Investigation of Job-Related Pesticide Exposure in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

Abstract

The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey gathered health and job data from a sample of the US population. Researchers collected urine samples from a subset of subjects and analyzed it for 12 pesticide residues or metabolites (ie, analytes). They investigated the relationship between the industries and jobs reported and the analytes detected in the urine samples. The authors found an association between several jobs and the concentration for one or more pesticide analytes above the 90th percentile. They applied a job exposure matrix to categorize subjects on their potential for job exposures to pesticides. For the detected analytes, the subjects with the highest potential for occupational exposures to insecticides were more likely to have an analyte concentration above the 90th percentile and to have an average analyte concentration score 30% higher than that of subjects reporting jobs with the lowest exposure potential. These findings indicate that occupational exposure may not be a major source of pesticide exposure among the general population.

Use of job-exposure matrices to estimate occupational exposure to pesticides: A review

“…[97][98][99]103,104,108 Exposure metrics were variable: binary variable (unexposed/ exposed) [94][95][96]108 or qualitative classes of exposure (e.g., no/low/ high) 92,111,113 or exposure scores combining probability, intensity and/or frequency. [14][15][16]91,100,[102][103][104]106,109,110,115 A few publications validated matrix exposure estimates. 16,96,98,107 Most of them compared the results with selfreported data and found that the matrices limited the recall bias but may have underestimated exposure.…”

“…[111][112][113] In particular, the ad hoc JEMs created by P Stewart 15,16,[101][102][103][104][105] are a hybrid between a job-exposure matrix and expert raters' assessment. They were based both on the literature and industrial hygienists' experience.…”

“…112,113 Various pesticide definitions were used in these matrices. They were sometimes considered as a generic group, 91,94,99,100,[106][107][108][109][110]112 were classified in functional groups (H/F/I), [14][15][16]92,93,96,[101][102][103][104][105]111,113 or were identified at the active ingredient level. 95,98 The occupations concerned were detailed very precisely in some studies.…”

“…95,98 The occupations concerned were detailed very precisely in some studies. 14,15,94,98,109 Occupational data (lifetime occupational history, current or longest held occupation) were self-reported by study participants in most studies, more or less precisely, [14][15][16][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111]113,114 or were obtained from databases. 91,92,101 In some studies, the information was complemented by job-specific questionnaires.…”

“…For instance, gardeners, carpenters and joiners, road-menders, railway workers, hygiene professionals, veterinarians, firemen and others are directly or indirectly exposed to herbicides, insecticides or fungicides. [14][15][16] Pesticide exposure assessment is critical for the validity of epidemiological studies. Owing to the short half-life of most pesticides and to the practical difficulties and costs in large populations, direct methods such as biological and environmental measurements can be performed only in very specific contexts.…”