Skin exposure: requirements to methods determining active ingredient of pesticides in washings

The article presents results of studies exemplified by diquat on analysis concerning influence of lower limit value of quantitative assessment in washing sample for safety coefficient in exposure and in absorbed dose, if acting substance is absent in workplace ambient air samples and in dermal washings of workers. To control diquat in dermal washings, there is a method based on ion-pair liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection (working wavelength 310 nm). To concentrate sample, cartridges for solid-phase extraction, containing ion exchange sorbent (Oasis MCX 6cc/500 mg), are used. Lower limit of assessment in washing sample — 0,15 micrograms. Experimentally set washing completeness is within range of 80–92%, standard deviation of repetition is 7,0% at most. The method created was tested in nature studies determining dermal exposure in workers subjected to 5 various preparations based on diquat dibromide when used for surface spraying from tractor and from aircraft. For lower limit of detection in washing sample (0,15 micrograms/washing), calculated risk value of exposure varied within 0,26–0,36; risk of absorbed dose was low — 0,23 (the allowable one ≤1). Findings are that present measuring methods which provide lower limit of detection 1 and 5 micrograms in washing sample could result in unallowable risk establishment even with absence of the substance in all samples of workplace air and dermal washings. The calculation formula suggested enables to give theoretic basis for requirements to lower limit of detecting active substances in dermal washing samples for evaluating risk of pesticides use in agriculture.

1. Rakitskii V.N., Il’nitskaya A.V., Yudina T.V. et al. Determination of actual exposition levels for an assessment of risk of impact of pesticides on health of the workers. Gig. i sanit. 2002; 6:76–8 (in Russian).

2. Methodical instructions MI 1.2.3017–12. Risk assessment of pesticide exposure to workers. Moscow: Federal Center for Hygiene and Epidemiology of Rospotrebnadzor; 2012: 15 (in Russian).

3. Tomlin, C.D. 1997. Te Pesticide Manual. 11th Edition. The British Crop Protection Council.

4. Te Pesticide Manual. 17th Edition, Turner J.A., ed. Alton: BCPS; 2012.

5. Hygienic Requirements for the Safety of Testing, Storage, Transportation, Sale, Application and Deactivation of Pesticides and Agrochemicals. Sanitary Norms and Rules SanPiN 1.2.2584–10 (approved by the Chief State Sanitary Doctor of the Russian Federation. Decree of March 2, 2010 No. 17 (in Russian).

6. Methodological instructions for the chromatographic measurement of concentrations of diquat and aedile in the air of the working area, No. 6154–91 of 29.07.91 (Methodological guidelines for the determination of micro-quantities of pesticides in food, feed and the environment, collection 21, part 2, M.; 1994: 300–7) (in Russian).

7. Methodological guidelines for the photometric measurement of diquat concentrations in air in the working area, No. 2462–81 of 22.10.81 (Methodological guidelines for the determination of micro-quantities of pesticides in food, feed and the environment, part 14, M.; 1984: 93–6) (in Russian).

8. Methodical instructions MU 1.2.3220–14. Hygienic and analytical control of skin contamination of persons working with pesticides. Moscow: Federal Center for Hygiene and Epidemiology of Rospotrebnadzor; 2014: 14 (in Russian).Development of methods for determining harmful substances on the skin (in Russian).

9. Methodical recommendations: deputy. Heads. state. medical doctor of the USSR on July 26, 1984, No. 3056–84. M.; 1985: 23 (in Russian).

10. Popova A.Yu., Rakitskii V.N., Yudina T.V. et al. Hygienic and analytical control of skin contamination of workers with pesticides. Med. truda i prom. ekol. 2015; 10: 8–13 (in Russian).

11. Determination of residual amounts of diquat in carrots, onions, seeds and soybean oil by high-performance liquid chromatography: MUK 4.1.1945–05, Approved. January 18, 2005 (in Russian).

12. Howard P.H. Handbook of environmental fate and exposure data for organic chemicals. Vol. 3. Chelsea: Pesticides. Lewis Publication. MI; 1991.

13. Fenske R.A., Lu C. Determination of handwash removal efciency: Incomplete removal of the pesticide chlorpyrifos from skin by standard handwash techniques. Am Ind. Hyg. Assoc J. 1994; 55 (5): 425–32.

14. Fenske R.A., Schulter C., Lu C., Allen E.H. Incomplete Removal of Pesticide Captan from Skin by Standard Handwash Exposure assessment procedures. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1998; 61: 194–201.

15. GOST 5725–4–2002. Accuracy (correctness and precision) of methods and results. Part 4. Basic methods for determining the correctness of the standard measurement method. Moscow: Gosstandart of Russia, 2002: 32 (in Russian).

16. Hygienic norms ГН 1.2.3539–18. Hygienic standards for pesticide content of in environmental facilities (list) (approved by the Chief State Sanitary Doctor of the Russian Federation. Decree of 10.05.2018, №33) (in Russian).

17. World Health organization. Field surveys of exposure to pesticides WHO 1982 Standard Protocol Ref VBC/82.1; 1982.

18. Dosemeci M., Alavanja M.C.R., Rowland A.S. et al. A Quantitative approach for estimating exposure to pesticides in agricultural health study. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2002; 46 (2): 245–60.