Repository hosted by TU Delft Library

Home · Contact · About · Disclaimer ·
 

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

Publication files not online:

Author: Gijsbers, J.H.J. · Tielemans, E. · Brouwer, D.H. · Hemmen, J.J. van
Type:article
Date:2004
Institution: TNO Voeding
Source:Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 3, 48, 219-227
Identifier: 237696
doi: doi:10.1093/annhyg/meh008
Keywords: Chemistry Safety · Food and Chemical Risk Analysis · Brushing · DEGBE · Dermal exposure · Filling · Glycolether · Loading · Variance components · Contamination · Cotton · Ethanol · Filling · Loading · Sampling · Body exposure · Dermal exposure · Dermatitis · 2 (2 butoxyethoxy)ethanol · toxic substance · unclassified drug · analytic method · calculation · controlled study · geometry · glove · human experiment · occupational hazard · sampling · worker · Analysis of Variance · Chemical Industry · Ethylene Glycols · Hand · Humans · Occupational Exposure · Occupations · Paint · Skin · Ventilation

Abstract

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.