Derivation of single layer clothing penetration factors from the pesticide handlers exposure database

Driver, Jeffrey; Ross, John H.; Mihlan, Gary; Lunchick, Curt; Landenberger, Bryce D.

doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2007.06.007

Cited by 44 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As dose density to outer dosimeters increases, percent clothing penetration decreases resulting in an inverse relationship between challenge and penetration (Driver et al, 2007). This is consistent with the hypothesis that single-layer clothing percent penetration increases with decreasing outer dosimeter loading or challenge, that is, a higher proportion of the outer dosimeter values appears on the corresponding inner dosimeters, as the outer values decrease.…”

Section: Clothing Penetration: Another Key Variablesupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Overall, these data suggest that dosimetry pass through is not a significant issue. Two concurrent PD: biomonitoring studies conducted with only a single outer dosimetry layer allow one to calculate the ''pass through'' that occurs through whole body dosimetry garments and it falls in the range of 8%-15% (Findlay, 1998;, which is basically the same range measured for clothing penetration in many other PD studies (Driver et al, 2007).…”

Section: Insignificance Of the Dosimetry ''Pass Through'' Component Omentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Mean clothing penetration was calculated from 2129 paired inner and outer dosimeters and found to be 8%-12% for whole-body dosimeters (WBD) and patch dosimetry, respectively, from the PHED (Driver et al, 2007). Thongsinthusak et al (1993) summarized results from a number of other exposure monitoring studies that support this observation.…”

Section: Clothing Penetration: Another Key Variablementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparative evaluation of absorbed dose estimates derived from passive dosimetry measurements to those derived from biological monitoring: Validation of exposure monitoring methodologies

Ross

Chester²,

Driver³

et al. 2007

J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Passive dosimetry (PD) methods for measuring and estimating exposure to agricultural workers (i.e., persons handling agricultural chemicals and working in treated crops) have been in use since the 1950s. A large number of studies were conducted in the 1950s through 1970s to characterize exposure. Since the 1980s quantitative dermal PD methods are used in conjunction with inhalation PD methods to measure whole-body exposure. These exposure or absorbed dose estimates are then compared to ''no effect'' exposure levels for hazards identified in toxicology studies, and have become the standard for risk assessment for regulatory agencies. The PD methods used have never been validated. Validation in the context of human exposure monitoring methods means that a method has been shown to measure accurately a delivered dose in humans. The most practical alternative to isolating parts of the body for validating recovery methods is to utilize field exposure studies in which concurrent or consecutive measurements of exposure and absorbed dose have been made with PD and biomonitoring in the same cohorts of individuals. This ensures that a direct comparison can be made between the two estimates of absorbed dose, one derived from PD and the other from biomonitoring. There are several studies available (published and proprietary) employing both of these approaches. Reports involving 14 concurrent or consecutive PD-biomonitoring studies were quantitatively evaluated with 18 different methods of application or reentry scenarios for eight different active ingredients for which measured human kinetics and dermal absorption data existed. This evaluation demonstrated that the total absorbed dose estimated using PD for important handler and reentry scenarios is generally similar to the measurements for those same scenarios made using human urinary biomonitoring methods. The statistical analysis of individual worker PD:biomonitoring ratios showed them to be significantly correlated in these studies. The PD techniques currently employed yield a reproducible, standard methodology that is valid and reliably quantifies exposure.

show abstract

Section: Clothing Penetration: Another Key Variablesupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Insignificance Of the Dosimetry ''Pass Through'' Component Omentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Clothing Penetration: Another Key Variablementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative evaluation of absorbed dose estimates derived from passive dosimetry measurements to those derived from biological monitoring: Validation of exposure monitoring methodologies

Ross

Chester²,

Driver³

et al. 2007

J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Clothing penetration is a physical factor that determines how much of a pesticide gets from outside a shirt, for instance, to the inside. The arithmetic mean value for single-layer clothing penetration is 10% for relatively nonvolatile chemicals (Driver et al, 2007) with a range of 1-50% inversely proportional to the deposition density. Body shading is the phenomenon, where the head and shoulders projected over the lower portion of the body protect it from deposition of aerial residues coming from overhead.…”

Section: Pesticide Exposure Assessment Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing exposure to allied ground troops in the Vietnam War: A comparison of AgDRIFT and Exposure Opportunity Index models

Ginevan¹,

Ross

Watkins³

2008

J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The AgDRIFT aerial dispersion model is well validated and closely related to the AGDISP model developed by the USDA Forest Service to determine on-and off-target deposition and penetration of aerially applied pesticide through foliage of trees. The Exposure Opportunity Index (EOI) model was developed to estimate relative exposure of ground troops in Vietnam to aerially applied herbicides. We compared the output of the two models to determine whether their predictions were in substantial agreement, but found a total lack of concordance. While the AgDRIFT model estimated that ground-level deposition through foliage was reduced more than 20 orders of magnitude at less than 1 km from the flight line, the EOI model predicted deposition declines less than one order of magnitude 4 km from the flight line. Interestingly the EOI model predicts a four-fold variability in EOI on the flight line, where exposure should be essentially invariant because the spray apparatus is designed to apply herbicide at a constant rate. We believe that the EOI model cannot be used to provide individual exposure estimates for the purpose of conducting epidemiologic studies. Moreover, evaluation of the position data for both herbicide spray swaths and troop locations, together with the actual patterns of spray deposition predicted by the AgDRIFT model, suggests that precise individual-level exposure assessments for ground troops in Vietnam are impossible. However, we suggest that well-validated tools like AgDRIFT can be used to estimate exposure to groups of individuals.

show abstract

“…A paper by Driver et al (2007) provides further analysis of the PHED database (the PHED data were also considered in TNO report V7333) and suggests a typical value of 10% penetration (whole body, excluding hands) with no significant difference observed between solid and liquid formulations. This paper contains a table where on the basis of outer dosimeter loading the inner dosimeter loading is predicted both for the arithmetic mean and the median (with confidence limits for the median).…”

Section: Addendum To the Tno Report V7333mentioning

confidence: 99%

Project to assess current approach and knowledge with a view to develop a Guidance document for pesticide exposure assessment

Hamey¹,

Byron²,

Hanley³

et al. 2009

EFSA Supporting Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Derivation of single layer clothing penetration factors from the pesticide handlers exposure database

Cited by 44 publications

References 15 publications

Comparative evaluation of absorbed dose estimates derived from passive dosimetry measurements to those derived from biological monitoring: Validation of exposure monitoring methodologies

Comparative evaluation of absorbed dose estimates derived from passive dosimetry measurements to those derived from biological monitoring: Validation of exposure monitoring methodologies

Assessing exposure to allied ground troops in the Vietnam War: A comparison of AgDRIFT and Exposure Opportunity Index models

Project to assess current approach and knowledge with a view to develop a Guidance document for pesticide exposure assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About