4.3 Article

Biological monitoring for occupational acrylamide exposure from acrylamide production workers

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00420-010-0558-7

Keywords

Acrylamide (AA); Repeated-measurement; Occupational exposure; N-acetyl-S-(2-carbamoylethyl)-cysteine (AAMA); N-acetyl-S-(1-carbamoyl-2-hydroxyethyl)-cysteine (GAMA2); N-acetyl-S-(2-carbamoyl-2-hydroxyethyl)-cysteine (GAMA3)

Funding

  1. National Health Research Institute [EO-095-PP-02]
  2. National Science Council [NSC 95-2314-B-400-004-MY3]
  3. Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Taiwan [IOSH95-A319]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We conducted a repeated-measurement study to (1) investigate the correlation between occupational exposure to airborne acrylamide (AA) and the time-dependent behavior of urinary AAMA, GAMA2, and GAMA3 and (2) calculate the estimated biological exposure index at the permissible exposure limit (PEL) level of 30 mu g/m(3). Forty-four workers were recruited-8 were AA-exposed and 36 were controls. Pre- and post-shift urine samples were collected from the exposed group in parallel with personal sampling for 8 consecutive days and only 1 day for the control group and analyzed using liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization/tandem mass spectrometry (LC-ESI-MS/MS). Post-shift urinary AAMA level was significantly associated with personal AA exposure (p < 0.001), indicating that urinary AAMA was a better AA exposure biomarker. The estimated urinary excretion of AAMA was 3.0 mg/g creatinine for nonsmoking workers exposed to the PEL of 30 mu g/m(3). The median GAMA (the sum of GAMA2 and GAMA3)/AAMA ratio for exposed workers was 0.03 (range, 0.005-0.14), relatively lower than that of the nonoccupational group. Although sample size in this study was small, the repeated-measurement data provide useful reference for future studies related to biological monitoring of occupational exposure to AA.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available