Bayer AG, Crop Science Division, Monheim, Germany.
Scientific Writing Services (SWS), Erzhausen, Germany.
Front Public Health. 2022 Dec 15;10:1037780. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1037780. eCollection 2022.
For the authorization of plant protection products, a quantitative non-dietary exposure risk assessment relies on established dermal exposure models, measured mainly using passive dosimetry. Exposure to the hands is determined hand washing or using cotton gloves as a surrogate for skin. This study compared both methods using operator exposure data available from the Agricultural Operator Exposure Model (AOEM) project report. These data indicate that hand exposure determined using cotton gloves resulted in markedly higher exposure values for all exposure scenarios compared to those determined by hand washes. One explanation for this is that dermal uptake of the residues reduces the amount of residue that can be recovered by hand washing. Uncertainty due to dermal uptake can be addressed by either default assumptions or by specific dermal absorption data. However, this cannot solely account for the large difference observed between the values and is mainly likely to be due to the higher capacity of the cotton gloves vs. human skin to retain residues. The results further indicate that the variability between hand wash samples and cotton glove samples differs between the exposure scenarios. Hence, the level of conservatism related to the use of cotton gloves as surrogate skin remains unknown. In conclusion, this evaluation of the AOEM data indicates that the cotton glove method results in much higher levels of measured hand exposure than the hand wash method. It cannot be excluded that dermal uptake has contributed to that result. However, the findings suggest the higher retention capacity of cotton gloves vs. human skin to be the main impact parameter. The cotton glove method does not provide the results with regards to the protection level that can be expected from the use of protective gloves. Therefore, we believe that the application of the hand wash method is a more accurate measure of exposure levels, if either specific dermal absorption data or, in its absence, default assumptions are applied as adjustment factor.
对于植物保护产品的授权，定量非饮食暴露风险评估依赖于既定的皮肤暴露模型，主要使用被动剂量测定法进行测量。手部暴露是通过洗手或使用棉手套来确定的，棉手套可以替代皮肤。本研究使用农业操作人员暴露模型 (AOEM) 项目报告中提供的操作人员暴露数据比较了这两种方法。这些数据表明，与通过洗手确定的手部暴露相比，使用棉手套确定的手部暴露在所有暴露情况下都会导致明显更高的暴露值。对此的一种解释是，皮肤对残留物的吸收会减少可以通过洗手回收的残留物的数量。由于皮肤吸收而导致的不确定性可以通过默认假设或特定的皮肤吸收数据来解决。但是，这并不能完全解释观察到的数值之间的巨大差异，并且主要可能是由于棉手套与人体皮肤相比具有更高的保留残留物的能力。结果还表明，在暴露情况下，洗手样本和棉手套样本之间的可变性不同。因此，使用棉手套作为替代皮肤的保守程度尚不清楚。总之，对 AOEM 数据的评估表明，与洗手方法相比，棉手套方法会导致更高水平的手部暴露。不能排除皮肤吸收对此结果有贡献。但是，研究结果表明，棉手套与人体皮肤相比，其保留能力更高是主要的影响参数。棉手套方法无法提供使用防护手套可以预期的保护水平的结果。因此，如果应用特定的皮肤吸收数据，或者在没有这些数据的情况下，应用默认假设作为调整因素，我们认为应用洗手方法是更准确的暴露水平测量方法。
