Skip Navigation


Annals of Occupational Hygiene Advance Access originally published online on March 2, 2004
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
48/3/219    most recent
meh008v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by GIJSBERS, J. H. J.
Right arrow Articles by VAN HEMMEN, J. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by GIJSBERS, J. H. J.
Right arrow Articles by VAN HEMMEN, J. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Ann. occup. Hyg., Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 219-227, 2004
© 2004 British Occupational Hygiene Society
Published by Oxford University Press

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

JOSÉ H. J. GIJSBERS*, ERIK TIELEMANS, DERK H. BROUWER and JOOP J. VAN HEMMEN

TNO Chemistry, Department of Chemical Exposure Assessment, PO Box 360, 3700 AJ Zeist, The Netherlands

Received 20 May 2003; in final form 26 August 2003; published online on 2 March 2004

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 4.1–18 269 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.

Keywords: brushing; dermal exposure; DEGBE; filling; glycolether; loading; variance components


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Hum Exp ToxicolHome page
P. Boogaard
Biomonitoring as a tool in the human health risk characterization of dermal exposure
Human and Experimental Toxicology, April 1, 2008; 27(4): 297 - 305.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
E. C. Alexopoulos and Y. Alamanos
Secondary sex ratio in Greece: evidence of an influence by father's occupational exposure
Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2007; 22(11): 2999 - 3001.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ANN OCCUP HYGHome page
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]

Home page
 ANN OCCUP HYGHome page
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]

Home page
 Occup. Environ. Med.Home page
B van Wendel de Joode, R Vermeulen, J J van Hemmen, W Fransman, and H Kromhout
Accuracy of a semiquantitative method for Dermal Exposure Assessment (DREAM)
Occup. Environ. Med., September 1, 2005; 62(9): 623 - 632.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ANN OCCUP HYGHome page
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]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.