Comparison of Measurement Methods for Dermal Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals at the Workplace: The SysDEA Project

Abstract

There is a principal need for more precise methodology with regard to the determination of occupational dermal exposure. The goal of the Systematic analysis of Dermal Exposure to hazardous chemical Agents at the workplace project was therefore to generate scientific knowledge to improve and standardize measurement methods for dermal exposure to chemicals at the workplace. In addition, the comparability of different measurement methods was investigated. Different methods (body sampling by means of coveralls and patches, hand sampling by means of gloves and washing, and head sampling by means of headbands and wiping) were compared. Volunteers repeatedly performed a selection of tasks under standardized conditions in test chambers to increase the reproducibility and decrease variability. The selected tasks were pouring, rolling, spraying, and handling of objects immersed in liquid formulations, as well as dumping and handling objects contaminated with powder. For the chemical analysis, the surrogate test substance Tinopal SWN was analyzed by means of a high-performance liquid chromatographic method using a fluorescence detector. Tinopal SWN was either applied as a solid product in its pure form, or as a low and high viscosity liquid containing Tinopal SWN in dissolved form. To compare the sampling methods with patches and coveralls, the exposure values as measured on the patches were extrapolated to the surface areas of the respective parts of the coverall. Based on this extrapolation approach, using the patch method resulted in somewhat higher exposure values compared to using a coverall for all exposure situations, but the differences were only statistically significant in case of the liquid exposure situations. Using gloves resulted in significantly higher exposure values compared to hand wash for handling immersed objects, rolling, and handling contaminated objects, and slightly higher (not significant) exposure values during pouring and spraying. In the same context, applying wipe sampling resulted in higher exposure values than using a headband, which was at least partly due to extrapolation of the wipe results to the surface area of the headband. No ‘golden standard’ with regard to a preferred measurement method for dermal exposure could be identified from the methods as investigated in the current study.

Occupational Exposure to Diisocyanates in the European Union

“…However, the assessment of dermal exposure at workplaces is often complicated by the irregular and random occurrence of skin exposure, such as spills, contact with contaminated surfaces or during clean-up ( Bello et al , 2007 ; Heederik et al , 2012 ) and quantification of dermal exposure is particularly difficult. Measurement of dermal exposure, in general, is less established than air monitoring ( Kasiotis et al , 2020 ) and data on dermal exposure to diisocyanates in workplaces are scarce ( Liu et al , 2007 ). There are no standardized methods available for measuring dermal diisocyanate exposure ( Lockey et al , 2015 ).…”

Pesticide Exposure in Fruit-Growers: Comparing Levels and Determinants Assessed under Usual Conditions of Work (CANEPA Study) with Those Predicted by Registration Process (Agricultural Operator Exposure Model)

“…Kasiotis et al compared the two methods when performing different tasks under standardized conditions in a test chamber. They observed no significant difference among values when exposure measured on the patches was extrapolated to body surface area; therefore, they could not establish a "gold standard" for dermal exposure [32].…”

“…Wearing coveralls would have caused discomfort in terms of movement and temperature due to the extra layer of clothing. The patch technique also requires fewer solvents and is less time-consuming, less expensive and more sustainable than whole-body dosimetry [24,32]. In fact, its use in AOEM studies may create a bias in the comparison between measured and calculated exposure.…”

“…In fact, its use in AOEM studies may create a bias in the comparison between measured and calculated exposure. However, the risk of overestimation (splashes on the patch) or underestimation (droplets missing the patch) with the patch technique [24,32] was mitigated by careful observation throughout the sampling period. Furthermore, because of the risk of overestimating exposure, the patch method could also be considered appropriate for "worst-case" exposure estimates [32].…”

“…However, the risk of overestimation (splashes on the patch) or underestimation (droplets missing the patch) with the patch technique [24,32] was mitigated by careful observation throughout the sampling period. Furthermore, because of the risk of overestimating exposure, the patch method could also be considered appropriate for "worst-case" exposure estimates [32]. Kasiotis et al compared the two methods when performing different tasks under standardized conditions in a test chamber.…”