Limits...
Hand Self-Wiping Protocol for the Investigation of Lead Exposure in the Workplace.

Gorce JP, Roff M - J Occup Environ Hyg (2015)

Bottom Line: This article describes an effective and practical hand wiping procedure.However, lead levels recovered on the fourth pass remain significant at more than 10% of the total recovered loadings.Nonetheless, Protocol A was preferred and further evaluated at a lead battery manufacturing site where between 149 μg and 18,784 μg of lead was found on employees' hands.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: a Health and Safety Laboratory , Buxton , United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this project was to develop and validate a hand wiping protocol to be used by occupational hygienists, scientists, or other competent persons, measuring skin exposure to lead in workplaces. Inadvertent lead ingestion is likely to occur once the hands of employees have become contaminated. Ideally, a hand wiping protocol should maximize the recovery of lead-based residues present on employees' hands in a cost-effective and reproducible manner. This article describes an effective and practical hand wiping procedure. Here, two standardized protocols (A and B) are designed. Protocol A is a self-wiping protocol requiring employees to wipe their own hands using four separate and successive wipes. Protocol B involves a scientist wiping the hands of employees using four wipes, followed by employees self-wiping their hands using two wipes (total of six wipes). Both protocols are defined by four wipe passes over each hand using Ghost wipes. Because this study took place in the workplace rather than in a simulated laboratory environment, only the relative (i.e., not absolute) removal efficiencies of the hand wiping protocols have been assessed. The two protocols were first evaluated at a double glazing panel manufacturing site where between 248 μg and 4544 μg of lead was found on employees' hands. A statistical analysis (t-test) on the mean relative lead levels recovered in the first parts of the protocols indicated that Protocol A was more efficient than Protocol B (73% for Protocol A vs. 65% for Protocol B). The relative recovery of the combined first two passes against the combined first three passes also confirmed the greater efficiency of Protocol A (83.3% for Protocol A vs. 76.5% for Protocol B). However, lead levels recovered on the fourth pass remain significant at more than 10% of the total recovered loadings. Nonetheless, Protocol A was preferred and further evaluated at a lead battery manufacturing site where between 149 μg and 18,784 μg of lead was found on employees' hands.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Mean relative lead recovery for protocols A and B at a double glazing panel manufacturer: (a) results for individual pass and (b) results combined.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4566886&req=5

f0004: Mean relative lead recovery for protocols A and B at a double glazing panel manufacturer: (a) results for individual pass and (b) results combined.

Mentions: Figure 4a presents the same data using a bar chart. The numbers on the horizontal axis identify the wipes (i.e., wipe number) that have been collected. Wipes collected separately from the right and left hands following Protocol B are combined. The lead levels recovered on the fourth pass remain significant at more than 10% of the total recovered loadings.


Hand Self-Wiping Protocol for the Investigation of Lead Exposure in the Workplace.

Gorce JP, Roff M - J Occup Environ Hyg (2015)

Mean relative lead recovery for protocols A and B at a double glazing panel manufacturer: (a) results for individual pass and (b) results combined.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4566886&req=5

f0004: Mean relative lead recovery for protocols A and B at a double glazing panel manufacturer: (a) results for individual pass and (b) results combined.
Mentions: Figure 4a presents the same data using a bar chart. The numbers on the horizontal axis identify the wipes (i.e., wipe number) that have been collected. Wipes collected separately from the right and left hands following Protocol B are combined. The lead levels recovered on the fourth pass remain significant at more than 10% of the total recovered loadings.

Bottom Line: This article describes an effective and practical hand wiping procedure.However, lead levels recovered on the fourth pass remain significant at more than 10% of the total recovered loadings.Nonetheless, Protocol A was preferred and further evaluated at a lead battery manufacturing site where between 149 μg and 18,784 μg of lead was found on employees' hands.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: a Health and Safety Laboratory , Buxton , United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this project was to develop and validate a hand wiping protocol to be used by occupational hygienists, scientists, or other competent persons, measuring skin exposure to lead in workplaces. Inadvertent lead ingestion is likely to occur once the hands of employees have become contaminated. Ideally, a hand wiping protocol should maximize the recovery of lead-based residues present on employees' hands in a cost-effective and reproducible manner. This article describes an effective and practical hand wiping procedure. Here, two standardized protocols (A and B) are designed. Protocol A is a self-wiping protocol requiring employees to wipe their own hands using four separate and successive wipes. Protocol B involves a scientist wiping the hands of employees using four wipes, followed by employees self-wiping their hands using two wipes (total of six wipes). Both protocols are defined by four wipe passes over each hand using Ghost wipes. Because this study took place in the workplace rather than in a simulated laboratory environment, only the relative (i.e., not absolute) removal efficiencies of the hand wiping protocols have been assessed. The two protocols were first evaluated at a double glazing panel manufacturing site where between 248 μg and 4544 μg of lead was found on employees' hands. A statistical analysis (t-test) on the mean relative lead levels recovered in the first parts of the protocols indicated that Protocol A was more efficient than Protocol B (73% for Protocol A vs. 65% for Protocol B). The relative recovery of the combined first two passes against the combined first three passes also confirmed the greater efficiency of Protocol A (83.3% for Protocol A vs. 76.5% for Protocol B). However, lead levels recovered on the fourth pass remain significant at more than 10% of the total recovered loadings. Nonetheless, Protocol A was preferred and further evaluated at a lead battery manufacturing site where between 149 μg and 18,784 μg of lead was found on employees' hands.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus