Literature DB >> 8304685

Dermal exposure assessment techniques.

R A Fenske1.   

Abstract

Exposure of the skin to chemical substances can contribute significantly to total dose in many workplace situations, and its relative importance will increase when airborne occupational exposure limits are reduced, unless steps to reduce skin exposure are undertaken simultaneously. Its assessment employs personal sampling techniques to measure skin loading rates, and combines these measurements with models of percutaneous absorption to estimate absorbed dose. Knowledge of dermal exposure pathways is in many cases fundamental to hazard evaluation and control. When the skin is the primary contributor to absorbed dose, dermal exposure measurements and biological monitoring play complementary roles in defining occupational exposures. Exposure normally occurs by one of three pathways: (i) immersion (direct contact with a liquid or solid chemical substance); (ii) deposition of aerosol or uptake of vapour through the skin; or (iii) surface contact (residue transfer from contaminated surfaces). Sampling methods fall into three categories: surrogate skin; chemical removal; and fluorescent tracers. Surface sampling represents a supplementary approach, providing an estimate of dermal exposure potential. Surrogate skin techniques involve placing a chemical collection medium on the skin. Whole-body garment samplers do not require assumptions relating to distribution, an inherent limitation of patch sampling. The validity of these techniques rests on the ability of the sampling medium to capture and retain chemicals in a manner similar to skin. Removal techniques include skin washing and wiping, but these measure only what can be removed from the skin, not exposure: laboratory removal efficiency studies are required for proper interpretation of data. Fluorescent tracer techniques exploit the visual properties of fluorescent compounds, and combined with video imaging make quantification of dermal exposure patterns possible, but the need to introduce a chemical substance (tracer) into production processes represents an important limitation of this approach. Surface sampling techniques provide a measure of workplace chemical contamination. Wipe sampling has been used extensively, but is susceptible to high variability. Surface sampling requires definition of dermal transfer coefficients for specific work activities. A preliminary dermal exposure sampling strategy which addresses such issues as sampling method, representativeness and sample duration is proposed. Despite the limitations of current assessment techniques, it appears feasible to consider developing dermal occupational exposure limits (DOELs) for selected workplaces and chemical agents. Initial development of DOELs would be most practical where dermal exposure is from surface contact primarily, and where the work closely follows a routine. Improvement in the techniques of dermal exposure assessment is an important goal for occupational hygiene research, and is likely to lead to better health for worker populations.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8304685     DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/37.6.687

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg        ISSN: 0003-4878


  18 in total

1.  Conceptual model for assessment of dermal exposure.

Authors:  T Schneider; R Vermeulen; D H Brouwer; J W Cherrie; H Kromhout; C L Fogh
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 4.402

2.  Dermal exposure to pesticides in greenhouses workers: discrimination and selection of variables for the design of monitoring programs.

Authors:  A Garrido Frenich; P A Aguilera; F Egea Gonzalez; M L Castro Cano; M Martinez Galera; J L Martinez Vidal; M Soler
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 2.513

3.  Mathematical description of the uptake of hydrocarbons in jet fuel into the stratum corneum of human volunteers.

Authors:  David Kim; Matthew W Farthing; Cass T Miller; Leena A Nylander-French
Journal:  Toxicol Lett       Date:  2008-03-16       Impact factor: 4.372

4.  Validation and comparison of two sampling methods to assess dermal exposure to drilling fluids and crude oil.

Authors:  Karen S Galea; Carolyn McGonagle; Anne Sleeuwenhoek; David Todd; Araceli Sánchez Jiménez
Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg       Date:  2014-03-05

5.  Migration of Beryllium via Multiple Exposure Pathways among Work Processes in Four Different Facilities.

Authors:  Jenna L Armstrong; Gregory A Day; Ji Young Park; Aleksandr B Stefaniak; Marcia L Stanton; David C Deubner; Michael S Kent; Christine R Schuler; M Abbas Virji
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 2.155

6.  Dermal exposure from transfer of lubricants and fuels by consumers.

Authors:  Karen S Galea; Alice Davis; Davis Todd; Laura MacCalman; Carolyn McGonagle; John W Cherrie
Journal:  J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol       Date:  2014-06-18       Impact factor: 5.563

7.  Pattern of use of personal protective equipments and measures during application of pesticides by agricultural workers in a rural area of Ahmednagar district, India.

Authors:  Bhoopendra Singh; Mudit Kumar Gupta
Journal:  Indian J Occup Environ Med       Date:  2009-12

8.  Exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in coal liquefaction workers: impact of a workwear policy on excretion of urinary 1-hydroxypyrene.

Authors:  R Quinlan; G Kowalczyk; K Gardiner; I Calvert
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 4.402

9.  Proposal for the assessment to quantitative dermal exposure limits in occupational environments: Part 2. Feasibility study for application in an exposure scenario for MDA by two different dermal exposure sampling methods.

Authors:  D H Brouwer; L Hoogendoorn; P M Bos; P J Boogaard; J J van Hemmen
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 4.402

Review 10.  Proposal for the assessment of quantitative dermal exposure limits in occupational environments: Part 1. Development of a concept to derive a quantitative dermal occupational exposure limit.

Authors:  P M Bos; D H Brouwer; H Stevenson; P J Boogaard; W L de Kort; J J van Hemmen
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 4.402

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.