997, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) empanelled a Standards Advisory Committee to make recommendations to the Administration regarding measures that the Administration could take to improve the health of workers exposed to metalworking fluids. A report to the Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA was submitted in July 1999. Subcommittee E34.50 believes that the user community would benefit significantly if a standard method was developed to give the community guidance on a methodology for the sampling and analysis of personal airborne endotoxin exposure assessments in facilities using water-miscible metal removal fluids, based on the LAL assay or other endotoxin detection technologies as they become available.  
1.7 This practice does not attempt to set or imply limits for personal exposure to endotoxin in metalworking fluid aerosols in workplace environments.  
1.8 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.9 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.10 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This method measures the concentration of ATP present in the sample. ATP is a constituent of all living cells, including bacteria and fungi. Consequently, the presence of ATP is an indicator of total microbial contamination in metalworking fluids. ATP is not associated with matter of non-biological origin.  
5.2 Test Method D4012 validated ATP as a surrogate for culturable bacterial data (Guide E1326).  
5.3 This method differs from Test Method D4012 in that it eliminates interferences that have historically rendered ATP testing unusable with complex organic fluids such as MWFs.  
5.4 The ATP test provides rapid test results that reflect the total bioburden in the sample. It thereby reduces the delay between test initiation and data capture, from the 36 h to 48 h (or longer) required for culturable colonies to become visible, to approximately 5 min.  
5.5 Although ATP data generally covary with culture data in MWF,4 different factors affect ATP concentration than those that affect culturability.  
5.5.1 Culturability is affected primarily by the ability of captured microbes to proliferate on the growth medium provided, under specific growth conditions. It has been estimated that less than 1 % of the species present in an environmental sample will form colonies under any given set of growth conditions.5  
5.5.2 ATP concentration is affected by: the microbial species present, the physiological states of those species, and the total bioburden (see Appendix X1).
5.5.2.1 One example of the species effect is that the amount of ATP per cell is substantially greater for fungi than bacteria.
5.5.2.2 Within a species, cells that are more metabolically active will have more ATP per cell than dormant cells.
5.5.2.3 The greater the total bioburden, the greater the ATP concentration in a sample.  
5.5.3 The possibility exists that the rinse step (11.15) may not eliminate all chemical substances that can interfere with the bioluminescence reaction (11.39).
5.5.3...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method provides a protocol for capturing, extracting, and quantifying the adenosine triphosphate (ATP) content associated with microorganisms found in water-miscible metalworking fluids (MWFs).  
1.2 The ATP is measured using a bioluminescence enzyme assay, whereby light is generated in amounts proportional to the concentration of ATP in the samples. The light is produced and measured quantitatively as relative light units (RLUs) which are converted by comparison with an ATP standard and computation to pg ATP/mL.  
1.3 This test method is equally suitable for use in the laboratory or field.  
1.4 The test method detects ATP concentrations in the range of 4.0 pg ATP/mL to 400 000 pg ATP/mL.  
1.5 Providing interferences can be overcome, bioluminescence is a reliable and proven method for qualifying and quantifying ATP. The method does not differentiate between ATP from different sources, for example, from different types of microorganisms, such as bacteria and fungi.  
1.6 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 The process of recirculating MWFs entrains air bubbles which can accumulate, forming foam.  
4.2 Optimally, air bubbles burst open quickly after they are created. However, air bubble persistence is affected by MWF chemistry and the mechanisms by which energy is introduced into recirculating MWFs.  
4.2.1 The primary mechanisms imparting energy into recirculating MWFs are:
4.2.1.1 Turbulent Flow—The high velocity (typically >0.75 m3 min–1; >200 gal min–1).
4.2.1.2 Impaction—Energy generated when MWF strikes the tool-workpiece zone.
4.2.1.3 Centrifugal Force—MWF moved by the force of rotating tools or work pieces.  
4.3 When air bubbles persist, they tend to accumulate as foam. Persistent foam can:  
4.3.1 Inhibit heat transfer;  
4.3.2 Cause pump impeller cavitation;  
4.3.3 Foul filters;  
4.3.4 Overflow from MWF sumps;  
4.3.5 Prevent proper lubrication;  
4.3.6 Contribute to MWF mist formation, including bioaerosol dispersion; and  
4.3.7 Contribute to safety and hygiene hazards in the plant.  
4.4 To prevent the adverse effects of MWF foam accumulation, chemical agents are either formulated into MWF concentrate, added tankside, or both.  
4.5 Laboratory tests are used to predict MWF foaming characteristics in end-use applications. However, no individual test is universally appropriate.  
4.6 This guide reviews test protocols commonly in use to evaluate end-use diluted MWF foaming tendency and the impact of foam-control agents on MWF foaming tendency.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides an overview of foaming tendency evaluation protocols and their appropriate use.  
1.2 ASTM Test Methods D3519 and D3601 were withdrawn in 2013. Although each method had some utility, neither method reliably predicted in-use foaming tendency. Since Test Methods D3519 and D3601 were first adopted, several more predictive test protocols have been developed. However, it is also common knowledge that no single protocol is universally suitable for predicting water-miscible metalworking fluid (MWF) foaming tendency.  
1.3 Moreover, there are no generally recognized reference standard fluids (either MWF or foam-control additive). Instead it is important to include a relevant reference sample in all testing.  
1.4 The age of the reference and test fluid concentrates can be an important factor in their foaming behavior. Ideally, freshly prepared concentrates should be held at laboratory room temperature for at least one week before diluting for foam testing. This ensures that any neutralization reactions have reached equilibrium and enables microemulsions to reach particle size equilibrium. During screening tests, it is also advisable to test fluids after the concentrates have been heat aged and subjected to freeze/thaw treatment.  
1.5 The dilution water quality can have a major impact on foaming properties. In general, fluid concentrates diluted with hard water will foam less than those diluted with soft, deionized, or reverse osmosis water. Screening tests using the expected range of dilution water quality are highly recommended.  
1.6 The temperature of the tested fluids can have a major impact on foaming properties. In general, test fluids should be held and tested at temperatures that closely mimic the real-world application and process.  
1.7 Cleanliness of test apparatus is critical during foam evaluation testing. Traces of residue on labware can significantly impact the observed foaming tendency of a test fluid. Best practice is to clean any glassware or other vessels using some version of a chemical cleaner that will alleviate any risk of cross contamination.  
1.8 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.9 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate sa...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The test method is based on a modification of the Ames Salmonella mutagenesis assay. As modified, there is good correlation with mouse skin-painting bioassay results for samples of raw and refined lubricating oil process streams.  
5.2 Mutagenic potency in this modified assay and carcinogenicity in the skin-painting bioassay also correlate with the content of three to seven-ring PACs, which include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and their heterocyclic analogs. The strength of these correlations implies that PACs are the principal mutagenic and carcinogenic species in these oils. Some of the methods that have provided evidence supporting this view are referenced in Appendix X1.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers a microbiological test procedure based upon the Salmonella mutagenesis assay of Ames et al. (1)2 (see also Maron et al. (2)). It can be used as a screening technique to detect the presence of potential dermal carcinogens in virgin base oils used in the formulation of metalworking oils. Persons who perform this test should be well versed in the conduct of the Ames test and conversant with the physical and chemical properties of petroleum products.  
1.2 The test method is not recommended as the sole testing procedure for oils which have viscosities less than 18 cSt (90 SUS) at 40 °C, or for formulated metalworking fluids.  
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are provided for information only.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Section 7 provides general guidelines for safe conduct of this test method.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Use of this practice is intended to reduce occupational dermatitis caused by exposure to the wet metal removal environment.  
5.2 Complaints of dermatitis conditions are often associated with exposures to metal removal fluid.  
5.3 Implementation of this practice and incorporation of metal removal fluid management program has the potential to reduce complaints of occupational dermatitis. Elements of an effective program include: understanding dermatitis and associated causes; prevention of dermatitis and exposure to metal removal fluids; appropriate product selection; good management of additives, microorganisms, and fluids; appropriate additive (including antimicrobial pesticides) selection and additive control; appropriate tool design and assessment; and control of metal removal fluid exposures, including aerosols.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice sets forth guidelines for reducing dermatitis caused by exposure to the wet metal removal environment. The scope of this practice does not include exposure to chemicals that enter the body through intact skin (cutaneous route), which has the potential to cause other toxic effects.  
1.2 This practice incorporates means and mechanisms to reduce dermal exposure to the wet metal removal environment and to control factors in the wet metal removal environment that have the potential to cause dermatitis.  
1.3 This practice focuses on employee exposure to the skin via contact and exposure to metal removal fluid (MRF).  
1.4 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 The process of recirculating MWFs entrains air bubbles which can accumulate, forming foam.  
4.2 Optimally, air bubbles burst open quickly after they are created. However, air bubble persistence is affected by MWF chemistry and the mechanisms by which energy is introduced into recirculating MWFs.  
4.2.1 The primary mechanisms imparting energy into recirculating MWFs are:
4.2.1.1 Turbulent Flow—The high velocity (typically >0.75 m3 min–1; >200 gal min–1).
4.2.1.2 Impaction—Energy generated when MWF strikes the tool-workpiece zone.
4.2.1.3 Centrifugal Force—MWF moved by the force of rotating tools or work pieces.  
4.3 When air bubbles persist, they tend to accumulate as foam. Persistent foam can:  
4.3.1 Inhibit heat transfer;  
4.3.2 Cause pump impeller cavitation;  
4.3.3 Foul filters;  
4.3.4 Overflow from MWF sumps; and  
4.3.5 Prevent proper lubrication.  
4.4 To prevent the adverse effects of MWF foam accumulation, chemical agents are either formulated into MWF concentrate, added tankside, or both.  
4.5 Laboratory tests are used to predict MWF foaming characteristics in end-use applications. However, no individual test is universally appropriate.  
4.6 This guide reviews test protocols commonly in use to evaluate end-use diluted MWF foaming tendency and the impact of foam-control agents on MWF foaming tendency.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides an overview of foaming tendency evaluation protocols and their appropriate use.  
1.2 ASTM Test Methods D3519 and D3601 were withdrawn in 2018. Although each method had some utility, neither method reliably predicted in-use foaming tendency. Since Test Methods D3519 and D3601 were first adopted, several more predictive test protocols have been developed. However, it is also common knowledge that no single protocol is universally suitable for predicting water-miscible metalworking fluid (MWF) foaming tendency.  
1.3 Moreover, there are no generally recognized reference standard fluids (either MWF or foam-control additive). Instead it is important to include a relevant reference sample in all testing.  
1.4 The age of the reference and test fluid concentrates can be an important factor in their foaming behavior. Ideally, freshly prepared concentrates should be held at laboratory room temperature for at least one week before diluting for foam testing. This ensures that any neutralization reactions have reached equilibrium and enables microemulsions to reach particle size equilibrium. During screening tests, it is also advisable to test fluids after the concentrates have been heat aged and subjected to freeze/thaw treatment.  
1.5 The dilution water quality can have a major impact on foaming properties. In general, fluid concentrates diluted with hard water will foam less than those diluted with soft, deionized, or reverse osmosis water. Screening tests using the expected range of dilution water quality are highly recommended.  
1.6 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 During the past decade, it has become increasingly apparent that non-tuberculous mycobacteria are common members of the indigenous MWF bacterial population. Measurement of mycobacterial cell count densities is an important step in establishing a possible relationship between mycobacteria and occupational health-related allergic responses, for example, hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) in persons exposed to aerosols of metalworking fluids. It is known that the viable mycobacteria count underestimates the total mycobacterial levels by not counting the non-culturable, possibly dead or moribund population that is potentially equally important in the investigation of occupational health-related problems. The direct microscopic counting method (DMC) described here gives a quantitative assessment of the total numbers of acid-fast bacilli. It involves using acid-fast staining to selectively identify mycobacteria from other bacteria, followed by enumeration or direct microscopic counting of a known volume over a known area. Although other microbes—particularly the Actinomycetes—also stain acid-fast, they are differentiated from the mycobacteria because of their morphology and size. Non-mycobacteria, acid-fast microbes are 50 to 100 times larger than mycobacteria. This practice provides quantitative information on the total (culturable and non-culturable viable, and non-viable) mycobacteria populations. The results are expressed quantitatively as mycobacteria per mL of metalworking fluid sample.  
5.2 The DMC method using the acid-fast staining technique is a semi-quantitative method with a relatively fast turnaround time.  
5.3 The DMC method can also be employed in field survey studies to characterize the changes in total mycobacteria densities of metalworking fluid systems over a long period of time.  
5.4 The sensitivity detection limit of the DMC method depends on the MF and the sample volume (direct or centrifuged, etc.) examined.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice describes a direct microscopic counting method (DMC) for the enumeration of the acid-fast stained mycobacteria population in metalworking fluids. It can be used to detect levels of total mycobacteria population, including culturable as well as non-culturable (possibly dead or moribund) bacterial cells. This practice is recommended for all water-based metalworking fluids (Classification D2881).  
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. For additional safety information, see Laboratory Safety: Principle and Practices, 4th Edition.2  
1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This practice allows for the recovery and enumeration of viable and culturable, non-tuberculosis, rapidly growing Mycobacteria  (M. immunogenum, M. chelonae, M. absessus, M. fortuitum, and M. smegmatis) in the presence of high Gram-negative background populations in metalworking fluid field samples. During the past decade, it has become increasingly apparent that non-tuberculous Mycobacteria are common members of the indigenous MWF bacterial population. This population is predominantly comprised of Gram-negative bacteria and fungi. Mycobacterial contamination of metalworking fluids has been putatively associated with hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) amongst metalgrinding machinists. The detection and enumeration of these organisms will aid in better understanding of occupational health-related problems and a better assessment of antimicrobial pesticide efficacy.  
5.2 The measurement of viable and culturable mycobacterial densities (Guide E1326), combined with the total mycobacterial counts (including viable culturable (VC), viable nonculturable (VNC) and nonviable (NV) counts), is usually the first step in establishing any possible relationship between Mycobacteria and occupational health concerns (for example, HP).  
5.3 The practice can be employed in survey studies to characterize the viable-culturable mycobacterial population densities of metalworking fluid field samples.  
5.4 This practice is also applicable for establishing the mycobacterial resistance of metalworking fluid formulations by determining mycobacterium survival by means of plate count technique.  
5.5 This practice can also be used to evaluate the relative efficacy of microbicides against Mycobacteria in metalworking fluids.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers the detection and enumeration of viable and culturable rapidly growing Mycobacteria (RGM), or non-tuberculosis Mycobacteria (NTM) in aqueous metalworking fluids (MWF) in the presence of high non-mycobacterial background population using standard microbiological culture methods.  
1.2 The detection limit is one colony forming unit (CFU)/mL metalworking fluid.  
1.3 This practice involves culture of organisms classified as Level 2 pathogens, and should be undertaken by a trained microbiologist in an appropriately equipped facility. The microbiologist should also be capable of distinguishing the diverse colonies of Mycobacteria from other microorganism colonies on a Petri dish and capable of confirming Mycobacteria by acid-fast staining method.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
3.1 Personnel from a wide range of disciplines contribute to metalworking fluid management and plant environment health and safety management. Consequently, terms familiar to some stakeholders will be unfamiliar to others.  
3.2 This terminology standard provides, in a single document, a compilation of definitions used by personnel involved with both metalworking environment health and safety and fluid management.  
3.3 Use of terms as defined in this terminology standard will enable all stakeholders to use metalworking industry terms in the appropriate context, thereby improving interdisciplinary communications.
SCOPE
1.1 This terminology standard provides a compilation of ASTM and non-ASTM consensus definitions of terms used in the metalworking industry.  
1.2 This terminology standard does not purport to be an exhaustive lexicon. Rather, it defines terms relevant to metalworking fluid management and metalworking fluid health and safety.  
1.3 This terminology standard defines primary metalworking operations, fluid types, and other terms germane to the practice of metalworking fluid management.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Exposure to aerosols in the industrial metal removal environment has been associated with adverse respiratory effects.  
4.2 Use of this practice will mitigate occupational exposure and effects of exposure to aerosols in the metal removal environment.  
4.3 Through implementation of this practice, users should be able to reduce instances and severity of respiratory irritation and disease through the effective use of a metal removal fluid management program, appropriate product selection, appropriate machine tool design, proper air handling mechanisms, and control of microorganisms.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice sets forth guidelines to control respiratory hazards in the metal removal environment.  
1.2 This practice does not include prevention of dermatitis, which is the subject of Practice E2693, but it does adopt a similar systems management approach with many control elements in common.  
1.3 This practice focuses on employee exposure via inhalation of metal removal fluids and associated airborne agents.  
1.4 Metal removal fluids used for wet machining operations (such as cutting, drilling, milling, or grinding) that remove metal to produce the finished part are a subset of metalworking fluids. This practice does not apply to other operations (such as stamping, rolling, forging, or casting) that use metalworking fluids other than metal removal fluids. These other types of metalworking fluid operations are not included in this document because of limited information on health effects, including epidemiology studies, and on control technologies. Nonetheless, some of the exposure control approaches and guidance contained in this document may be useful for managing respiratory hazards associated with other types of metalworking fluids.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Application of this guide will provide information on the acute toxicity of water-miscible metalworking fluids and will assist the user in evaluating the potential health hazards of the fluid and developing appropriate work practices. A water-miscible metalworking fluid is a concentrate designed to be diluted in water for use.  
4.2 Water-miscible metalworking fluids are complex chemical mixtures. The United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Hazard Communication Standard (see A1.8) outlines procedures for the hazard determination of mixtures and states that if a mixture has not been tested as a whole, then the mixture shall be assumed to present the same hazards as do the components that comprise 1 % (by weight or volume) or greater of the mixture, except that the mixture shall be assumed to present a carcinogenic hazard if it contains a component in concentrations of 0.1 % or greater, which is considered to be a carcinogen (as defined in OSHA Standard 29 CFR 1910.1200). The determination of when to test a mixture as a whole and which toxicity tests are appropriate for the product must be made by a health professional qualified in evaluating toxicological data.  
4.3 Acute toxicology testing of water-miscible metalworking fluids consists of several individual tests including acute oral, dermal, or inhalation toxicity, eye irritation, skin irritation or corrosion, or both, skin sensitization, and sensory irritation. Certain protocols for acute oral, dermal, and inhalation toxicity tests are limit tests; further multi-dose testing (for example, Test Method E1103) should take place if mortality is noted on any of these tests. The referenced protocols specify the species and number of animals required. Selection of tests conducted should be designed to minimize the number of animals used.  
4.3.1 Acute Oral Toxicity—Acute oral toxicity tests (see A1.1) provide information on health hazards likely to arise from short-term exposure by the ...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide defines acute animal toxicity tests and sets forth the references for procedures to assess the acute toxicity of water-miscible metalworking fluids as manufactured.  
1.2 Although water-miscible metalworking fluids are typically used at high dilution, dilution rates vary widely. Additionally, there is potential for exposure to the metalworking fluid as manufactured.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Use of this practice will improve management and control of metal removal fluids. The proper management and use will reduce dermal and other occupational hazards associated with these fluids.  
4.1.1 Guide E2148 covers information on how to use documents related to health and safety of metalworking and metal removal fluids, including this document. Documents referenced in Guide E2148 are grouped as applicable to producers, to users, or to all.  
4.1.2 Practice E2889 augments the information provided in this practice by providing information on approaches to reducing exposures to different types of metal removal fluid related aerosols.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice sets forth guidelines for the selection and safe use of metal removal fluids, additives, and antimicrobials. This includes product selection, storage, dispensing, and maintenance.  
1.2 Water-miscible metal removal fluids are typically used at high dilution, and dilution rates vary widely. Additionally, there is potential for exposure to undiluted metal removal fluid as manufactured, as well as metal removal fluid additives and antimicrobials.  
1.3 Straight oils generally consist of a severely solvent-refined or hydro-treated petroleum oil, a synthetic oil, or other oils of animal or vegetable origin, including oils that are modified for performance characteristics (for example, esterified rapeseed oil, and so forth). Straight oils are not intended to be diluted with water prior to use. Additives are often included in straight oil formulations.  
1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This practice summarizes the steps in the antimicrobial pesticide selection process, reviewing technical and regulatory considerations inherent in the process. It complements and amplifies information provided in Practice E1497.  
5.1.1 Steps in the antimicrobial selection process include: needs identification, use strategy selection, efficacy testing, chemical compatibility testing, regulatory consideration review, handling, and disposal issue review.  
5.2 This practice provides stakeholders in the microbicide selection process an overview of its complexities, including the process of obtaining pesticide registration from cognizant governing bodies.  
5.3 Personnel responsible for antimicrobial pesticide selection will be able to use this practice as a roadmap through the process.  
5.4 Personnel responsible for industrial hygiene, product or plant management will gain insight to the tradeoffs attendant with antimicrobial use and selection.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice provides recommendations for selecting antimicrobial pesticides (microbicides) for use in water-miscible metalworking fluids (MWF). It presents information regarding regulatory requirements, as well as technical factors including target microbes, efficacy, and chemical compatibility.  
1.2 This guide is not an encyclopedic compilation of all the concepts and terminology uses by chemists, microbiologists, toxicologists, formulators, plant engineers, and regulatory affairs specialists involved in antimicrobial pesticide selection and application. Instead, it provides a general understanding of the selection process and its supporting considerations.  
1.3 The values in SI units are to be regarded as the standard.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Application of this guide will provide users with information on how to use the various documents listed in Section 2 related to health and safety of metalworking and metal removal fluids.  
4.2 Users of the documents listed in Section 2 may fall into several categories, such as producers of metalworking or metal removal fluids, suppliers of raw materials to those producers, users of metalworking or metal removal fluids, and other interested parties, such as non governmental organizations.  
4.3 While all parties may wish to be generally familiar with all the documents listed in Section 2, producers and users may each want to focus on certain documents which are directly applicable to them:  
4.4 Documents Applicable to Producers:  
4.4.1 E1687 Test Method for Determining Carcinogenic Potential of Virgin Base Oils in Metalworking Fluids
4.4.1.1 Test Method E1687 covers a microbiological test procedure based upon the Salmonella  mutagenesis assay of Ames et. al6 (see also Maron et al7). It can be used as a screening technique to detect the presence of potential dermal carcinogens in virgin base oils used in the formulation of metalworking oils. Persons who use this test should be well-versed in the conduct of the Ames test and conversant with the physical and chemical properties of petroleum products.
4.4.1.2 Producers of metalworking fluids and metal removal fluids should assure themselves that virgin base oils used in the formulation of neat metalworking and metal removal oils and soluble and semi-synthetic metal removal fluids have an acceptable mutagenicity index or mutagenic potency index.  
4.4.2 E1302 Guide for Acute Animal Toxicity Testing of Water-Miscible Metal Removal Fluids
4.4.2.1 Guide E1302 defines acute animal toxicity tests and sets forth references for procedures to assess the acute toxicity of water-miscible metal removal fluids as manufactured.
4.4.2.2 Application of Guide E1302 will provide information on the acute toxicity of w...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers information on how to use documents related to health and safety of metalworking and metal removal fluids. As such, this guide will provide the user with sufficient background information to effectively use the documents listed in Section 2. Documents referenced in this guide are grouped as applicable to producers, to users or to all.  
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory requirements prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The determination of endotoxin concentrations in MWF is a parameter that can be used in decision-making for prudent fluid management practices (fluid draining, cleaning, recharging or biocide dosages).  
5.2 This standard provides a practice for analysts who perform quantitative endotoxin analyses of water-miscible MWF.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers quantitative methods for the sampling and determination of bacterial endotoxin concentrations in water miscible metalworking fluids (MWF).  
1.2 Users of this practice need to be familiar with the handling of MWF.  
1.3 This practice gives an estimate of the endotoxin concentration in the sampled MWF.  
1.4 This practice replaces Method E2250.  
1.5 This practice seeks to minimize inter-laboratory variation of endotoxin data but does not ensure uniformity of results.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This method measures the concentration of ATP present in the sample. ATP is a constituent of all living cells, including bacteria and fungi. Consequently, the presence of ATP is an indicator of total microbial contamination in metalworking fluids. ATP is not associated with matter of non-biological origin.  
5.2 Method D4012 validated ATP as a surrogate for culturable bacterial data (Guide E1326).  
5.3 This method differs from Method D4012 in that it eliminates interferences that have historically rendered ATP testing unusable with complex organic fluids such as MWF.  
5.4 The ATP test provides rapid test results that reflect the total bioburden in the sample. It thereby reduces the delay between test initiation and data capture, from the 36 h to 48 h (or longer) required for culturable colonies to become visible, to approximately five minutes.  
5.5 Although ATP data generally covary with culture data in MWF4, different factors affect ATP concentration than those that affect culturability.  
5.5.1 Culturability is affected primarily by the ability of captured microbes to proliferate on the growth medium provided, under specific growth conditions. It have been estimated that less than 1 % of the species present in an environmental sample will form colonies under any given set of growth conditions.5  
5.5.2 ATP concentration is affected by: the microbial species present, the physiological states of those species, and the total bioburden (See Appendix X1).
5.5.2.1 One example of the species effect is that the amount of ATP per cell is substantially greater for fungi than bacteria.
5.5.2.2 Within a species, cells that are more metabolically active will have more ATP per cell than dormant cells.
5.5.2.3 The greater the total bioburden, the greater the ATP concentration in a sample.  
5.5.3 The possibility exists that the rinse step (11.15) may not eliminate all chemical substances that can interfere with the bioluminescence reaction (11.39).
5.5.3.1 ...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method provides a protocol for capturing, extracting and quantifying the adenosine triphosphate (ATP) content associated with microorganisms found in water-miscible metalworking fluids (MWF).  
1.2 The ATP is measured using a bioluminescence enzyme assay, whereby light is generated in amounts proportional to the concentration of ATP in the samples. The light is produced and measured quantitatively as relative light units (RLU) which are converted by comparison with an ATP standard and computation to pg ATP/mL.  
1.3 This test method is equally suitable for use in the laboratory or field.  
1.4 The test method detects ATP concentrations in the range of 4.0 pg ATP/mL to 400 000 pg ATP/mL.  
1.5 Providing interferences can be overcome, bioluminescence is a reliable and proven method for qualifying and quantifying ATP. The method does not differentiate between ATP from different sources, for example, from different types of microorganisms, such as bacteria and fungi.  
1.6 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Endotoxins in metalworking fluid aerosols present potential respiratory health hazards to workers who inhale them. Therefore, a consensus standard is needed to provide reliable data on workplace airborne endotoxin concentrations where metalworking fluids are used.  
5.2 This practice for measuring airborne endotoxin concentrations in metalworking fluid atmospheres will help to foster a better understanding of endotoxin exposure-response relationships.  
5.3 This practice facilitates comparisons of inter laboratory data from methods and field investigative studies.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers quantitative methods for the personal sampling and determination of bacterial endotoxin concentrations in poly-disperse metalworking fluid aerosols in workplace atmospheres. Users should have fundamental knowledge of microbiological techniques and endotoxin testing.  
1.2 Users of this practice may obtain personal or area exposure data of endotoxin in metalworking fluid aerosols, either on a short-term or full-shift basis in workplace atmospheres.  
1.3 This practice gives an estimate of the endotoxin concentration of the sampled atmosphere.  
1.4 This practice seeks to minimize inter laboratory variation but does not ensure uniformity of results.  
1.5 It is anticipated that this practice will facilitate inter laboratory comparisons of airborne endotoxin data from metalworking fluid atmospheres, particularly metal removal fluid atmospheres, by providing a basis for endotoxin sampling, extraction, and analytical methods.  
1.6 In 1997, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) empanelled a Standards Advisory Committee to make recommendations to the Administration regarding measures that the Administration could take to improve the health of workers exposed to metalworking fluids. A report to the Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA was submitted in July, 1999. Subcommittee E34.50 believes that the user community would benefit significantly if a standard method was developed to give the community guidance on a methodology for the sampling and analysis of personal airborne endotoxin exposure assessments in facilities using water-miscible metal removal fluids, based on the LAL assay or other endotoxin detection technologies as they become available.  
1.7 This practice does not attempt to set or imply limits for personal exposure to endotoxin in metalworking fluid aerosols in workplace environments.  
1.8 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.9 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The test method is based on a modification of the Ames Salmonella mutagenesis assay. As modified, there is good correlation with mouse skin-painting bioassay results for samples of raw and refined lubricating oil process streams.  
5.2 Mutagenic potency in this modified assay and carcinogenicity in the skin-painting bioassay also correlate with the content of 3 to 7 ring PACs, which include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and their heterocyclic analogs. The strength of these correlations implies that PACs are the principal mutagenic and carcinogenic species in these oils. Some of the methods that have provided evidence supporting this view are referenced in Appendix X1.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers a microbiological test procedure based upon the Salmonella mutagenesis assay of Ames et al (1)2 (see also Maron et al (2)). It can be used as a screening technique to detect the presence of potential dermal carcinogens in virgin base oils used in the formulation of metalworking oils. Persons who perform this test should be well-versed in the conduct of the Ames test and conversant with the physical and chemical properties of petroleum products.  
1.2 The test method is not recommended as the sole testing procedure for oils which have viscosities less than 18 cSt (90 SUS) at 40°C, or for formulated metalworking fluids.  
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are provided for information only.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Section 7 provides general guidelines for safe conduct of this test method.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Use of this practice is intended to reduce occupational dermatitis caused by exposure to the wet metal removal environment.  
5.2 Complaints of dermatitis conditions are often associated with exposures to metal removal fluid.  
5.3 Implementation of this practice and incorporation of metal removal fluid management program has the potential to reduce complaints of occupational dermatitis. Elements of an effective program include: understanding dermatitis and associated causes; prevention of dermatitis and exposure to metal removal fluids; appropriate product selection; good management of additives, microorganisms, and fluids; appropriate additive (including antimicrobial pesticides) selection and additive control; appropriate tool design and assessment and control of metal removal fluid exposures including aerosols.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice sets forth guidelines for reducing dermatitis caused by exposure to the wet metal removal environment. The scope of this practice does not include exposure to chemicals that enter the body through intact skin (cutaneous route), which has the potential to cause other toxic effects.  
1.2 This practice incorporates means and mechanisms to reduce dermal exposure to the wet metal removal environment and to control factors in the wet metal removal environment that have the potential to cause dermatitis.  
1.3 This practice focuses on employee exposure to the skin via contact and exposure to metal removal fluid (MRF).  
1.4 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Application of this guide will provide information on the acute toxicity of water-miscible metalworking fluids and will assist the user in evaluating the potential health hazards of the fluid and developing appropriate work practices. A water-miscible metalworking fluid is a concentrate designed to be diluted in water for use.  
4.2 Water-miscible metalworking fluids are complex chemical mixtures. The United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Hazard Communication Standard (see A1.8) outlines procedures for the hazard determination of mixtures and states that if a mixture has not been tested as a whole, then the mixture shall be assumed to present the same hazards as do the components that comprise 1 % (by weight or volume) or greater of the mixture, except that the mixture shall be assumed to present a carcinogenic hazard if it contains a component in concentrations of 0.1 % or greater, which is considered to be a carcinogen (as defined in OSHA Standard 29 CFR 1910.1200). The determination of when to test a mixture as a whole and which toxicity tests are appropriate for the product must be made by a health professional, qualified in evaluating toxicological data.  
4.3 Acute toxicology testing of water-miscible metalworking fluids consists of several individual tests including acute oral, dermal, or inhalation toxicity, eye irritation, skin irritation or corrosion, or both, skin sensitization, and sensory irritation. Certain protocols for acute oral, dermal, and inhalation toxicity tests are limit tests; further multi-dose testing (for example, Test Method E1103) should take place if mortality is noted on any of these tests. The referenced protocols specify the species and number of animals required. Selection of tests conducted should be designed to minimize the number of animals used.  
4.3.1 Acute Oral Toxicity—Acute oral toxicity tests (see A1.1) provide information on health hazards likely to arise from short-term exposure by the...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide defines acute animal toxicity tests and sets forth the references for procedures to assess the acute toxicity of water-miscible metalworking fluids as manufactured.  
1.2 Although water-miscible metalworking fluids are typically used at high dilution, dilution rates vary widely. Additionally, there is potential for exposure to the metalworking fluid as manufactured.  
1.3  This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 During the past decade, it has become increasingly apparent that non-tuberculous mycobacteria are common members of the indigenous MWF bacterial population. Measurement of mycobacterial cell count densities is an important step in establishing a possible relationship between mycobacteria and occupational health related allergic responses, for example, Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis (HP) in persons exposed to aerosols of metalworking fluids. It is known that the viable mycobacteria count underestimates the total mycobacterial levels by not counting the non-culturable, possibly dead or moribund population that is potentially equally important in the investigation of occupational health related problems. The Direct Microscopic Counting Method (DMC) described here gives a quantitative assessment of the total numbers of acid-fast bacilli. It involves using acid-fast staining to selectively identify mycobacteria from other bacteria, followed by enumeration or direct microscopic counting of a known volume over a known area. Although other microbes—particularly the Actinomycetes—also stain acid fast, they are differentiated from the mycobacteria because of their morphology and size. Non-mycobacteria, acid-fast microbes are 50 to 100 times larger than mycobacteria. The practice provides quantitative information on the total (culturable and non-culturable viable, and non-viable) mycobacteria populations. The results are expressed quantitatively as mycobacteria per mL of metalworking fluid sample.  
5.2 The DMC method using the acid-fast staining technique is a semi- quantitative method with a relatively fast turnaround time.  
5.3 The DMC method can also be employed in field survey studies to characterize the changes in total mycobacteria densities of metalworking fluid systems over a long period of time.  
5.4 The sensitivity detection limit of the DMC method depends on the MF and the sample volume (direct or centrifuged, etc.) examined.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice describes a direct microscopic counting method (DMC) for the enumeration of the acid fast stained mycobacteria population in metalworking fluids. It can be used to detect levels of total mycobacteria population, including culturable as well as non-culturable (possibly dead or moribund ) bacterial cells. This practice is recommended for all water-based metalworking fluids.  
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. For additional safety information, see Laboratory Safety: Principle and Practices, 4th Edition2

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This practice allows for the recovery and enumeration of viable and culturable, non-tuberculosis, rapidly growing Mycobacteria  (M.immunogenum, M.chelonae, M. absessus, M. fortuitum , and M.smegmatis) in the presence of high gram negative background populations in metalworking fluid field samples. During the past decade it has become increasingly apparent that non-tuberculous Mycobacteria are common members of the indigenous MWF bacterial population. This population is predominantly comprised of gram negative bacteria and fungi. Mycobacterial contamination of metalworking fluids has been putatively associated with hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) amongst metal grinding machinists. The detection and enumeration of these organisms will aid in better understanding of occupational health related problems and a better assessment of antimicrobial pesticide efficacy.  
5.2 The measurement of viable and culturable mycobacterial densities combined with the total mycobacterial counts (including viable culturable (VC), viable-non culturable (VNC) and non viable (NV) counts) is usually the first step in establishing any possible relationship between  Mycobacteria and occupational health concerns (for example, HP).  
5.3 The practice can be employed in survey studies to characterize the viable-culturable mycobacterial population densities of metal working fluid field samples.  
5.4 This practice is also applicable for establishing the mycobacterial resistance of metalworking fluid formulations by determining mycobacterium survival by means of plate count technique.  
5.5 This practice can also be used to evaluate the relative efficacy of microbicides against Mycobacteria in metalworking fluids.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers the detection and enumeration of viable and culturable rapidly growing Mycobacteria (RGM), or non-tuberculosis  Mycobacteria (NTM) in aqueous metalworking fluids (MWF) in the presence of high non-mycobacterial background population using standard microbiological culture methods.  
1.2 The detection limit is one colony forming unit (CFU)/mL metalworking fluid.  
1.3 This practice involves culture of organisms classified as Level 2 pathogens, and should be undertaken by a trained microbiologist in an appropriately equipped facility. The microbiologist should also be capable of distinguishing the diverse colonies of Mycobacteria from other microorganism colonies on a Petri dish and capable of confirming Mycobacteria by acid fast staining method  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
3.1 Personnel from a wide range of disciplines contribute to metalworking fluid management and plant environment health and safety management. Consequently, terms familiar to some stakeholders will be unfamiliar to others.  
3.2 This terminology standard provides, in a single document, a compilation of definitions used by personnel involved with both metalworking environment health and safety and fluid management.  
3.3 Use of terms as defined in this terminology standard will enable all stakeholders to use metalworking industry terms in the appropriate context, thereby improving interdisciplinary communications.
SCOPE
1.1 This terminology standard provides a compilation of ASTM and non-ASTM consensus definitions of terms used in the metalworking industry.  
1.2 This terminology standard does not purport to be an exhaustive lexicon. Rather it defines terms relevant to metalworking fluid management and metalworking fluid health and safety.  
1.3 This terminology standard defines primary metalworking operations, fluid types and other terms germane to the practice of metalworking fluid management.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This practice summarizes the steps in the antimicrobial pesticide selection process, reviewing technical and regulatory considerations inherent in the process. It complements and amplifies information provided in Practice E1497.  
5.1.1 Steps in the antimicrobial selection process include: needs identification, use strategy selection, efficacy testing, chemical compatibility testing, regulatory consideration review, handling and disposal issue review.  
5.2 This practice provides stakeholders in the microbicide selection process an overview of its complexities, including the process of obtaining pesticide registration from cognizant governing bodies.  
5.3 Personnel responsible for antimicrobial pesticide selection will be able to use this practice as a roadmap through the process.  
5.4 Personnel responsible for industrial hygiene, product or plant management will gain insight to the tradeoffs attendant with antimicrobial use and selection.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice provides recommendations for selecting antimicrobial pesticides (microbicides) for use in water-miscible metalworking fluids (MWF). It presents information regarding regulatory requirements, as well as technical factors including target microbes, efficacy and chemical compatibility.  
1.2 This guide is not an encyclopedic compilation of all the concepts and terminology uses by chemists, microbiologists, toxicologists, formulators, plant engineers and regulatory affairs specialists involved in antimicrobial pesticide selection and application. Instead, it provides a general understanding of the selection process and its supporting considerations.  
1.3 The values in SI units are to be regarded as the standard.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Application of this guide will provide information on the acute toxicity of water-miscible metalworking fluids and will assist the user in evaluating the potential health hazards of the fluid and developing appropriate work practices. A water-miscible metalworking fluid is a concentrate designed to be diluted in water for use.  
4.2 Water-miscible metalworking fluids are complex chemical mixtures. The United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Hazard Communication Standard (see A1.8) outlines procedures for the hazard determination of mixtures and states that if a mixture has not been tested as a whole, then the mixture shall be assumed to present the same hazards as do the components that comprise 1 % (by weight or volume) or greater of the mixture, except that the mixture shall be assumed to present a carcinogenic hazard if it contains a component in concentrations of 0.1 % or greater, which is considered to be a carcinogen (as defined in OSHA Standard 29 CFR 1910.1200). The determination of when to test a mixture as a whole and which toxicity tests are appropriate for the product must be made by a health professional, qualified in evaluating toxicological data.  
4.3 Acute toxicology testing of water-miscible metalworking fluids consists of several individual tests including acute oral, dermal, or inhalation toxicity, eye irritation, skin irritation or corrosion, or both, skin sensitization, and sensory irritation. Certain protocols for acute oral, dermal, and inhalation toxicity tests are limit tests; further multi-dose testing (for example, Test Method E1103) should take place if mortality is noted on any of these tests. The referenced protocols specify the species and number of animals required. Selection of tests conducted should be designed to minimize the number of animals used.  
4.3.1 Acute Oral Toxicity—Acute oral toxicity tests (see A1.1) provide information on health hazards likely to arise from short-term exposure by the...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide defines acute animal toxicity tests and sets forth the references for procedures to assess the acute toxicity of water-miscible metalworking fluids as manufactured.  
1.2 Although water-miscible metalworking fluids are typically used at high dilution, dilution rates vary widely. Additionally, there is potential for exposure to the metalworking fluid as manufactured.  
1.3  This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Exposure to aerosols in the industrial metal removal environment has been associated with adverse respiratory effects.  
4.2 Use of this practice will mitigate occupational exposure and effects of exposure to aerosols in the metal removal environment.  
4.3 Through implementation of this practice users should be able to reduce instances and severity of respiratory irritation and disease through the effective use of a metal removal fluid management program, appropriate product selection, appropriate machine tool design, proper air handling mechanisms, and control of microorganisms.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice sets forth guidelines to control respiratory hazards in the metal removal environment.  
1.2 This practice does not include prevention of dermatitis which is the subject of Practice E2693 but it does adopt a similar systems management approach with many control elements in common.  
1.3 This practice focuses on employee exposure via inhalation of metal removal fluids and associated airborne agents.  
1.4 Metal removal fluids used for wet machining operations (such as cutting, drilling, milling or grinding) that remove metal to produce the finished part are a subset of metalworking fluids. This practice does not apply to other operations (such as stamping, rolling, forging or casting) that use metalworking fluids other than metal removal fluids. These other types of metalworking fluid operations are not included in this document because of limited information on health effects, including epidemiology studies, and on control technologies. Nonetheless, some of the exposure control approaches and guidance contained in this document may be useful for managing respiratory hazards associated with other types of metalworking fluids.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
Endotoxins in metalworking fluid aerosols present potential respiratory health hazards to workers who inhale them. Therefore, a consensus standard is needed to provide reliable data on workplace airborne endotoxin concentrations where metalworking fluids are used.
This practice for measuring airborne endotoxin concentrations in metalworking fluid atmospheres will help to foster a better understanding of endotoxin exposure-response relationships.
This practice facilitates comparisons of inter laboratory data from methods and field investigative studies.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers quantitative methods for the personal sampling and determination of bacterial endotoxin concentrations in poly-disperse metalworking fluid aerosols in workplace atmospheres. Users should have fundamental knowledge of microbiological techniques and endotoxin testing.
1.2 Users of this practice may obtain personal or area exposure data of endotoxin in metalworking fluid aerosols, either on a short-term or full-shift basis in workplace atmospheres.
1.3 This practice gives an estimate of the endotoxin concentration of the sampled atmosphere.
1.4 This practice seeks to minimize inter laboratory variation but does not ensure uniformity of results.
1.5 It is anticipated that this practice will facilitate inter laboratory comparisons of airborne endotoxin data from metalworking fluid atmospheres, particularly metal removal fluid atmospheres, by providing a basis for endotoxin sampling, extraction, and analytical methods.
1.6 In 1997, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) empanelled a Standards Advisory Committee to make recommendations to the Administration regarding measures that the Administration could take to improve the health of workers exposed to metalworking fluids. A report to the Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA was submitted in July, 1999. Subcommittee E34.50 believes that the user community would benefit significantly if a standard method was developed to give the community guidance on a methodology for the sampling and analysis of personal airborne endotoxin exposure assessments in facilities using water-miscible metal removal fluids, based on the LAL assay or other endotoxin detection technologies as they become available.
1.7 This practice does not attempt to set or imply limits for personal exposure to endotoxin in metalworking fluid aerosols in workplace environments.
This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
The determination of endotoxin concentrations in metalworking fluids is a parameter that can be used in decision-making for prudent fluid management practices (fluid draining, cleaning, recharging or biocide dosages).
This standard provides a test method for analysts who perform quantitative endotoxin analyses of water-miscible metalworking fluids.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers quantitative methods for the sampling and determination of bacterial endotoxin concentrations in water miscible metalworking fluids (MWF).
1.2 Users of this test method need to be familiar with the handling of MWF.
1.3 This method gives an estimate of the endotoxin concentration in the sampled MWF.
1.4 This method replaces Test Method E2250.
1.5 This test method seeks to minimize inter-laboratory variation of endotoxin data but does not ensure uniformity of results.
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
Application of this guide will provide users with information on how to use the various documents listed in Section 2 related to health and safety of metalworking and metal removal fluids.  
Users of the documents listed in Section 2 may fall into several categories, such as producers of metalworking or metal removal fluids, suppliers of raw materials to those producers, users of metalworking or metal removal fluids, and other interested parties, such as non governmental organizations.  
While all parties may wish to be generally familiar with all the documents listed in Section 2, producers and users may each want to focus on certain documents which are directly applicable to them:
Documents Applicable to Producers:  
E1687 Test Method for Determining Carcinogenic Potential of Virgin Base Oils in Metalworking Fluids
Test Method E1687 covers a microbiological test procedure based upon the Salmonella mutagenesis assay of Ames et. al (see also Maron et al ). It can be used as a screening technique to detect the presence of potential dermal carcinogens in virgin base oils used in the formulation of metalworking oils. Persons who use this test should be well-versed in the conduct of the Ames test and conversant with the physical and chemical properties of petroleum products.
Producers of metalworking fluids and metal removal fluids should assure themselves that virgin base oils used in the formulation of neat metalworking and metal removal oils and soluble and semi-synthetic metal removal fluids have an acceptable mutagenicity index or mutagenic potency index.
E1302 Guide for Acute Animal Toxicity Testing of Water-Miscible Metal Removal Fluids
Guide E1302 defines acute animal toxicity tests and sets forth references for procedures to assess the acute toxicity of water-miscible metal removal fluids as manufactured.
Application of Guide E1302 will provide information on the acute toxicity of water-miscible metal removal fluids and will assist the user...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers information on how to use documents related to health and safety of metalworking and metal removal fluids. As such, this guide will provide the user with sufficient background information to effectively use the documents listed in Section 2. Documents referenced in this guide are grouped as applicable to producers, to users or to all.
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory requirements prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
This method measures the concentration of ATP present in the sample. ATP is a constituent of all living cells, including bacteria and fungi. Consequently, the presence of ATP is an indicator of total microbial contamination in metalworking fluids. ATP is not associated with matter of non-biological origin.
Method D4012 validated ATP as a surrogate for culturable bacterial data (Guide E1326).
This method differs from Method D4012 in that it eliminates interferences that have historically rendered ATP testing unusable with complex organic fluids such as MWF.
The ATP test provides rapid test results that reflect the total bioburden in the sample. It thereby reduces the delay between test initiation and data capture, from the 36 h to 48 h (or longer) required for culturable colonies to become visible, to approximately five minutes.
Although ATP data generally covary with culture data in MWF , different factors affect ATP concentration than those that affect culturability.
Culturability is affected primarily by the ability of captured microbes to proliferate on the growth medium provided, under specific growth conditions. It have been estimated that less than 1 % of the species present in an environmental sample will form colonies under any given set of growth conditions.  
ATP concentration is affected by: the microbial species present, the physiological states of those species, and the total bioburden (See Appendix X1).
One example of the species effect is that the amount of ATP per cell is substantially greater for fungi than bacteria.
Within a species, cells that are more metabolically active will have more ATP per cell than dormant cells.
The greater the total bioburden, the greater the ATP concentration in a sample.
The possibility exists that the rinse step (11.15) may not eliminate all chemical substances that can interfere with the bioluminescence reaction (11.39).
The presence of any such interferences can be evaluated by performing a stand...
SCOPE
1.1 The method provides a protocol for capturing, extracting and quantifying the adenosine triphosphate (ATP) content associated with microorganisms found in water-miscible metalworking fluids (MWF).
1.2 The ATP is measured using a bioluminescence enzyme assay, whereby light is generated in amounts proportional to the concentration of ATP in the samples. The light is produced and measured quantitatively as relative light units (RLU) which are converted by comparison with an ATP standard and computation to pg ATP/mL.
1.3 This method is equally suitable for use in the laboratory or field.
1.4 The method detects ATP concentrations in the range of 4.0 pg ATP/mL to 400,000 pg ATP/mL.
1.5 Providing interferences can be overcome, bioluminescence is a reliable and proven method for qualifying and quantifying ATP. The method does not differentiate between ATP from different sources, for example, from different types of microorganisms, such as bacteria and fungi.
1.6 The values stated in SI are to be regarded as standard.
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
Application of this guide will provide users with information on how to use the various documents listed in Section 2 related to health and safety of metalworking and metal removal fluids.  
Users of the documents listed in Section 2 may fall into several categories, such as producers of metalworking or metal removal fluids, suppliers of raw materials to those producers, users of metalworking or metal removal fluids, and other interested parties, such as non governmental organizations.  
While all parties may wish to be generally familiar with all the documents listed in Section 2, producers and users may each want to focus on certain documents which are directly applicable to them:
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers information on how to use documents related to health and safety of metalworking and metal removal fluids. As such, this guide will provide the user with sufficient background information to effectively use the documents listed in Section 2. Documents referenced in this guide are grouped as applicable to producers, to users or to all.
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory requirements prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
During the past decade, it has become increasingly apparent that non-tuberculous mycobacteria are common members of the indigenous MWF bacterial population. Measurement of mycobacterial cell count densities is an important step in establishing a possible relationship between mycobacteria and occupational health related allergic responses, for example, Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis (HP) in persons exposed to aerosols of metalworking fluids. It is known that the viable mycobacteria count underestimates the total mycobacterial levels by not counting the non-culturable, possibly dead or moribund population that is potentially equally important in the investigation of occupational health related problems. The Direct Microscopic Counting Method (DMC) described here gives a quantitative assessment of the total numbers of acid-fast bacilli. It involves using acid-fast staining to selectively identify mycobacteria from other bacteria, followed by enumeration or direct microscopic counting of a known volume over a known area. Although other microbesparticularly the Actinomycetesalso stain acid fast, they are differentiated from the mycobacteria because of their morphology and size. Non-mycobacteria, acid-fast microbes are 50-100 times larger than mycobacteria. The method provides quantitative information on the total (culturable and non-culturable viable, and non-viable) mycobacteria populations. The results are expressed quantitatively as mycobacteria per mL of metalworking fluid sample.
The DMC method using the acid-fast staining technique is a semi- quantitative method with a relatively fast turnaround time.
The DMC method can also be employed in field survey studies to characterize the changes in total mycobacteria densities of metalworking fluid systems over a long period of time.
The sensitivity detection limit of the DMC method depends on the MF and the sample volume (direct or centrifuged, etc.) examined.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method describes a direct microscopic counting method (DMC) for the enumeration of the acid fast stained mycobacteria population in metalworking fluids. It can be used to detect levels of total mycobacteria population, including culturable as well as non-culturable (possibly dead or moribund ) bacterial cells. This test method is recommended for all water-based metalworking fluids.
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. For additional safety information, see Laboratory Safety: Principle and Practices, 4th Edition

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
Use of this practice will improve management and control of metal removal fluids. The proper management and use will reduce dermal and other occupational hazards associated with these fluids.
Guide E2148 covers information on how to use documents related to health and safety of metalworking and metal removal fluids, including this document. Documents referenced in Guide E2148 are grouped as applicable to producers, to users, or to all.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice sets forth guidelines for the selection and safe use of metal removal fluids, additives, and antimicrobials. This includes product selection, storage, dispensing, and maintenance.
1.2 Water-miscible metal removal fluids are typically used at high dilution and dilution rates vary widely. Additionally, there is potential for exposure to undiluted metal removal fluid as manufactured, as well as metal removal fluid additives and antimicrobials.
1.3 Straight oils generally consist of a severely solvent-refined or hydro-treated petroleum oil, a synthetic oil, or other oils of animal or vegetable origin, including oils that are modified for performance characteristics (for example, esterified rapeseed oil, and so forth). Straight oils are not intended to be diluted with water prior to use. Additives are often included in straight oil formulations.
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
Application of this guide will provide users with information on how to use the various documents listed in Section 2 related to health and safety of metalworking and metal removal fluids.  
Users of the documents listed in Section 2 may fall into several categories, such as producers of metalworking or metal removal fluids, suppliers of raw materials to those producers, users of metalworking or metal removal fluids, and other interested parties, such as non governmental organizations.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers information on how to use documents related to health and safety of metalworking and metal removal fluids. As such, this guide will provide the user with sufficient background information to effectively use the documents listed in Section 2. Documents referenced in this guide are grouped as applicable to producers, to users or to all.
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory requirements prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
Personnel from a wide range of disciplines contribute to metalworking fluid management and plant environment health and safety management. Consequently, terms familiar to some stakeholders will be unfamiliar to others.
This terminology standard provides, in a single document, a compilation of definitions used by personnel involved with both metalworking environment health and safety and fluid management.
Use of terms as defined in this terminology standard will enable all stakeholders to use metalworking industry terms in the appropriate context, thereby improving interdisciplinary communications.
SCOPE
1.1 This terminology standard provides a compilation of ASTM and non-ASTM consensus definitions of terms used in the metalworking industry.
1.2 This terminology standard does not purport to be an exhaustive lexicon. Rather it defines terms relevant to metalworking fluid management and metalworking fluid health and safety.
1.3 This terminology standard defines primary metalworking operations, fluid types and other terms germane to the practice of metalworking fluid management.
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
The test method is based on a modification of the Ames Salmonella mutagenesis assay. As modified, there is good correlation with mouse skin-painting bioassay results for samples of raw and refined lubricating oil process streams.
Mutagenic potency in this modified assay and carcinogenicity in the skin-painting bioassay also correlate with the content of 3 to 7 ring PACs, which include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and their heterocyclic analogs. The strength of these correlations implies that PACs are the principal mutagenic and carcinogenic species in these oils. Some of the methods that have provided evidence supporting this view are referenced in Appendix X1.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers a microbiological test procedure based upon the Salmonella mutagenesis assay of Ames et al (1) (see also Maron et al (2)). It can be used as a screening technique to detect the presence of potential dermal carcinogens in virgin base oils used in the formulation of metalworking oils. Persons who perform this test should be well-versed in the conduct of the Ames test and conversant with the physical and chemical properties of petroleum products.
1.2 The test method is not recommended as the sole testing procedure for oils which have viscosities less than 18 cSt (90 SUS) at 40°C, or for formulated metalworking fluids.
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are provided for information only.
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Section 7 provides general guidelines for safe conduct of this test method.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
Use of this practice is intended to reduce occupational dermatitis caused by exposure to the wet metal removal environment.
Complaints of dermatitis conditions are often associated with exposures to metal removal fluid.
Implementation of this practice and incorporation of metal removal fluid management program has the potential to reduce complaints of occupational dermatitis. Elements of an effective program include: understanding dermatitis and associated causes; prevention of dermatitis and exposure to metal removal fluids; appropriate product selection; good management of additives, microorganisms, and fluids; appropriate additive (including antimicrobial pesticides) selection and additive control; appropriate tool design and assessment and control of metal removal fluid exposures including aerosols.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice sets forth guidelines for reducing dermatitis caused by exposure to the wet metal removal environment. The scope of this practice does not include exposure to chemicals that enter the body through intact skin (cutaneous route), which has the potential to cause other toxic effects.
1.2 This practice incorporates means and mechanisms to reduce dermal exposure to the wet metal removal environment and to control factors in the wet metal removal environment that have the potential to cause dermatitis.
1.3 This practice focuses on employee exposure to the skin via contact and exposure to metal removal fluid (MRF).
1.4 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
The determination of endotoxin concentrations in metalworking fluids is a parameter that can be used in decision-making for prudent fluid management practices (fluid draining, cleaning, recharging or biocide dosages).
This test method provides a test method for analysts who perform quantitative endotoxin analyses of water-miscible metalworking fluids.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers quantitative methods for the sampling and determination of bacterial endotoxin concentrations in water miscible metalworking fluids (MWF).
1.2 Users of this test method need to be familiar with the handling of MWF.
1.3 This test method gives an estimate of the endotoxin concentration in the sampled MWF.
1.4 This test method replaces E 2250.
1.5 This test method seeks to minimize inter-laboratory variation of endotoxin data but does not ensure uniformity of results.
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
This method measures the concentration of ATP present in the sample. ATP is a constituent of all living cells, including bacteria and fungi. Consequently, the presence of ATP is an indicator of total microbial contamination in metalworking fluids. ATP is not associated with matter of non-biological origin.
Method D 4012 validated ATP as a surrogate for culturable bacterial data (Guide E 1326).
This method differs from Method D 4012 in that it eliminates interferences that have historically rendered ATP testing unusable with complex organic fluids such as MWF.
The ATP test provides rapid test results that reflect the total bioburden in the sample. It thereby reduces the delay between test initiation and data capture, from the 36 h to 48 h (or longer) required for culturable colonies to become visible, to approximately five minutes.
Although ATP data covary strongly with culture data in MWF , different factors affect ATP concentration than those that affect culturability.
Culturability is affected primarily by the ability of captured microbes to proliferate on the growth medium provided, under specific growth conditions. It have been estimated that less than 1 % of the species present in an environmental sample will form colonies under any given set of growth conditions.  
ATP concentration is affected by: the microbial species present, the physiological states of those species, and the total bioburden (See Appendix X1).
One example of the species effect is that the amount of ATP per cell is substantially greater for fungi than bacteria.
Within a species, cells that are more metabolically active will have more ATP per cell than dormant cells.
The greater the total bioburden, the greater the ATP concentration in a sample.
The possibility exists that the rinse step (11.15) may not eliminate all chemical substances that can interfere with the bioluminescence reaction (11.39).
The presence of any such interferences can be evaluated by performing a sta...
SCOPE
1.1 The method provides a protocol for capturing, extracting and quantifying the adenosine triphosphate (ATP) content associated with microorganisms found in water-miscible metalworking fluids (MWF).
1.2 The ATP is measured using a bioluminescence enzyme assay, whereby light is generated in amounts proportional to the concentration of ATP in the samples. The light is produced and measured quantitatively as relative light units (RLU) which are converted by comparison with an ATP standard and computation to pg ATP/mL.
1.3 This method is equally suitable for use in the laboratory or field.
1.4 The method detects ATP concentrations in the range of 4.0 pg ATP/mL to 400,000 pg ATP/mL.
1.5 Providing interferences can be overcome, bioluminescence is a reliable and proven method for qualifying and quantifying ATP. The method does not differentiate between ATP from different sources, for example, from different types of microorganisms, such as bacteria and fungi.
1.6 The values stated in SI are to be regarded as standard.
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
This method allows for the recovery and enumeration of viable and culturable, non-tuberculosis, rapidly growing Mycobacteria (M.immunogenum, M.chelonae, M. absessus, M. fortuitum, and M.smegmatis) in the presence of high gram negative background populations in metalworking fluid field samples. During the past decade it has become increasingly apparent that non-tuberculous Mycobacteria are common members of the indigenous MWF bacterial population. This population is predominantly comprised of gram negative bacteria and fungi. Mycobacterial contamination of metalworking fluids has been putatively associated with hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) amongst metal grinding machinists. The detection and enumeration of these organisms will aid in better understanding of occupational health related problems and a better assessment of antimicrobial pesticide efficacy.
The measurement of viable and culturable mycobacterial densities combined with the total mycobacterial counts (including viable culturable (VC), viable-non culturable (VNC) and non viable (NV) counts) is usually the first step in establishing any possible relationship between Mycobacteria and occupational health concerns (for example, HP).
The method can be employed in survey studies to characterize the viable-culturable mycobacterial population densities of metal working fluid field samples.
This method is also applicable for establishing the mycobacterial resistance of metalworking fluid formulations by determining mycobacterium survival by means of plate count technique.
This method can also be used to evaluate the relative efficacy of microbicides against Mycobacteria in metalworking fluids.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the detection and enumeration of viable and culturable rapidly growing Mycobacteria (RGM), or non-tuberculosis Mycobacteria (NTM) in aqueous metalworking fluids (MWF) in the presence of high non-mycobacterial background population using standard microbiological culture methods.
1.2 The detection limit is one colony forming unit (CFU)/mL metalworking fluid.
1.3 This test method involves culture of organisms classified as Level 2 pathogens, and should be undertaken by a trained microbiologist in an appropriately equipped facility. The microbiologist should also be capable of distinguishing the diverse colonies of Mycobacteria from other microorganism colonies on a Petri dish and capable of confirming Mycobacteria by acid fast staining method
This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.