Personal exposure to ultrafine particles in the workplace: Exploring sampling techniques and strategies

Recently, toxicological and epidemiological studies on health effects related to particle exposure suggest that 'ultrafine particles' (particles with an aerodynamic diameter of <100 nm) may cause severe health effects after inhalation. Although the toxicological mechanisms for these effects have not yet been explained, it is apparent that measuring exposures against mass alone is not sufficient. It is also necessary to consider exposures against surface area and number concentration. From earlier research it was hypothesized that results on number concentration and particle distributions may vary with distance to the source, limiting the reliability of estimates of personal exposure from results which were obtained using static measurement equipment. Therefore, a workplace study was conducted to explore the performance of measurement methods in a multi-source emission scenario as part of a sampling strategy to estimate personal exposure. In addition, a laboratory study was conducted to determine possible influences of both distance to source and time course on particle number concentration and particle size distribution. In both studies different measurement equipment and techniques were used to characterize (total) particle number concentration. These included a condensation particle counter (CPC), a scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) and an electrical low pressure impactor (ELPI). For the present studies CPC devices seemed to perform well for the identification of particle emission sources. The range of ultrafine particle number concentration can be detected by both SMPS and ELPI. An important advantage of the ELPI is that aerosols with ultrafine sizes can be collected for further analysis. Specific surface area of the aerosols can be estimated using gas adsorption analysis; however, with this technique ultrafine particles cannot be distinguished from particles with non-ultrafine sizes. Consequently, estimates based on samples collected from the breathing zone and scanning electron microscopic analysis may give a more reliable estimate of the specific surface area of the ultrafine particles responsible for personal exposure. The results of both the experimental and the workplace study suggest both spatial and temporal variation in total number concentration and aerosol size distribution. Therefore, the results obtained from static measurements and grab sampling should be interpreted with care as estimates of personal exposure. For evaluation of workplace exposure to ultrafine particles it is recommended that all relevant characteristics of such exposure are measured as part of a well-designed sampling strategy. Chemicals / CAS: Aerosols; Air Pollutants, Occupational; Carbon, 7440-44-0; Ferric Compounds; ferric oxide, 1309-37-

Dermal Exposure during Filling, Loading and Brushing with Products Containing 2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)ethanol

Introduction: Limited quantitative information is available on dermal exposure to chemicals during various industrial activities. Therefore, within the scope of the EU-funded RISKOFDERM project, potential dermal exposure was measured during three different tasks: filling, loading and brushing. DEGBE (2-(2-butoxyethoxy)ethanol) was used as a 'marker' substance to determine dermal exposure to the products that workers were handling. Methods: Potential whole body exposure was measured using self-constructed cotton sampling pads on 11 body locations. Cotton gloves were used to determine the contamination of both hands. Bulk samples were collected to determine the concentration of DEGBE so as to be able to calculate exposure to the handled product. Results: A total of 94 task-based measurements were performed, 30 on filling, 28 on loading and 36 on brushing, which resulted in potential dermal hand exposure to the handled product of 41.1-18 269 mg [geometric mean (GM) 555.4, n = 30], 0.3-27745 mg (GM 217.0, n = 28) and 11.3-733.3 mg (GM 98.4, n = 24) for each of the scenarios, respectively. Potential whole body exposure to the product during filling and loading ranged from 1.67 to 155.0 (GM 15.2, n = 9) and <LOD to 176.2 (GM 0.30, n = 10). Because of sampling and analytical problems, whole body exposure during brushing could not be determined. Conclusion: Dermal exposure during filling and loading were of the same order of magnitude, while brushing resulted in much lower exposure levels, probably due to differences in work activities and work precision. For each of the scenarios, contamination was mainly found on the hands, representing up to 96% of the total exposure for filling. For filling and loading the most important source of variability in exposure was due to between-company variability rather than to either between-worker or within-worker variability. The pooled between-worker variability was the most important source of variability in dermal exposure levels for the brushing scenario

Determinants of Dermal Exposure Relevant for Exposure Modelling in Regulatory Risk Assessment

Risk assessment of chemicals requires assessment of the exposure levels of workers. In the absence of adequate specific measured data, models are often used to estimate exposure levels. For dermal exposure only a few models exist, which are not validated externally. In the scope of a large European research programme, an analysis of potential dermal exposure determinants was made based on the available studies and models and on the expert judgement of the authors of this publication. Only a few potential determinants appear to have been studied in depth. Several studies have included clusters of determinants into vaguely defined parameters, such as 'task' or 'cleaning and maintenance of clothing'. Other studies include several highly correlated parameters, such as 'amount of product handled', 'duration of task' and 'area treated', and separation of these parameters to study their individual influence is not possible. However, based on the available information, a number of determinants could clearly be defined as proven or highly plausible determinants of dermal exposure in one or more exposure situation. This information was combined with expert judgement on the scientific plausibility of the influence of parameters that have not been extensively studied and on the possibilities to gather relevant information during a risk assessment process. The result of this effort is a list of determinants relevant for dermal exposure models in the scope of regulatory risk assessment. The determinants have been divided into the major categories 'substance and product characteristics', 'task done by the worker', 'process technique and equipment', 'exposure control measures', 'worker characteristics and habits' and 'area and situation'. To account for the complex nature of the dermal exposure processes, a further subdivision was made into the three major processes 'direct contact', 'surface contact' and 'deposition'

Patterns of Dermal Exposure to Hazardous Substances in European Union Workplaces

Workplace dermal exposure assessment is a complex task that aims to understand the dynamic interaction between the skin and the hazardous substances present in the surrounding environment. A European project known as RISKOFDERM gathered dermal exposure data in 85 workplaces (industrial and other types) in five countries in Europe. In order to optimize data collection and to develop a representative picture of dermal exposure, scenarios (tasks made up of a series of activities) were grouped together into dermal exposure operation units (DEOs). The allocation of scenarios to relevant DEOs was achieved on the basis of similarities of exposure routes, tasks and professional judgement. Sampling and quantification procedures were based on the approaches recommended by the OECD protocol. The laboratories involved in the analysis of the samples participated in quality assurance programmes. This exercise resulted in 419 body measurements and 437 measurements on hands expressed in terms of formulation (product) in use. Exposures for a given scenario varied by several orders of magnitude. The extent and patterns of exposure were found to be dependent on various exposure determinants, including inter- and intra-scenario variations. Hands were found to be the most contaminated parts of the body. Exposure patterns for liquid and solid contaminants were different. On the basis of the analysis of the data presented here, the averaged results (median and 95th percentile) for a given DEO unit should not be used as a representative measure of dermal exposure for all scenarios within that DEO without taking the exposure determinants into account. However, the data could be used to develop an exposure matrix (indicative exposure distributions) for different types of scenario and workplace, using determinants of exposure and a Bayesian approach to integrating expert opinion