Critique of the Guidance Document and Guidelines for the Conduct of Field Studies to Evaluate the Exposure of Operators, Workers, and Bystanders

  • John H. Ross
Part of the NATO · Challenges of Modern Society book series (NATS, volume 19)

Abstract

Concerns about chronic risks from pesticide exposure have increased in part driven by more complete toxicology databases and an increasingly wary public1. Risk assessments targeted at the most sensitive species at the lowest NOEL instead of mitigating acute adverse effects observable in humans under normal work conditions have fueled the need for more accurate estimates of worker exposure. A high percentage of new pesticides and an even higher percentage of “older” pesticides do not meet the acceptable risk criteria when the very conservative default exposure estimates of generic (Tier 1) studies are applied. The process of quantitative risk assessment has required scientists that monitor pesticide exposure to workers to determine delivered (absorbed) dosage. We have evolved from an industrial hygiene perspective where the work environment was monitored for ambient levels to the need to quantitate the absorbed dosage where workers themselves are monitored. The industrial hygiene measurements are still extremely valuable to evaluate environmental conditions that contribute to exposure, but these measurements frequently do not meet the demands of modern risk assessment to determine absorbed dose.

Keywords

Exposure Assessment Pesticide Exposure Dermal Absorption Mercapturic Acid Quantitative Risk Assessment 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Krieger, R.I., and Ross, J.H., Risk assessments in the pesticide regulatory process, Ann. Occup. Hyg. 37 (5): 565–578.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Welie, R.T.H., van Duyn, P., Brouwer, D.H., van Hemmen, J.J., Brouwer, E.J., and Vermeulen, N.P.E., Inhalation exposure to 1,3-dichloropropene in the dutch flower-bulb culture. Part II. Biological monitoring by measurement of urinary excretion of two mercapturic acid metabolites, Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 20: 6 (1991).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weisskopf, C.P., Seiber, J.N., Maizlish, N., and Schenker, M., Personnel exposure to diazinon in a supervised pest eradication program, Arch. Environ. Contam Toxicol. 17: 201 (1988).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fenske, R.A., Correlation of fluorescent tracer measurements of dermal exposure and urinary metabolite excretion during occupational exposure to malathion, Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 49: 438 (1988).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Formoli, R., Molinate estimated absorption based upon urinary excretion of 4-hydroxymolinate or whole body dosimetry. Review memorandum document number DPR 228–112, 133. Calif. Dept. Pest. Regul. (1993).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • John H. Ross
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pesticide RegulationWorker Health and Safety BranchSacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations