Study Design Considerations for Occupational Pesticide Exposure Assessment

  • Richard A. Penske
  • Kay Teschke
Part of the NATO · Challenges of Modern Society book series (NATS, volume 19)


Exposure assessments in occupational hygiene are normally conducted for one of four purposes: 1) hazard evaluation leading to appropriate control efforts, 2) monitoring to ensure compliance with workplace standards, 3) dose-response characterization within the context of epidemiological studies, and 4) estimation of dose or uptake for risk assessments. Assessment strategies and measurement techniques will differ depending on the purpose at hand. The Guidance Document1 prepared for the Ottawa Workshop on Methods of Pesticide Exposure Assessment has been developed within the context of risk assessment. The goal of the Document is to establish an “internationally accepted, harmonized approach” to pesticide exposure assessment by providing pesticide registrants with guidelines for conducting exposure assessment studies which can be submitted to regulatory agencies in support of the registration or reregistration of specific agricultural chemicals. The Guidance Document reflects substantial progress in our understanding of pesticide exposure processes, and is intended to supersede previous guidance documents in this field.2–4


Exposure Assessment Guidance Document Pesticide Exposure Exposed Population Exposure Distribution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Chester, G., Guidance document: The conduct of field studies to evaluate the exposure of operators, workers and bystanders to pesticides, in: Proceedings of the Workshop on Methods of Pesticide Exposure Assessment, October 5–8, 1993, Ottawa, (1995).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Pesticide Assessment Guidelines, Subdivision U, Applicator Exposure Monitoring, U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service, Washington, D.C. (1986).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Pesticide Assessment Guidelines, Subdivision K, Exposure: Reentry Protection, U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service, Washington, D.C. (1986).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    World Health Organization. Field surveys of exposure to pesticides standard protocol, Toxicol. Lett. 3: 223–235 (1986).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Salter, L., Mandated Science: Science and Scientists in the Making of Standards, Kluwer Academic Publishers, London (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carmichael, N.G., Pesticide exposure: Overview of the tier approach, in: Proceedings of the Workshop on Methods of Pesticide Exposure Assessment, October 5–8, 1993, Ottawa, (1995).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van Hemmen, J.J., Agricultural pesticide exposure data bases for risk assessment, Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 126: 1–85 (1992).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Academy of Sciences. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hawkins, N.C., Jayjock, M.A., and Lynch, J., A rationale and framework for establishing the quality of human exposure assessments, Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 53(1):34–41.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Corn, M., and Esmen, N.A., Workplace exposure zones for classification of employee exposures to physical and chemical agents, Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 40: 47–57 (1979).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hawkins, N.C., Norwood, S.K., and Rock, J.C., A Strategy for Occupational Exposure Assessment, American Industrial Hygiene Association, Akron, OH (1991).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kromhout, H., Symanski, E., and Rappaport, S.M., A comprehensive evaluation of within and between worker components of occupational exposure to chemical agents, Ann. Occ. Hyg. 37: 253–270 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krieger, R.I., Ross, J.H., and Thongsinthusak, T., Assessing human exposure to pesticides, Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 128: 1–69 (1992).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roach, S.A., A more rational basis for air-sampling programs, Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 27: 1–12 (1966).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Corn, M., Strategies of air sampling, Scand. J. Work Environ. Health. 11: 173–80 (1985).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nicas, M., Simmons, B.P., and Spear, R.C., Environmental versus analytical variability in exposure measurements, Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 52 (12): 553–7 (1991).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Teschke, K., Marion, S.A., Jin, A., Fenske, R.A., and Van Netten, C., Strategies for determining occupational exposures in risk assessments: A review and a proposal for assessing fungicide exposures in the lumber industry, Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 55: 443–449 (1994).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Teschke, K., Fenske, R.A., Van Netten, C., Jin, A., and Marion, S.A. Generic Guidelines for Assessing Worker Exposure to Antisapstain Chemicals in the Lumber Industry, Report to the Health Monitoring Sub-Committee of the B.C. Stakeholder Forum on Sapstain Control. Vancouver, University of British Columbia (report available from the authors) (1992).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rappaport, S.M., Assessment of long-term exposures to toxic substances in air, Ann. Occup. Hyg. 35: 61–121 (1991).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pesticide Handler Exposure Database (PHED). VERSAR, Inc., Arlington, VA (1992).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Buringh, E., and Lanting, R., Exposure variability in the workplace: Its implications for the assessment of compliance, Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 52: 6–13 (1991).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Checkoway, H., Pearce, N.E., and Crawford-Brown, D.G., Research Methods in Occupational Epidemiology, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Davis, J.E., Minimizing occupational exposure to pesticides: Personnel monitoring, Residue Rev. 75: 33–50 (1980).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fenske, R.A., Validation of environmental monitoring by biological monitoring: the fluorescent tacer technique and the patch technique, in: Biological Monitoring for Pesticide Exposure, R.A. Wang et al., eds., ACS Symp. Series 382:70–84, American Chemical Society, Washington DC (1989).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard A. Penske
    • 1
  • Kay Teschke
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Health, SC-34 School of Public Health and Community MedicineUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Health Care and EpidemiologyUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations