The desired effect of all riot control agents is the temporary disablement of individuals by way of intense irritation of the mucous membranes and skin. Generally, riot control agents can produce acute site-specific toxicity where sensory irritation occurs. Early riot control agents, namely, chloroacetophenone (CN) and chlorodihydrophenarsazine (DM), have been replaced with 'safer' agents such as o-chlorobenzylidene malononitrile (CS) and oleoresin of capsicum (OC). Riot control agents are safe when used as intended: however, the widespread use of riot control agents raises questions and concerns regarding their health effects and safety. A large margin exists between dosages that produce harassment and dosages likely to cause adverse health effects for modern riot control agents such as CS and dibenz[b,f]1 : 4-oxazepine (CR). Yet, despite the low toxicity of modern riot control agents, these compounds are not entirely without risk. The risk of toxicity increases with higher exposure levels and prolonged exposure durations. Ocular, pulmonary and dermal injury may occur on exposure to high levels of these substances, and exposure to riot control agents in enclosed spaces may produce significant toxic effects. Reported deaths are few involving riot control agents, and then only under conditions of prolonged exposure and high concentrations. Recently, concern has focused on the deaths resulting from law enforcement use of OC, a riot control agent generally regarded as safe because it is a natural product. As with other xenobiotics, not enough is known concerning the long-term/chronic effects of riot control agents. Clearly, there is considerable need for additional research to define and delineate the biological and toxicological actions of riot control agents and to illuminate the full health consequences of these compounds as riot control agents.

No abstract

Exposure to chemical vesicants such as sulfur mustard (HD) continues to be a threat to military forces requiring protectant strategies to exposure to be evaluated. Methyl salicylate (MS) has historically been the simulant of choice to assess HD exposure. The purpose of this study was to compare the percutaneous absorption and skin deposition of MS to HD in the isolated perfused porcine skin flap (IPPSF). The HD data were obtained from a previously published study in this model wherein 400 microg cm(-2) of ](14)C[-MS or ](14)C[-HD in ethanol were topically applied to 16 IPPSFs and experiments were terminated at 2, 4 or 8 h. Perfusate was collected at increasing time intervals throughout perfusion. Radioactivity was determined in perfusate and skin samples. Perfusate flux profiles were fitted to a bi-exponential model Y(t) = A(e(-bt) - e(-dt)) and the area under the curve (AUC), peak flux and time to peak flux were determined. Sulfur mustard had more pronounced and rapid initial flux parameters (P < 0.05). The AUCs determined from observed and model-predicted parameters were not statistically different, although the mean HD AUC was 40--50% greater than MS. The HD skin and fat levels were up to twice those seen with MS, but had lower stratum corneum and residual skin surface concentrations (P < 0.05). Compared with other chemicals studied in this model, HD and MS cutaneous disposition were very similar, supporting the use of MS as a dermal simulant for HD exposure.

No abstract

No abstract