Annals of Occupational Hygiene Advance Access originally published online on March 21, 2006
Annals of Occupational Hygiene 2006 50(5):517-525; doi:10.1093/annhyg/mel009
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Biomonitoring for Chromium and Arsenic in Timber Treatment Plant Workers Exposed to CCA Wood Preservatives
1 Health and Safety Laboratory Harpur Hill, Buxton, SK17 9JN, UK
2 Health and Safety Executive, Redgrave Court Bootle, L20 7HS, UK
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: +44-1298-218429; fax: +44-1298-218172; e-mail: john.cocker{at}hsl.gov.uk
This study reports a survey of occupational exposure to copper chrome arsenic (CCA) based wood preservatives during vacuum pressure timber impregnation. The survey involved biological monitoring based on analysis of chromium and arsenic in urine samples collected from UK workers. The aim of the study was to determine the extent of occupational exposure to arsenic and chromium in the UK timber treatment industry. The objectives were to collect and analyse urine samples from as many workers as possible, where CCA wood preservatives might be used, at 6 monthly intervals for 2 years. In addition, to investigate day-to-day variations in urinary excretion of chrome and arsenic by collecting and analysing three samples a week for 3 weeks in subsets of workers and controls (people not occupationally exposed). All urine samples were analysed for chromium and inorganic arsenic. To investigate any residual interference every sample was accompanied by a short questionnaire about recent consumption of seafood and smoking. The analytical methods for arsenic used a hydride generation technique to reduce interference from dietary sources of arsenic and also a technique that would measure total arsenic concentration in urine. The main findings show that workers exposed to CCA wood preservatives have concentrations of inorganic arsenic and chromium in urine that are significantly higher than those from non-occupationally exposed people but below biological monitoring guidance values that would indicate inhalation exposure at UK occupational exposure limits for chromium and arsenic. The effects of consumption of seafood on urinary arsenic were not significant using the hydride generation method for inorganic arsenic but were significant if ‘total’ arsenic was measured. The ‘total’ arsenic method could not distinguish CCA workers from controls and is clearly unsuitable for assessment of occupational exposure to arsenic. There was a significant increase in the urinary concentration of chromium in workers over the four sample collection rounds indicating increasing exposure to chromium during the 2 years of the study. This unexpected finding may be worth further investigation. Overall, the study demonstrated the utility of biological monitoring for assessment of occupational exposure to chromium and arsenic.
Keywords: biological monitoring • dermal exposure • exposure variability