Characterising glyphosate exposures among amenity horticulturists using multiple spot urine samples

Abstract

Occupational exposures to glyphosate among amenity horticulturalists are greater than those reported in environmental studies and comparable with previously reported agricultural studies. A suitable sampling strategy for occupational exposures to glyphosate is the collection of a spot urine sample up to 3 h after completing the application of a glyphosate based pesticide product, which provides a reliable marker of peak exposure.

The evidence of human exposure to glyphosate: a review

“…Two studies were conducted in the US [11–13], four in Europe [13–16], one in Mexico [17], and one in Sri Lanka [18]. The studies mostly involved farmers [11, 12, 15, 17]; one study recruited forest workers [13], and two focused on horticulturalists [14, 16]. The reported measures of central tendency ranged from 0.26 to 73.5 μg/L [17, 18].…”

“…Less than 25% of spouses or children had detectable valuesNR [12] Curwin, 2007US (Iowa)2001Farm households24 fathers, 24 mothers, 66 childrenFCMIAUrine0.9 μg/LNRAdjusted geometric mean, farm fathers: 1.6 μg/L (1.1, 2.4); farm mothers: 1.1 μg/L (0.71, 1.8); farm children: 1.9 μg/L (1.3, 2.5)NR [13] Jauhiainen, 1991Finland1988Forest workers sprayed a 8% Roundup containing solution for 6 h/day for 1 week5GC with a 63Ni-electron capture detectorUrine100 μg/L50 μg/LUrine samples remained < LOD for G One urine sample further quantified had 85 μg/L glyphosateUrine samples remained <LOD for AMPA [15] Mesnage, 2012FranceNRFarmer and his family, using glyphosate based herbicide5LC-MSUrine1 μg/LNRConcentration of 9.5 μg/L after spraying in the farmer, 2 μg/L 2 days later; 2 μg/L was also measured in one child 2 days after spraying. The mother and 2 other children had no detectable levelsNR [14] Connolly, 2017Ireland2015Amenity horticulturalists, before and after spraying17 males, 1 femaleLC MS-MSUrine0.5 μg/LNRPre-spraying mean ± SD: 0.71 ± 0.92; post-spraying: 1.35 ± 2.18 μg/LNR [16] Connolly, 2018bIreland2016–2017Amenity horticulturists, before and after spraying and peak samples18 males, 2 femalesLC MS-MSUrineLOQ: 0.5 μg/LNRPre-spraying mean (SD): 1.08 (1.20) μg/L;Post spraying: 1.72 (1.53) μg/L;Peak sample: 2.53 (1.89) μg/LNR [17] Rendón-von Osten, 2017MexicoNRFarmers76ELISAUrine0.05 μg/L (in water)NRMean ± SD in farming areas: 0.26 ± 0.23 μg/L (median: 0.28)NR [18] Jayasumana, 2015Sri LankaNRHealthy farmers from areas with chronic endemic kidney disease10ELISAUrine0.6 μg/LNRMedian: 73.5 (range: 40.2- > 80) μg/LNRTOTAL ( n = 7)403GENERAL POPULATION…”

Human Biomonitoring of Glyphosate Exposures: State-of-the-Art and Future Research Challenges

“…The sampling strategy for urine sample collection (e.g., spot, first morning, 24-h) and urinary dilution adjustments (creatinine, relative density) have also varied, with the majority of these studies adopting the collection of spot urine samples. Although urine volume and urinary dilution can vary between voids and between subjects [ 37 ], only three studies collected 24-h urine samples [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ], and one study collected individual full void urine samples noting last time of urination [ 42 ].…”

“…Glyphosate levels found in occupational studies among farmers [ 24 , 39 , 40 , 43 ], amenity horticulturists [ 42 , 44 , 45 , 46 ], and in pesticide production [ 47 ] are summarized in Table 1 . The average glyphosate concentrations reported for farmers and horticulturists ranged within rather small boundaries from 1.35 µg/L to 3.2 µg/L, and the maximum values ranged from approximately 10 µg/L to 233 µg/L.…”

“…Possible sources of para-occupational exposures were also identified in a glyphosate exposure study among amenity horticulturist workers [ 50 ]. Two HBM studies conducted among professional amenity horticulturists in Ireland reported maximum glyphosate concentrations of 7.36 µg/L and 10.66 µg/L [ 42 , 44 ]. Older studies (1991,1992) have been conducted among tree nursery and forest workers, but all the samples were non-detectable for glyphosate, probably due to the high analytical detection limits [ 45 , 46 ].…”