4.7 Article

Combining novel strategy with kinetic approach in the determination of respective respiration and skin exposure to N,N-dimethylfonnamide vapor

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 388, Issue 1-3, Pages 398-404

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.08.007

Keywords

N,N-dimethylformamide vapor; semi-actual exposure approach; skin exposure; inhalation exposure; kinetics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

N,N-dimethylfon-namide (DMF) could be readily absorbed via skin and inhalation routes. It is difficult, however, to separate the internal dose contribution from skin vapor and inhalation exposure. This study attempts to quantitatively determine the separate skin vapor and inhalation exposure contributions using a semi-actual exposure approach. Six volunteers were tailgated by DNIF-exposed employees completely for two exposure scenarios: with and without wearing a respirator. Individual airborne DNIF (A-DMF) exposure was evaluated by integrating real-time DMF monitoring and time-activity log. Urinary N-methylformamide (U-NMF) concentrations in 4-h and 8-h one urine sample plus 24-h consecutive urine sample were determined to evaluate the internal DNIF exposure dose. The average A-DMF concentrations for all participants were 8.10 (2.75) and 9.52 (3.47) ppm, respectively, for with respirator and without respirator scenarios. Area under the curve of U-NMF throughout 24-h showed 71% and 29% contribution from skin and inhalation exposure, respectively, indicates that the absorbed dose of DNIF via skin vapor exposure was much greater than inhalation. In conclusion, the semi-actual approach provides a novel measure to accurately determine the relative skin vapor and inhalation exposure contributions to the internal dose. The skin vapor exposure deserves more attention in the prevention of chemical hazards in the exposed environment. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available