P Ducos1, M Berode, J M Francin, C Arnoux, C Lefèvre. 1. Institut National de Recherche et de Sécurité, Avenue de Bourgogne, 54501 Vandoeuvre Cedex, France. philippe.ducos@inrs.fr
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Biomonitoring of solvents using the unchanged substance in urine as exposure indicator is still relatively scarce due to some discrepancies between the results reported in the literature. Based on the assessment of toluene exposure, the aim of this work was to evaluate the effects of some steps likely to bias the results and to measure urinary toluene both in volunteers experimentally exposed and in workers of rotogravure factories. METHODS: Static headspace was used for toluene analysis. o-Cresol was also measured for comparison. Urine collection, storage and conservation conditions were studied to evaluate possible loss or contamination of toluene in controlled situations applied to six volunteers in an exposure chamber according to four scenarios with exposure at stable levels from 10 to 50 ppm. Kinetics of elimination of toluene were determined over 24 h. A field study was then carried out in a total of 29 workers from two rotogravure printing facilities. RESULTS: Potential contamination during urine collection in the field is confirmed to be a real problem but technical precautions for sampling, storage and analysis can be easily followed to control the situation. In the volunteers at rest, urinary toluene showed a rapid increase after 2 h with a steady level after about 3 h. At 47.1 ppm the mean cumulated excretion was about 0.005% of the amount of the toluene ventilated. Correlation between the toluene levels in air and in end of exposure urinary sample was excellent (r = 0.965). In the field study, the median personal exposure to toluene was 32 ppm (range 3.6-148). According to the correlations between environmental and biological monitoring data, the post-shift urinary toluene (r = 0.921) and o-cresol (r = 0.873) concentrations were, respectively, 75.6 microg/l and 0.76 mg/g creatinine for 50 ppm toluene personal exposure. The corresponding urinary toluene concentration before the next shift was 11 microg/l (r = 0.883). CONCLUSION: Urinary toluene was shown once more time a very interesting surrogate to o-cresol and could be recommended as a biomarker of choice for solvent exposure.
OBJECTIVE: Biomonitoring of solvents using the unchanged substance in urine as exposure indicator is still relatively scarce due to some discrepancies between the results reported in the literature. Based on the assessment of toluene exposure, the aim of this work was to evaluate the effects of some steps likely to bias the results and to measure urinary toluene both in volunteers experimentally exposed and in workers of rotogravure factories. METHODS: Static headspace was used for toluene analysis. o-Cresol was also measured for comparison. Urine collection, storage and conservation conditions were studied to evaluate possible loss or contamination of toluene in controlled situations applied to six volunteers in an exposure chamber according to four scenarios with exposure at stable levels from 10 to 50 ppm. Kinetics of elimination of toluene were determined over 24 h. A field study was then carried out in a total of 29 workers from two rotogravure printing facilities. RESULTS: Potential contamination during urine collection in the field is confirmed to be a real problem but technical precautions for sampling, storage and analysis can be easily followed to control the situation. In the volunteers at rest, urinary toluene showed a rapid increase after 2 h with a steady level after about 3 h. At 47.1 ppm the mean cumulated excretion was about 0.005% of the amount of the toluene ventilated. Correlation between the toluene levels in air and in end of exposure urinary sample was excellent (r = 0.965). In the field study, the median personal exposure to toluene was 32 ppm (range 3.6-148). According to the correlations between environmental and biological monitoring data, the post-shift urinary toluene (r = 0.921) and o-cresol (r = 0.873) concentrations were, respectively, 75.6 microg/l and 0.76 mg/g creatinine for 50 ppm toluene personal exposure. The corresponding urinary toluene concentration before the next shift was 11 microg/l (r = 0.883). CONCLUSION: Urinary toluene was shown once more time a very interesting surrogate to o-cresol and could be recommended as a biomarker of choice for solvent exposure.
Authors: O Inoue; E Kanno; S Kudo; M Kakizaki; M Kataoka; T Kawai; H Ukai; M Ikeda Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: W Filipiak; V Ruzsanyi; P Mochalski; A Filipiak; A Bajtarevic; C Ager; H Denz; W Hilbe; H Jamnig; M Hackl; A Dzien; A Amann Journal: J Breath Res Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 3.262
Authors: Nancy B Hopf; Jorunn Kirkeleit; Magne Bråtveit; Paul Succop; Glenn Talaska; Bente E Moen Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2011-06-14 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Piero Lovreglio; Anna Barbieri; Mariella Carrieri; Laura Sabatini; Maria Enrica Fracasso; Denise Doria; Ignazio Drago; Antonella Basso; Maria Nicolà D'Errico; Giovanni Battista Bartolucci; Francesco Saverio Violante; Leonardo Soleo Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Barbara R Geraldino; Rafaella F N Nunes; Juliana B Gomes; Katia S da Poça; Isabela Giardini; Paula V B Silva; Helen P Souza; Ubirani B Otero; Marcia Sarpa Journal: Adv Prev Med Date: 2021-05-20