Ann. occup. Hyg., Vol. 48, No. 3, pp.

229236
Published by Oxford University Press
DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/meh007

Potential Dermal Exposure during the Painting Process

in Car Body Repair Shops
PEDRO DELGADO1*, JUAN PORCEL2, ISAAC ABRIL1, NURIA TORRES1,
ANTONIO TERN1 and AGURTZANE ZUGASTI2
1National

Institute for Occupational Safety and Hygiene, Autopista de San Pablo s/n, PO Box 3037,
41080 Sevilla; 2National Institute for Occupational Safety and Hygiene, Camino de la Dinamita s/n,
Monte Basatxu-Cruces, 48903 Baracaldo (Vizcaya), Spain

The object of this study was to assess potential dermal exposure to the non-volatile fractions of
paints based on studies assessing potential exposure during the painting process in car body
repair shops with water-based paints. The measurements were done during filling of the spray
gun, paint spraying and cleaning of the gun. Potential dermal exposure was assessed using
patches and gloves as dosimeters and analysing deposits of aluminium, a constituent of the paint
mixture, which is used as a chemical tracer for these studies. The total body area used excluding
hands was 18720 cm2 and the area of each hand was 410 cm2. Dermal exposure to the paint
during filling of the spray gun occurs mainly on the hands and ranged from 0.68 to 589 g
paint/cm2/min, as calculated from the amount of aluminium observed and the concentration of
aluminium in the paint. During spraying, the levels of exposure of the hands and body ranged
from 0.20 to 4.35 g paint/cm2/min for the body and 0.40 to 13.4 g paint/cm2/min for the hands.
With cleaning of the spray gun the hands were the principal area exposed, with values ranging
from 0.44 to 213 g paint/cm2/min. Information on and observations of each of the scenarios
were recorded in a structured questionnaire.
Keywords: car body repair shops; paint; potential dermal exposure

using the sampling methodology of absorbent

patches and gloves. Based on previous studies, it was
decided to use a metal constituent of the paints as the
chemical tracer (Garrod et al., 2000), due to its lack
of volatility.
Evaporation of relatively volatile components
(including water) in the process will lead to differences in composition of the contamination on the
worker, compared with the composition of the paint.
Therefore, results expressed as amount of total paint
per cm2 are inaccurate and biased and should not be
used as such. However, by expressing the results in
terms of total paint they can be extrapolated to other
non-volatile components, since it is considered that
the behaviour of all non-volatile components in the
process is similar. It is further assumed that the relationship between dermal exposure and (other) determinants is not dependent on the percentage of nonvolatiles in the paint (at least not if the difference in
percentage of non-volatiles is not very high). In that
case, extrapolation from one measured non-volatile

INTRODUCTION

In a previous study on occupational risks in car repair

shops, carried out by the Spanish National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Hygiene (INSHT, 1991),
it was concluded that the risks of exposure to paint
during the painting process were significant, with the
dermal route being most important.
The aim of this study was to assess potential
dermal exposure to non-volatile fractions of paints
during the painting process in car body repair shops.
Potential dermal exposure is the total amount of paint
coming into contact with the protective clothing,
work clothing and exposed skin (OECD, 1997).
Measurements were made for the operator during the
scenarios (each made up of a number of tasks) filling
the spray gun, paint spraying and cleaning the gun,

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Tel: +34-9545-14111; fax: +34-9546-72797; e-mail:
pdelgado@mtas.es
229

Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on November 16, 2015

Received 29 May 2003; in final form 24 September 2003; published online on 3 March 2004

230

P. Delgado et al.

filled the reservoir of the spray gun with the appropriate paint using a paper filter funnel (Fig. 1).
Normally the reservoir had to be filled several times
to complete the painting process. In most cases (40%)
the filling operation took place inside the painting
booth, where ventilation was by means of a local
exhaust system, considered to be of adequate design.
In 37% of the cases this scenario took place outside
the painting booth with a general ventilation system,
i.e. with an active ventilation system for the whole
workshop. There was no ventilation in 23% of the
cases, which included cases where windows or doors
were opened to ventilate the area. The temperature in
the work area was 1525C (67% of cases). The
number of fillings varied between one and five, with
four being the most frequent (33% of cases). The
mean sampling time was 2.56 min. The most frequent
amount of product handled was between 1.5 and 2 kg
(47% of cases).
For assessment of the spraying scenario, 17
different car body repair shops were visited, four of
which were large enterprises and 13 were SMEs.
Spraying of the paint was carried out inside a booth
with airflow from top to bottom of the spray booth
(Fig. 2). In the work area the temperature in 57% of
cases ranged from 20 to 25C and the air velocity
of the local exhaust system varied between 0.1 and
1.3 m/s, with a median of 0.3 m/s. The spray pressure
in 43% of cases had values ranging from 2 to 4 Pa.
This scenario begins when the worker squeezes the
trigger of the spray gun and concludes when he
releases it. During the spraying of a car, the most

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Description of scenarios
The measurements of potential dermal exposure in
these scenarios were carried out in a total of 18 car
body repair shops and for each scenario 30 valid
assessments were done. The sampling was repeated
on a second day for six workers in the filling and
spraying scenarios and for five workers in the
cleaning (maintenance/servicing) scenario.
The paints used in the car body repair shops were
water-based metallic paints, from the same manufacturer in all cases, although the amount of aluminium
in the paint was different for each car body repair
shop.
For the study of the scenario, filling the spray gun,
18 different car body repair shops were visited, four
of which were large enterprises and 14 were small- or
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The operator

Fig. 1. Filling the spray gun.

Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on November 16, 2015

component in paint 1 to another assessed non-volatile

component in paint 2 via calculated exposure levels
for total paint leads to valid results, independent of
the behaviour of the volatiles in the process and independent of the accuracy of the value for total paints.
Several types of paints were analysed and it was
concluded that water-based paints were the most
appropriate as dissolution with acids was more
complete than with solvent-based paints. The paints
selected contain a great variety of constituents some
of which, e.g. 2-butoxyethanol, are readily absorbed
through the skin and have been shown to damage the
bone marrow, blood cells, kidneys and liver (Vincent
et al., 1993). The dermal uptake of 2-butoxyethanol
increases in the presence of water and this should be
considered in the health risk assessment of occupational dermal exposure to 2-butoxyethanol where
water-based products are used (Kezic et al., 2002).
After gathering information on the metals present
in these paints, it was concluded that aluminium was
a commonly occurring constituent of metallic paints
and its concentration in certain colours would be
sufficient to allow it to be used as a tracer. In the past,
a number of metals were used as pigments in car
paints (Jayjock and Levin, 1984; INSHT, 1991), but
many of these metals have been substituted now, with
aluminium being the most widely occurring.
Information on the working conditions for the
scenarios was recorded during exposure assessment
by trained occupational hygienists, using a modified
version of an existing questionnaire (Hebisch and
Auffarth, 2001; RISKOFDERM, 2001, 2002).
This study is part of an EU-funded project on Risk
Assessment for Occupational Dermal Exposure to
Chemicals (RISKOFDERM). One of the goals of this
project is to obtain detailed data on dermal exposure
and determinants in the most relevant tasks and
processes (van Hemmen, 2002).

Potential dermal exposure during car body painting

231

ventilation system was available in 13% of the cases

and an inadequate local exhaust system in 10% of the
cases. There were many different ways to clean the
spray gun depending on the car body repair shop.
Usually the spray gun is cleaned with water and later
the parts that still remain dirty are rubbed with paper,
a rag or a brush, using water or an alternative
cleaning solution (Fig. 3). The mean sampling time
was 3.69 min.
During the painting process, workers wore
commonly available overalls, which included a range
of designs and construction materials. For the filling
and spraying scenarios, the work was often carried
out with bare hands, although sometimes in the
cleaning scenario protection, such as latex or nitrile
gloves, was used.

Fig. 2. Spraying paint.

Sampling
Potential dermal exposure of the body was measured using the patch sampling method described in
the OECD guidance for pesticide studies (OECD,
1997), adapted to our particular case. In previous
studies, the patch method has been validated for
pesticide spray applications, which are similar to
this car spraying scenario (Tannahill et al., 1996;
Delgado et al., 2000). The patches were cut from
white 100% cotton hooded overalls supplied by
Quivira SL (Spain).
The workers wore unwashed overalls with hoods.
Once sampling was finished, the overalls were
removed and allowed to dry if necessary. They were
stored at ambient temperature in clearly labelled individual plastic bags. Afterwards the patches (10 10
cm) were cut out of the overall in the laboratory. The
following patches were cut: head; back; chest; upper
arm (left); upper arm (right); forearm (left); forearm
(right); upper leg (left); upper leg (right); lower leg
(left); lower leg (right).
During filling of the spray gun only the workers
hands were found to be exposed and therefore no

Fig. 3. Cleaning the spray gun.

Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on November 16, 2015

frequent number of spraying operations done was

three (37% of cases), but varied from two to five
times. The mean sampling time was 16.0 min, which
is the actual time that spraying was taking place, and
excludes any time for refilling, etc. The amount of
product handled most frequently varied between 1
and 1.5 kg (33% of cases). The rate at which paint
was used in the spraying scenario ranged from 31.6 to
148 g/min, with a median of 87.9 g/min.
For the study of the scenario, cleaning the spray
gun, 18 different car body repair shops were visited,
four of which were large enterprises and 14 were
SMEs. In the work area the temperature in 50% of
cases ranged from 15 to 20C. This scenario took
place outside the painting booth, where there was no
ventilation in the majority of cases (77%). A general

232

P. Delgado et al.

of them so that the whole glove residue was in the

same beaker. This solution was transferred quantitatively to a 25 ml volumetric flask.
A known amount of paint was treated with the
same mix of acids in order to determine the content of
aluminium in the paint.
All samples were analysed with an atomic absorption spectrometer using the nitrous oxideacetylene
flame technique.
The limit of detection (LOD) and the limit of quantification (LOQ) were determined on the basis of a set
of blank samples at average blank signal plus three
and ten times the standard deviation, respectively.
For patch samples, nine blank samples were used,
with the LOD and LOQ being 6 and 20 g Al, respectively. The LOD and LOQ for glove samples were 42
and 140 g Al, respectively, using five blank samples
for their estimation.
The recovery tested with different amounts of paint
(2504000 g Al for patches and 5001000 g Al for
gloves) was >95% in both cases. The stability study
shows that the aluminium was stable for a minimum
of 7 days.

Analysis
A method for the determination of aluminium in
water-based car paints and cotton patches and gloves
containing car paint has been developed and validated. In this case aluminium is used as a tracer to estimate the potential exposure to aluminium-containing
paints in car body repair shops.
Each patch was transferred to an individual,
labelled, 100 ml beaker containing 50 ml of nitric
acid. Each beaker was then heated on a hotplate with
a surface temperature of 140C for 20 min. Then
5 ml of perchloric acid were carefully added, maintaining the temperature of the hotplate and heating
until 1 ml of acid remained. Each solution was
transferred quantitatively to a 10 ml volumetric flask.
The gloves were dissolved following the same
procedure as used for the patches. However, each
glove was cut into four pieces of similar size,
dissolving each glove section separately. Once dissolution had been completed, the beakers were removed
from the hotplate and the residues in the four beakers
corresponding to the same glove were mixed in one

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Questionnaire
The information about the scenarios was recorded
in a questionnaire, which was developed as a subset
of the work part 1 questionnaire of the RISKOFDERM project. A trained occupational hygienist
interviewed and observed the workers and gathered
relevant facts on the worker, the process, the product
handled, the environment, the engineering control
and the type and frequency of skin contacts (Hebisch
and Auffarth, 2001; RISKOFDERM, 2001, 2002).

Potential dermal exposure was measured during

filling the spray gun, paint spraying and cleaning the
spray gun. The exposure measurements are presented
as g/cm2/min, referring to formulation (paint) and to
analyte (aluminium) for each scenario separately, in
Tables 1, 2 and 3. These values have been calculated
from the concentrations of the solutions derived from
the patches and gloves. The presentation of results
referring to the formulation are not intended to imply
that the actual amount of paint on the patches or
gloves is as presented. This is merely done to facilitate extrapolation of these results to other nonvolatiles in paint. The true composition of the
contamination on the worker is unknown and cannot
be used to calculate the real paint exposure.
However, calculation into total paint or formulation from aluminium allows further calculation from
aluminium into other non-volatile components as
long as the fraction of the non-volatile components in
the paint is known, because the behaviour of nonvolatile components is considered to be similar. To

Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on November 16, 2015

patches were analysed. With the overalls used during

cleaning of the spray gun, the patches on the head and
back were not analysed because these parts of the
body were found not to be exposed to possible
splashes. These two assumptions were confirmed by
analysing all the patches during the initial assessment
of two workers.
Potential hand exposure was measured using
sampling gloves according to the procedure
described in the OECD guidance (OECD, 1997).
Sampling gloves used were white 100% cotton from
Delta Plus (COB40; Glover Tech, France). The
workers washed their hands to avoid any cross
contamination before donning the unwashed cotton
gloves. When necessary, impervious gloves were
also worn under the cotton ones.
It is usually necessary to do several fillings of the
reservoir of the spray gun to complete the painting
process; one pair of gloves was used for all the filling
activities. A second pair of gloves was used for all
spraying operations. The number of times that each
scenario was carried out was recorded together with
the total time taken for each individual scenario.
Once the sampling was finished, the gloves were
removed from the hand by turning them inside out
and were kept in clearly labelled individual plastic
bags.
A bulk sample of the final paint formulation was
collected in order to determine the content of
aluminium in the paint. The viscosity/stickiness of
the paint made it necessary to measure the spiked
amounts using a gravimetric method, i.e. by mass
rather than volume. Due to the difficulty in doing this
in the workplace the recovery studies were carried
out in the laboratory.

Potential dermal exposure during car body painting

233

Table 1. Potential dermal exposure expressed as g/cm2/min during filling of the spray gun
Median
Body (330 samples,
330 ND)

Paint
(i)
equivalent
Analyte

Hands (60 samples,

6 ND)

AM

SD

GM

(ii)

0.43

0.70

0.61

0.54

(i)

(ii)

0.012

0.018

0.019

Range

75th
percentile

95th
percentile

0.182.47

0.85

2.45

0.014 1.90

0.0050.091

0.016

0589

63.1

499

0.68589

63.1

499

Paint
(i)
equivalent

18.8

76.2

140

(ii)

18.8

76.3

140

24.4

Analyte

GSD

(i)

0.49

2.02

3.71

(ii)

0.49

2.03

3.71

0.62

2.00

4.58
4.67

0.074

013.4

1.14

12.8

0.02113.4

1.14

12.8

(i) Data when not detected (ND) set to 0; (ii) data when not detected (ND) set to LOD. AM, arithmetic mean; SD, standard
deviation; GM, geometric mean; GSD, geometric standard deviation.

Body (330 samples,

51 ND)

Median AM

SD

GM

GSD

Range

75th
percentile

95th
percentile

Paint
(i)
equivalent

0.91

1.20

1.08

0.83

2.45

0.164.34

1.53

3.85

(ii)

0.92

1.21

1.07

0.86

2.34

0.204.35

1.53

3.86

(i)

0.021

0.031

0.029

0.021

2.45

0.0030.12

0.037

0.11

(ii)

0.021

0.031

0.029

0.022

2.34

0.0040.12

0.037

0.11

Paint
(i)
equivalent

3.22

3.98

3.43

2.63

2.74

0.4013.4

5.94

12.7

(ii)

3.22

3.99

3.43

2.66

2.69

0.4013.4

5.94

12.7

(i)

0.068

0.10

0.12

0.067

2.50

0.010.59

0.12

0.47

(ii)

0.068

0.10

0.12

0.068

2.46

0.0150.59

0.12

0.47

Analyte
Hands (60 samples,
3 ND)

Analyte

(i) Data when not detected (ND) set to 0; (ii) data when not detected (ND) set to LOD. AM, arithmetic mean; SD, standard
deviation; GM, geometric mean; GSD, geometric standard deviation.
Table 3. Potential dermal exposure expressed as g/cm2/min during cleaning of the spray gun
Median
Body (330 samples,
188 ND)

SD

GM

Paint
(i)
equivalent

0.44

0.70

0.74

(ii)

0.76

1.09

0.80

0.82

(i)

0.011

0.019

0.024

(ii)

0.017

0.028

0.025

Analyte
Hands (60 samples,
8 ND)

AM

Range

75th
percentile

95th
percentile

02.57

1.14

2.47

0.162.90

1.69

2.86

00.11

0.027

0.082

0.021 2.13

0.0050.13

0.044

0213

46.8

161

0.44213

46.8

161

Paint
(i)
equivalent

18.7

37.0

47.2

(ii)

18.7

37.2

47.1

16.7

Analyte

GSD

(i)

0.44

0.82

0.99

(ii)

0.44

0.83

0.99

0.42

2.26

4.26
3.67

0.095

04.10

1.07

3.89

0.0174.10

1.08

3.89

(i) Data when not detected (ND) set to 0; (ii) data when not detected (ND) set to LOD. AM, arithmetic mean; SD, standard
deviation; GM, geometric mean; GSD, geometric standard deviation.

clarify this, we present results in terms of paint

equivalent.
The concentration of aluminium in the paint was
similar in the three scenarios, with an arithmetic
mean of 2.67% for the filling, 2.72% for the spraying
and 2.68% for the cleaning.

The body region areas published by the US EPA

(1997) and then adapted in the OECD guidance
(OECD, 1997) were used in calculations. The total
body area excluding hands was 18720 cm2 and the
area of each hand was 410 cm2. Additionally, these
data have taken into account the sampling time, the

Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on November 16, 2015

Table 2. Potential dermal exposure expressed as g/cm2/min during spraying of paint

234

P. Delgado et al.

Filling the spray gun

During filling of the spray gun, the hands were
found to be the only region of the body to be exposed.
No contamination of the overalls was found in the
initial assessments and the potential dermal exposure
values of the body areas excluding hands corres-

ponded exclusively to results <LOD. The potential

dermal exposure expressed as g/cm2/min, in terms of
paint equivalent and analyte, are included in Table 1.
For this scenario the data indicate that potential
dermal exposure of the hands is greater than for the
other scenarios and is also more variable, ranging
from 0.68 to 589 g/cm2/min paint equivalent. This is
probably because each individual may have a
different preferred method of filling the spray gun.
This agrees with the results obtained with the
analysis of variance for hand exposure, which shows
that the total variance (TS2y) was 5.59 and that the
between-worker component (BS2y) is highly dominant, forming 91% (P < 0.01).
The high results found in this scenario, with a mean
of 76.3 g/cm2/min paint equivalent for potential
hand exposure, may be due to contact with heavily
contaminated surfaces (e.g. paper filter, ruler, etc.)
during the filling process.
Potential hand exposure for a single filling event
ranged from 0.33 to 279 g/cm2 paint equivalent
(0.68589 g/cm2/min), with a median of 12.5 g/cm2
paint equivalent (18.8 g/cm2/min).
Spraying
During paint spraying, the potential exposure of
the hands is lower than for the other scenarios,
mainly due to the fact that the process is carried out
inside a booth with a local exhaust system. The
potential dermal exposure expressed as mg/min for
the body is greater than potential hand exposure
(arithmetic means of 22.7 and 3.27 mg/min paint
equivalent, respectively), which is in contrast to the
other scenarios studied. However, when expressed as
mass per cm2 (Table 2), the potential dermal
exposure of the hands is greater than the potential
exposure of the body (arithmetic means of 3.99 and
1.21 g/cm2/min paint equivalent, respectively). The
levels of potential exposure of the hands and the body
ranged from 0.20 to 4.35 g/cm2/min paint equivalent for the body and 0.40 to 13.4 g/cm2/min for the
hands.
Figure 4 shows that the exposure is greater on the
lower part of the body, due to the direction of air
movement, which was from top to bottom inside the
booth.
The total variances of the body and hand exposures
(TS2y) were 1.82 and 1.28, respectively. The results
obtained with ANOVA for this scenario only showed
that the within-worker component (WS2y) is dominant
for hand exposure, forming 70% (P < 0.01).
For a single spraying event, potential hand
exposure varied between 1.33 and 64.9 g/cm2 paint
equivalent (0.4013.4 g/cm2/min), with a median of
12.9 g/cm2 paint equivalent (3.22 g/cm2/min).

Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on November 16, 2015

aluminium concentration of the paint used and the

analytical recovery. The mean number of times that
each assessed scenario was carried out was two per
shift.
The data are presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3 with the
results LOD included as their measured values and
the results <LOD taken as LOD or 0, depending on
how the results were to be calculated. In these tables
exposure levels marked as (i) refer to data when
<LOD values were taken as 0 and those marked as
(ii) refer to data when <LOD values were assigned a
value of LOD. This allowed the assumption of
LOD to be examined for its influence on the results.
Some patch samples were not analysed during assessment of the scenarios for filling (no patch analysed)
and cleaning the spray gun (two patches not
analysed), because it was demonstrated in two initial
assessments that all the corresponding results were
lower than the LOD. However, these patch samples
were treated as patches whose results were <LOD,
i.e. including them as LOD or 0. In the text of this
paper, results are calculated as LOD if <LOD and
as the measured value if LOD.
From a total of 990 outer patch samples, 569 were
not detected (ND), i.e. <LOD; most of these were
during the filling and cleaning scenarios, while the
spraying data set contained only 51 ND values. In the
case of the gloves (180 samples), 17 were ND, being
distributed among the three scenarios.
The application of LOD values (instead of 0) to
<LOD values to determine the potential dermal
exposure (Tables 1, 2 and 3) did not cause important
changes to the arithmetic mean values of the total
exposure to paint equivalent for the spraying scenario
(1.5% lower when 0 values used for LOD). However,
in the cases of the filling and cleaning scenarios,
greater differences were observed, with arithmetic
mean values for total exposure reduced by 17.5 and
14.6%, respectively, when 0 was used instead of
LOD for the ND results. This is consistent with the
changes in median and 75th percentile values in these
last two scenarios.
Within- and between-worker variances were estimated with analysis-of-variance (ANOVA) from logtransformed exposure values. The procedure has
been used by Kromhout et al. (1993) for the evaluation of these components in the case of occupational
exposure to chemical agents. The results of the
ANOVA are described for each scenario separately.

Potential dermal exposure during car body painting

235

Cleaning the spray gun

The main body regions exposed during cleaning of
the spray gun are the hands, though there might be
splashes to other parts of the body.
Two initial assessments were done to confirm the
assumption that the head and the back of the body are
not exposed to the paint. Therefore, the patches on
the head and back did not need to be analysed. In the
same way, the results corresponding to the legs were
weighted to represent half of the standard surface
area of this body location as ND, since the splashes
were found to only occur on the front of the legs,
which is where the patches were placed.
The dermal exposure expressed as g/cm2/min, in
terms of paint equivalent and analyte, are included in
Table 3.
The potential dermal exposure of the hands during
cleaning of the spray gun is greater than exposure of
the rest of the body (arithmetic means of 37.2 and
1.09 g/cm2/min paint equivalent, respectively). The
potential dermal exposure values for the hands
tended to be between those for the others scenarios
and ranged from 0.44 to 213 g/cm2/min paint
equivalent.
Figure 4 shows that the lower part of the body was
the principal exposed area in this scenario, due to the

proximity of paint and the downward orientation of

the spray gun.
The total variances of the body and hand exposures
(TS2y) were 1.55 and 2.78, respectively. The dominant
component for hand exposure was within-worker
(WS2y), forming 63%. Since exposure of the body is
caused by splashes of paint, exposure depends on
each individuals particular preferred method of
cleaning the spray gun. This was confirmed with the
ANOVA for body exposure, the results of which
show that the between-worker component (BS2y)
dominated, forming 60%.
AcknowledgementsThe authors wish to thank all car body
repair shops and their employees for their participation in the
study. We also wish to thank Juan Viguera, Rosario Jimnez,
Francisco Lissn and Arantxa Arvalo for their assistance in
analysis of the samples and the occupational hygienists of five
Spanish Autonomous Regions that took part in the field study
sampling. We wish to acknowledge the financial support of the
European Commission for this work (RISKOFDERM project,
QLK4-CT-1999-01107).

REFERENCES
Delgado P, Nocete FJ, Arechabala M, Castro S, Glass CR.
(2000) Comparison of potential dermal exposure during
olive tree treatment with dimethoate using patch and whole
body methods. In Mondelo PR, Mattila M, Karwowski W,

Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on November 16, 2015

Fig. 4. Box and whisker plot displaying only real data (i.e. LOD) of potential dermal exposure to paint equivalent for regions of
the body during spraying of paint and cleaning the spray gun.

236

P. Delgado et al.
application, OECD Series on Testing and Assessment no. 9,
OECD/GD (97)/148. Paris: OECD.
RISKOFDERM. (2001) First year report. Obtainable from J.J.
van Hemmen, TNO, PO Box 360, Zeist, The Netherlands.
RISKOFDERM. (2002) Second year report. Obtainable from
J.J. van Hemmen, TNO, PO Box 360, Zeist, The Netherlands.
Tannahill SN, Robertson A, Cherrie B, Donnan P, MacConnell
WLA, Macleod GJ. (1996) A comparison of two different
methods for assessment of dermal exposure to non-agricultural pesticides in three sectors, IOM report TM 96/107.
Edinburgh, UK: Institute of Occupational Medicine.
US EPA. (1997) Exposure factors handbook, Vol. I. General
factors, EPA/600/P-95/002Fa. Washington, DC: National
Centre for Environmental Assessment.
van Hemmen JJ. (2002) Risk assessment of dermal exposure to
industrial chemicals. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Occupational and Environmental Exposures
of Skin to Chemicals: Science and Policy, Arlington, 811
September. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/
topics/skin/conference/s3p4.html.
Vincent R, Cicolella A, Subra I, Rieger B, Poirot P, Pierre F.
(1993) Occupational exposure to 2-butoxyethanol for workers using window cleaning agents. Appl Occup Environ
Hyg; 8: 5806.

Downloaded from http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on November 16, 2015

editors. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on

Occupational Risk Prevention, Tenerife, 235 February
2000, Universitat Politcnica de Catalunya. ISBN 84 699
1249 9.
Garrod ANI, Guiver R, Rimmer DA. (2000) Potential exposure
of amateurs (consumers) through painting wood preservative
and antifoulant preparations. Ann Occup Hyg; 44: 4216.
Hebisch R, Auffarth J. (2001) Dermal exposure: how to get
information. Appl Occup Environ Hyg; 16: 16973.
INSHT. (1991) Occupational risks in car repair shops. Madrid:
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Hygiene.
Jayjock MA, Levin L. (1984) Health hazards in small automotive body repair shop. Ann Occup Hyg; 28: 1929.
Kezic S, Mohammadi N, Jakasa I, Kruse J, Monster AC,
Verberk M. (2002) Percutaneous absorption of neat and
water solutions of 2-butoxyethanol in man. In Proceedings
of the International Conference on Occupational and
Environmental Exposures of Skin to Chemicals: Science and
Policy, Arlington, 811 September. Available from:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/skin/conference/s2p13.html.
Kromhout H, Symanski E, Rappaport SM. (1993) A comprehensive evaluation of within- and between-worker components of occupational exposure to chemical agents. Ann
Occup Hyg; 37: 25370.
OECD. (1997) Guidance document for the conduct of studies
of occupational exposure to pesticides during agricultural