Annals of Occupational Hygiene Advance Access originally published online on March 3, 2004
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ann. occup. Hyg., Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 229-236, 2004
© 2004 British Occupational Hygiene Society
Published by Oxford University Press
Potential Dermal Exposure during the Painting Process in Car Body Repair Shops
1 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Hygiene, Autopista de San Pablo s/n, PO Box 3037, 41080 Sevilla; 2 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Hygiene, Camino de la Dinamita s/n, Monte Basatxu-Cruces, 48903 Baracaldo (Vizcaya), Spain
Received 29 May 2003; in final form 24 September 2003; published online on 3 March 2004
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
The object of this study was to assess potential dermal exposure to the non-volatile fractions of paints based on studies assessing potential exposure during the painting process in car body repair shops with water-based paints. The measurements were done during filling of the spray gun, paint spraying and cleaning of the gun. Potential dermal exposure was assessed using patches and gloves as dosimeters and analysing deposits of aluminium, a constituent of the paint mixture, which is used as a chemical tracer for these studies. The total body area used excluding hands was 18 720 cm2 and the area of each hand was 410 cm2. Dermal exposure to the paint during filling of the spray gun occurs mainly on the hands and ranged from 0.68 to 589 µg paint/cm2/min, as calculated from the amount of aluminium observed and the concentration of aluminium in the paint. During spraying, the levels of exposure of the hands and body ranged from 0.20 to 4.35 µg paint/cm2/min for the body and 0.40 to 13.4 µg paint/cm2/min for the hands. With cleaning of the spray gun the hands were the principal area exposed, with values ranging from 0.44 to 213 µg paint/cm2/min. Information on and observations of each of the scenarios were recorded in a structured questionnaire.
Keywords: car body repair shops; paint; potential dermal exposure
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
In a previous study on occupational risks in car repair shops, carried out by the Spanish National Institute for Occupational Safety and Hygiene (INSHT, 1991), it was concluded that the risks of exposure to paint during the painting process were significant, with the dermal route being most important.
The aim of this study was to assess potential dermal exposure to non-volatile fractions of paints during the painting process in car body repair shops. Potential dermal exposure is the total amount of paint coming into contact with the protective clothing, work clothing and exposed skin (OECD, 1997). Measurements were made for the operator during the scenarios (each made up of a number of tasks) filling the spray gun, paint spraying and cleaning the gun, using the sampling methodology of absorbent patches and gloves. Based on previous studies, it was decided to use a metal constituent of the paints as the chemical tracer (Garrod et al., 2000), due to its lack of volatility.
Evaporation of relatively volatile components (including water) in the process will lead to differences in composition of the contamination on the worker, compared with the composition of the paint. Therefore, results expressed as amount of total paint per cm2 are inaccurate and biased and should not be used as such. However, by expressing the results in terms of ‘total paint’ they can be extrapolated to other non-volatile components, since it is considered that the behaviour of all non-volatile components in the process is similar. It is further assumed that the relationship between dermal exposure and (other) determinants is not dependent on the percentage of non-volatiles in the paint (at least not if the difference in percentage of non-volatiles is not very high). In that case, extrapolation from one measured non-volatile component in paint 1 to another assessed non-volatile component in paint 2 via calculated exposure levels for ‘total paint’ leads to valid results, independent of the behaviour of the volatiles in the process and independent of the accuracy of the value for ‘total paints’.
Several types of paints were analysed and it was concluded that water-based paints were the most appropriate as dissolution with acids was more complete than with solvent-based paints. The paints selected contain a great variety of constituents some of which, e.g. 2-butoxyethanol, are readily absorbed through the skin and have been shown to damage the bone marrow, blood cells, kidneys and liver (Vincent et al., 1993). The dermal uptake of 2-butoxyethanol increases in the presence of water and this should be considered in the health risk assessment of occupational dermal exposure to 2-butoxyethanol where water-based products are used (Kezic et al., 2002).
After gathering information on the metals present in these paints, it was concluded that aluminium was a commonly occurring constituent of metallic paints and its concentration in certain colours would be sufficient to allow it to be used as a tracer. In the past, a number of metals were used as pigments in car paints (Jayjock and Levin, 1984; INSHT, 1991), but many of these metals have been substituted now, with aluminium being the most widely occurring.
Information on the working conditions for the scenarios was recorded during exposure assessment by trained occupational hygienists, using a modified version of an existing questionnaire (Hebisch and Auffarth, 2001; RISKOFDERM, 2001, 2002).
This study is part of an EU-funded project on Risk Assessment for Occupational Dermal Exposure to Chemicals (RISKOFDERM). One of the goals of this project is to obtain detailed data on dermal exposure and determinants in the most relevant tasks and processes (van Hemmen, 2002).
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Description of scenarios
The measurements of potential dermal exposure in these scenarios were carried out in a total of 18 car body repair shops and for each scenario 30 valid assessments were done. The sampling was repeated on a second day for six workers in the filling and spraying scenarios and for five workers in the cleaning (maintenance/servicing) scenario.
The paints used in the car body repair shops were water-based metallic paints, from the same manufacturer in all cases, although the amount of aluminium in the paint was different for each car body repair shop.
For the study of the scenario, filling the spray gun, 18 different car body repair shops were visited, four of which were large enterprises and 14 were small- or medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The operator filled the reservoir of the spray gun with the appropriate paint using a paper filter funnel (Fig. 1). Normally the reservoir had to be filled several times to complete the painting process. In most cases (40%) the filling operation took place inside the painting booth, where ventilation was by means of a local exhaust system, considered to be of adequate design. In 37% of the cases this scenario took place outside the painting booth with a general ventilation system, i.e. with an active ventilation system for the whole workshop. There was no ventilation in 23% of the cases, which included cases where windows or doors were opened to ventilate the area. The temperature in the work area was 15–25°C (67% of cases). The number of fillings varied between one and five, with four being the most frequent (33% of cases). The mean sampling time was 2.56 min. The most frequent amount of product handled was between 1.5 and 2 kg (47% of cases).
|
For assessment of the spraying scenario, 17 different car body repair shops were visited, four of which were large enterprises and 13 were SMEs. Spraying of the paint was carried out inside a booth with airflow from top to bottom of the spray booth (Fig. 2). In the work area the temperature in 57% of cases ranged from 20 to 25°C and the air velocity of the local exhaust system varied between 0.1 and 1.3 m/s, with a median of 0.3 m/s. The spray pressure in 43% of cases had values ranging from 2 to 4 Pa. This scenario begins when the worker squeezes the trigger of the spray gun and concludes when he releases it. During the spraying of a car, the most frequent number of spraying operations done was three (37% of cases), but varied from two to five times. The mean sampling time was 16.0 min, which is the actual time that spraying was taking place, and excludes any time for refilling, etc. The amount of product handled most frequently varied between 1 and 1.5 kg (33% of cases). The rate at which paint was used in the spraying scenario ranged from 31.6 to 148 g/min, with a median of 87.9 g/min.
|
For the study of the scenario, cleaning the spray gun, 18 different car body repair shops were visited, four of which were large enterprises and 14 were SMEs. In the work area the temperature in 50% of cases ranged from 15 to 20°C. This scenario took place outside the painting booth, where there was no ventilation in the majority of cases (77%). A general ventilation system was available in 13% of the cases and an inadequate local exhaust system in 10% of the cases. There were many different ways to clean the spray gun depending on the car body repair shop. Usually the spray gun is cleaned with water and later the parts that still remain dirty are rubbed with paper, a rag or a brush, using water or an alternative cleaning solution (Fig. 3). The mean sampling time was 3.69 min.
|
During the painting process, workers wore commonly available overalls, which included a range of designs and construction materials. For the filling and spraying scenarios, the work was often carried out with bare hands, although sometimes in the cleaning scenario protection, such as latex or nitrile gloves, was used.
Sampling
Potential dermal exposure of the body was measured using the patch sampling method described in the OECD guidance for pesticide studies (OECD, 1997), adapted to our particular case. In previous studies, the patch method has been validated for pesticide spray applications, which are similar to this car spraying scenario (Tannahill et al., 1996; Delgado et al., 2000). The patches were cut from white 100% cotton hooded overalls supplied by Quivira SL (Spain).
The workers wore unwashed overalls with hoods. Once sampling was finished, the overalls were removed and allowed to dry if necessary. They were stored at ambient temperature in clearly labelled individual plastic bags. Afterwards the patches (10 10 cm) were cut out of the overall in the laboratory. The following patches were cut: head; back; chest; upper arm (left); upper arm (right); forearm (left); forearm (right); upper leg (left); upper leg (right); lower leg (left); lower leg (right).
During filling of the spray gun only the workers’ hands were found to be exposed and therefore no patches were analysed. With the overalls used during cleaning of the spray gun, the patches on the head and back were not analysed because these parts of the body were found not to be exposed to possible splashes. These two assumptions were confirmed by analysing all the patches during the initial assessment of two workers.
Potential hand exposure was measured using sampling gloves according to the procedure described in the OECD guidance (OECD, 1997). Sampling gloves used were white 100% cotton from Delta Plus (COB40; Glover Tech, France). The workers washed their hands to avoid any cross contamination before donning the unwashed cotton gloves. When necessary, impervious gloves were also worn under the cotton ones.
It is usually necessary to do several fillings of the reservoir of the spray gun to complete the painting process; one pair of gloves was used for all the filling activities. A second pair of gloves was used for all spraying operations. The number of times that each scenario was carried out was recorded together with the total time taken for each individual scenario.
Once the sampling was finished, the gloves were removed from the hand by turning them inside out and were kept in clearly labelled individual plastic bags.
A bulk sample of the final paint formulation was collected in order to determine the content of aluminium in the paint. The viscosity/stickiness of the paint made it necessary to measure the spiked amounts using a gravimetric method, i.e. by mass rather than volume. Due to the difficulty in doing this in the workplace the recovery studies were carried out in the laboratory.
Analysis
A method for the determination of aluminium in water-based car paints and cotton patches and gloves containing car paint has been developed and validated. In this case aluminium is used as a tracer to estimate the potential exposure to aluminium-containing paints in car body repair shops.
Each patch was transferred to an individual, labelled, 100 ml beaker containing 50 ml of nitric acid. Each beaker was then heated on a hotplate with a surface temperature of 140°C for 
20 min. Then 5 ml of perchloric acid were carefully added, maintaining the temperature of the hotplate and heating until 1 ml of acid remained. Each solution was transferred quantitatively to a 10 ml volumetric flask.
The gloves were dissolved following the same procedure as used for the patches. However, each glove was cut into four pieces of similar size, dissolving each glove section separately. Once dissolution had been completed, the beakers were removed from the hotplate and the residues in the four beakers corresponding to the same glove were mixed in one of them so that the whole glove residue was in the same beaker. This solution was transferred quantitatively to a 25 ml volumetric flask.
A known amount of paint was treated with the same mix of acids in order to determine the content of aluminium in the paint.
All samples were analysed with an atomic absorption spectrometer using the nitrous oxide–acetylene flame technique.
The limit of detection (LOD) and the limit of quantification (LOQ) were determined on the basis of a set of blank samples at average blank signal plus three and ten times the standard deviation, respectively. For patch samples, nine blank samples were used, with the LOD and LOQ being 6 and 20 µg Al, respectively. The LOD and LOQ for glove samples were 42 and 140 µg Al, respectively, using five blank samples for their estimation.
The recovery tested with different amounts of paint (250–4000 µg Al for patches and 500–1000 µg Al for gloves) was >95% in both cases. The stability study shows that the aluminium was stable for a minimum of 7 days.
Questionnaire
The information about the scenarios was recorded in a questionnaire, which was developed as a subset of the work part 1 questionnaire of the RISKOFDERM project. A trained occupational hygienist interviewed and observed the workers and gathered relevant facts on the worker, the process, the product handled, the environment, the engineering control and the type and frequency of skin contacts (Hebisch and Auffarth, 2001; RISKOFDERM, 2001, 2002).
|
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Potential dermal exposure was measured during filling the spray gun, paint spraying and cleaning the spray gun. The exposure measurements are presented as µg/cm2/min, referring to formulation (paint) and to analyte (aluminium) for each scenario separately, in Tables 1, 2 and 3. These values have been calculated from the concentrations of the solutions derived from the patches and gloves. The presentation of results referring to the formulation are not intended to imply that the actual amount of paint on the patches or gloves is as presented. This is merely done to facilitate extrapolation of these results to other non-volatiles in paint. The true composition of the contamination on the worker is unknown and cannot be used to calculate the real ‘paint exposure’. However, calculation into ‘total paint’ or ‘formulation’ from aluminium allows further calculation from aluminium into other non-volatile components as long as the fraction of the non-volatile components in the paint is known, because the behaviour of non-volatile components is considered to be similar. To clarify this, we present results in terms of ‘paint equivalent’.
|
|
|
The concentration of aluminium in the paint was similar in the three scenarios, with an arithmetic mean of 2.67% for the filling, 2.72% for the spraying and 2.68% for the cleaning.
The body region areas published by the US EPA (1997) and then adapted in the OECD guidance (OECD, 1997) were used in calculations. The total body area excluding hands was 18 720 cm2 and the area of each hand was 410 cm2. Additionally, these data have taken into account the sampling time, the aluminium concentration of the paint used and the analytical recovery. The mean number of times that each assessed scenario was carried out was two per shift.
The data are presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3 with the results 
LOD included as their measured values and the results <LOD taken as LOD or 0, depending on how the results were to be calculated. In these tables exposure levels marked as (i) refer to data when <LOD values were taken as 0 and those marked as (ii) refer to data when <LOD values were assigned a value of LOD. This allowed the assumption of LOD to be examined for its influence on the results. Some patch samples were not analysed during assessment of the scenarios for filling (no patch analysed) and cleaning the spray gun (two patches not analysed), because it was demonstrated in two initial assessments that all the corresponding results were lower than the LOD. However, these patch samples were treated as patches whose results were <LOD, i.e. including them as LOD or 0. In the text of this paper, results are calculated as LOD if <LOD and as the measured value if LOD.
From a total of 990 outer patch samples, 569 were not detected (ND), i.e. <LOD; most of these were during the filling and cleaning scenarios, while the spraying data set contained only 51 ND values. In the case of the gloves (180 samples), 17 were ND, being distributed among the three scenarios.
The application of LOD values (instead of 0) to <LOD values to determine the potential dermal exposure (Tables 1, 2 and 3) did not cause important changes to the arithmetic mean values of the total exposure to paint equivalent for the spraying scenario (1.5% lower when 0 values used for LOD). However, in the cases of the filling and cleaning scenarios, greater differences were observed, with arithmetic mean values for total exposure reduced by 17.5 and 14.6%, respectively, when 0 was used instead of LOD for the ND results. This is consistent with the changes in median and 75th percentile values in these last two scenarios.
Within- and between-worker variances were estimated with analysis-of-variance (ANOVA) from log-transformed exposure values. The procedure has been used by Kromhout et al. (1993) for the evaluation of these components in the case of occupational exposure to chemical agents. The results of the ANOVA are described for each scenario separately.
Filling the spray gun
During filling of the spray gun, the hands were found to be the only region of the body to be exposed. No contamination of the overalls was found in the initial assessments and the potential dermal exposure values of the body areas excluding hands corresponded exclusively to results <LOD. The potential dermal exposure expressed as µg/cm2/min, in terms of paint equivalent and analyte, are included in Table 1.
For this scenario the data indicate that potential dermal exposure of the hands is greater than for the other scenarios and is also more variable, ranging from 0.68 to 589 µg/cm2/min paint equivalent. This is probably because each individual may have a different preferred method of filling the spray gun. This agrees with the results obtained with the analysis of variance for hand exposure, which shows that the total variance (TS2y) was 5.59 and that the between-worker component (BS2y) is highly dominant, forming 91% (P < 0.01).
The high results found in this scenario, with a mean of 76.3 µg/cm2/min paint equivalent for potential hand exposure, may be due to contact with heavily contaminated surfaces (e.g. paper filter, ruler, etc.) during the filling process.
Potential hand exposure for a single filling event ranged from 0.33 to 279 µg/cm2 paint equivalent (0.68–589 µg/cm2/min), with a median of 12.5 µg/cm2 paint equivalent (18.8 µg/cm2/min).
Spraying
During paint spraying, the potential exposure of the hands is lower than for the other scenarios, mainly due to the fact that the process is carried out inside a booth with a local exhaust system. The potential dermal exposure expressed as mg/min for the body is greater than potential hand exposure (arithmetic means of 22.7 and 3.27 mg/min paint equivalent, respectively), which is in contrast to the other scenarios studied. However, when expressed as mass per cm2 (Table 2), the potential dermal exposure of the hands is greater than the potential exposure of the body (arithmetic means of 3.99 and 1.21 µg/cm2/min paint equivalent, respectively). The levels of potential exposure of the hands and the body ranged from 0.20 to 4.35 µg/cm2/min paint equivalent for the body and 0.40 to 13.4 µg/cm2/min for the hands.
Figure 4 shows that the exposure is greater on the lower part of the body, due to the direction of air movement, which was from top to bottom inside the booth.
|
The total variances of the body and hand exposures (TS2y) were 1.82 and 1.28, respectively. The results obtained with ANOVA for this scenario only showed that the within-worker component (WS2y) is dominant for hand exposure, forming 70% (P < 0.01).
For a single spraying event, potential hand exposure varied between 1.33 and 64.9 µg/cm2 paint equivalent (0.40–13.4 µg/cm2/min), with a median of 12.9 µg/cm2 paint equivalent (3.22 µg/cm2/min).
Cleaning the spray gun
The main body regions exposed during cleaning of the spray gun are the hands, though there might be splashes to other parts of the body.
Two initial assessments were done to confirm the assumption that the head and the back of the body are not exposed to the paint. Therefore, the patches on the head and back did not need to be analysed. In the same way, the results corresponding to the legs were weighted to represent half of the standard surface area of this body location as ND, since the splashes were found to only occur on the front of the legs, which is where the patches were placed.
The dermal exposure expressed as µg/cm2/min, in terms of paint equivalent and analyte, are included in Table 3.
The potential dermal exposure of the hands during cleaning of the spray gun is greater than exposure of the rest of the body (arithmetic means of 37.2 and 1.09 µg/cm2/min paint equivalent, respectively). The potential dermal exposure values for the hands tended to be between those for the others scenarios and ranged from 0.44 to 213 µg/cm2/min paint equivalent.
Figure 4 shows that the lower part of the body was the principal exposed area in this scenario, due to the proximity of paint and the downward orientation of the spray gun.
The total variances of the body and hand exposures (TS2y) were 1.55 and 2.78, respectively. The dominant component for hand exposure was within-worker (WS2y), forming 63%. Since exposure of the body is caused by splashes of paint, exposure depends on each individual’s particular preferred method of cleaning the spray gun. This was confirmed with the ANOVA for body exposure, the results of which show that the between-worker component (BS2y) dominated, forming 60%.
Acknowledgements—The authors wish to thank all car body repair shops and their employees for their participation in the study. We also wish to thank Juan Viguera, Rosario Jiménez, Francisco Lissén and Arantxa Arévalo for their assistance in analysis of the samples and the occupational hygienists of five Spanish Autonomous Regions that took part in the field study sampling. We wish to acknowledge the financial support of the European Commission for this work (RISKOFDERM project, QLK4-CT-1999-01107).
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: +34-9545-14111; fax: +34-9546-72797; e-mail: pdelgado{at}mtas.es
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Delgado P, Nocete FJ, Arechabala M, Castro S, Glass CR. (2000) Comparison of potential dermal exposure during olive tree treatment with dimethoate using patch and whole body methods. In Mondelo PR, Mattila M, Karwowski W, editors. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Occupational Risk Prevention, Tenerife, 23–5 February 2000, Universitat Politécnica de Catalunya. ISBN 84 699 1249 9.
Garrod ANI, Guiver R, Rimmer DA. (2000) Potential exposure of amateurs (consumers) through painting wood preservative and antifoulant preparations. Ann Occup Hyg; 44: 421–6.
Hebisch R, Auffarth J. (2001) Dermal exposure: how to get information. Appl Occup Environ Hyg; 16: 169–73.[CrossRef][Medline]
INSHT. (1991) Occupational risks in car repair shops. Madrid: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Hygiene.
Jayjock MA, Levin L. (1984) Health hazards in small automotive body repair shop. Ann Occup Hyg; 28: 19–29.
Kezic S, Mohammadi N, Jakasa I, Kruse J, Monster AC, Verberk M. (2002) Percutaneous absorption of neat and water solutions of 2-butoxyethanol in man. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Occupational and Environmental Exposures of Skin to Chemicals: Science and Policy, Arlington, 8–11 September. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/skin/conference/s2p13.html.
Kromhout H, Symanski E, Rappaport SM. (1993) A comprehensive evaluation of within- and between-worker components of occupational exposure to chemical agents. Ann Occup Hyg; 37: 253–70.
OECD. (1997) Guidance document for the conduct of studies of occupational exposure to pesticides during agricultural application, OECD Series on Testing and Assessment no. 9, OECD/GD (97)/148. Paris: OECD.
RISKOFDERM. (2001) First year report. Obtainable from J.J. van Hemmen, TNO, PO Box 360, Zeist, The Netherlands.
RISKOFDERM. (2002) Second year report. Obtainable from J.J. van Hemmen, TNO, PO Box 360, Zeist, The Netherlands.
Tannahill SN, Robertson A, Cherrie B, Donnan P, MacConnell WLA, Macleod GJ. (1996) A comparison of two different methods for assessment of dermal exposure to non-agricultural pesticides in three sectors, IOM report TM 96/107. Edinburgh, UK: Institute of Occupational Medicine.
US EPA. (1997) Exposure factors handbook, Vol. I. General factors, EPA/600/P-95/002Fa. Washington, DC: National Centre for Environmental Assessment.
van Hemmen JJ. (2002) Risk assessment of dermal exposure to industrial chemicals. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Occupational and Environmental Exposures of Skin to Chemicals: Science and Policy, Arlington, 8–11 September. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ topics/skin/conference/s3p4.html.
Vincent R, Cicolella A, Subra I, Rieger B, Poirot P, Pierre F. (1993) Occupational exposure to 2-butoxyethanol for workers using window cleaning agents. Appl Occup Environ Hyg; 8: 580–6.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A Pronk, F Yu, J Vlaanderen, E Tielemans, L Preller, I Bobeldijk, J A Deddens, U Latza, X Baur, and D Heederik Dermal, inhalation, and internal exposure to 1,6-HDI and its oligomers in car body repair shop workers and industrial spray painters Occup. Environ. Med., September 1, 2006; 63(9): 624 - 631. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. MARQUART, N. D. WARREN, J. LAITINEN, and J. J. VAN HEMMEN Default Values for Assessment of Potential Dermal Exposure of the Hands to Industrial Chemicals in the Scope of Regulatory Risk Assessments Ann. Hyg., July 1, 2006; 50(5): 469 - 489. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. D. WARREN, H. MARQUART, Y. CHRISTOPHER, J. LAITINEN, and J. J. VAN HEMMEN Task-based Dermal Exposure Models for Regulatory Risk Assessment Ann. Hyg., July 1, 2006; 50(5): 491 - 503. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. RAJAN-SITHAMPARANADARAJAH, M. ROFF, P. DELGADO, K. ERIKSSON, W. FRANSMAN, J. H. J. GIJSBERS, G. HUGHSON, M. MAKINEN, and J. J. VAN HEMMEN Patterns of Dermal Exposure to Hazardous Substances in European Union Workplaces Ann. Hyg., April 1, 2004; 48(3): 285 - 297. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||