Search results

Abstract
For many work situations only insufficient exposure data are available to perform proper risk assessment. Because measuring worker exposure can be time consuming and resource intense, the availability of reliable exposure models is important when performing risk assessments. However, the development and improvement of exposure models are hampered by scarcity of sound exposure data as well as by lack of information on relevant exposure factors and conditions of exposure. This paper describes a study where inhalation and dermal exposure data were collected under defined conditions. Exposure scenarios examined included tasks that have not been investigated in previous validation studies. The results of these measurements were compared with ECETOC TRA model version 3.1 predictions. In this study, five exposure scenarios were selected, namely 'use in a closed batch process' (PROC 4), 'mixing or blending in a partly open batch process' (PROC 5), 'rolling' (PROC 10), 'immersion' (PROC 13), and 'stirring' (PROC 19). These PROCs stem from the descriptors that Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals has established to depict the identified uses of chemical substances. These exposure scenarios were selected mainly because little or no data are available for these situations, or ECETOC TRA is likely to underestimate exposure for these situations. Experiments were performed by volunteers for the selected exposure scenarios, in which tasks were performed aiming to represent real workplace situations. In total 70 experiments were performed, during which 70 dermal exposure measurements (5 volunteers × 2 repeats × 7 scenarios) and 32 inhalation exposure measurements (4 volunteers × 2 repeats × 4 scenarios) were collected. Two formulations were used, namely pure Tinopal SWN powder (solid product, a fluorescent tracer) and 0.5% Tinopal SWN dissolved in 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCE). DCE is considered a moderate volatile liquid. For exposure scenarios using the liquid formulation, both inhalation and dermal measurements were performed, while for exposure scenarios using the pure powder only dermal exposure measurements were performed. In addition, photographs were taken under ultraviolet light to qualitatively assess exposure patterns on hands and body. Volunteers repeatedly performed a selection of tasks under standardized conditions in a test chamber for each exposure scenario. Results show that ECETOC TRA overestimated dermal hand exposure for all PROCs included in the study, and was considered to be conservative. Additionally, ECETOC TRA overestimated inhalation exposure for closed and partially closed processes, but underestimated inhalation exposure for rolling and handling of immersed objects. Qualitative assessment of the hands and body showed mainly the hands were exposed for tasks involving closed and partially closed processes and when handling of immersed objects. Exposure to other body segments were also observed for rolling and stirring. In conclusion, this study gave insights into dermal and inhalation exposure levels during selected task scenarios, and showed that ECETOC TRA is conservative when dermal exposure is estimated. Inhalation exposure estimates for PROCs 10 and 13 tasks with the moderate volatility liquid were underestimated in this study. It may be therefore necessary to re-evaluate base model predictions for these scenarios when medium fugacity liquids are involved.

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.

Abstract
Dermal exposure is an important exposure route for occupational exposure and risk assessment. A fluorescence method has been developed to quantify occupational dermal exposure based on a visualization technique, using Tinopal SWN as a fluorescent tracer. The method was developed within the framework of a large experimental study, the SysDEA project. In SysDEA, dermal exposure was measured with different methods for 10 simulated exposure situations by sampling powder and liquid formulations containing Tinopal SWN on coveralls and patches and subsequently chemically analysing them. For the fluorescence method, photographs of exposed volunteers who performed the experiments were taken inside a room which consisted of an optimized arrangement of several UV irradiating tube light brackets, reflective and non-reflective backgrounds for maximum light diffusion and a camera. Image processing analysis software processed these photographs to obtain corresponding light intensity in terms of summed pixel values. To be able to estimate the amount of Tinopal SWN, 25% of the measured data from the SysDEA experiments were used to calibrate by correlating the summed pixel values from the photographs to actual measured exposure values using a second order regression model. For spraying both high and low viscosity liquids, showing uniformly distributed exposure patterns, strong Pearson correlation coefficients (R > 0.77) were observed. In contrast, the correlations were either inconsistently poor (R = −0.17 to 0.28 for pouring, rolling high viscosity liquid, manually handling objects immersed in low viscosity liquid and handling objects contaminated with powder), moderate (R = 0.73 for dumping of powder), or strong (R = 0.83 and 0.77 for rolling low viscosity liquid and manually handling objects immersed in high viscosity liquid). A model for spraying was developed and calibrated using 25% of the available experimental data for spraying and validated using the remaining 75%. Under given experimental conditions, the fluorescence method shows promising results and can be used for the quantification of dermal exposure for different body parts (excluding hands) for spraying-like scenarios that have a more uniform exposure pattern, but more research is needed for exposure scenarios with less uniform exposure patterns. For the estimation of exposure levels, the surface loading limit should be lower than 1.5░µg/cm2 (a lower limit could not be quantified based on experiments conducted in this study) on a large surface, like a coverall, which should be ideally perpendicular to the camera.