Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/27556
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGorman Ng, Melanieen_UK
dc.contributor.authorde Poot, Stanen_UK
dc.contributor.authorSchmid, Kasparen_UK
dc.contributor.authorCowie, Hilaryen_UK
dc.contributor.authorSemple, Seanen_UK
dc.contributor.authorvan Tongeren, Martieen_UK
dc.date.accessioned2018-07-25T00:05:08Z-
dc.date.available2018-07-25T00:05:08Z-
dc.date.issued2014-01-01en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/27556-
dc.description.abstractSeveral methods exist to estimate dermal exposure and it is unclear how comparable they are. These methods fall into three main categories: (i) removal techniques (such as wiping or rinsing); (ii) interception techniques (such as gloves, patches, or coveralls); and (iii) fluorescent tracer techniques. Controlled experiments were conducted to compare two removal methods for exposure to particulate, and a removal method with an interception method for exposure to liquids. Volunteers' hands were exposed to three liquid solutions (glycerol-water solutions of different concentrations) and three particulates (Epsom salts, calcium acetate and zinc oxide) in simulated exposure scenarios. Both hands were exposed and a different sampling method was used on each to allow comparison of methods. Cotton glove samplers and a cotton wipe sampling method were compared for exposure to liquids. For exposure to powders a cotton wipe sampling method was compared to rinsing the hands in deionised water. Wipe and rinse methods generally yielded similar results for Epsom salts and zinc oxide (geometric mean [GM] ratios of wipe-to-rinse measurements of 0.6 and 1.4, respectively) but they did not for calcium acetate (GM wipe-to-rinse ratio of 4.6). For glycerol solutions measurements from the glove samplers were consistently higher than wipe samples. At lower levels of exposure the relative difference between the two methods was greater than at higher levels. At a hand loading level of 24000 μg cm-2 (as measured by wiping) the glove-to-wipe ratio was 1.4 and at a hand loading of 0.09 μg cm-2 the ratio was 42.0. Wipe and rinse methods may be directly comparable but the relationship between glove and wipe sampling methods appears to be complex. Further research is necessary to enable conversion of exposure measurements from one metric to another, so as to facilitate more reliable risk assessment. © 2014 The Royal Society of Chemistry.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherThe Royal Society of Chemistryen_UK
dc.relationGorman Ng M, de Poot S, Schmid K, Cowie H, Semple S & van Tongeren M (2014) A preliminary comparison of three dermal exposure sampling methods: rinses, wipes and cotton gloves. Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts, 16 (1), pp. 141-147. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3em00511aen_UK
dc.rightsThe publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.en_UK
dc.rights.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/under-embargo-all-rights-reserveden_UK
dc.titleA preliminary comparison of three dermal exposure sampling methods: rinses, wipes and cotton glovesen_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.rights.embargodate2999-12-31en_UK
dc.rights.embargoreason[Gorman Ng et al.pdf] The publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository therefore there is an embargo on the full text of the work.en_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1039/c3em00511aen_UK
dc.identifier.pmid24281007en_UK
dc.citation.jtitleEnvironmental Science: Processes and Impactsen_UK
dc.citation.issn2050-7895en_UK
dc.citation.issn2050-7887en_UK
dc.citation.volume16en_UK
dc.citation.issue1en_UK
dc.citation.spage141en_UK
dc.citation.epage147en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusVoR - Version of Recorden_UK
dc.author.emailsean.semple@stir.ac.uken_UK
dc.citation.date15/11/2013en_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationInstitute of Occupational Medicineen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationInstitute of Occupational Medicineen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationInstitute of Occupational Medicineen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationInstitute of Occupational Medicineen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationInstitute for Social Marketingen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Aberdeenen_UK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000328887700014en_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-84890892967en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid897338en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0002-0462-7295en_UK
dc.date.accepted2013-11-15en_UK
dcterms.dateAccepted2013-11-15en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2018-07-06en_UK
rioxxterms.apcnot requireden_UK
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_UK
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_UK
local.rioxx.authorGorman Ng, Melanie|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorde Poot, Stan|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorSchmid, Kaspar|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorCowie, Hilary|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorSemple, Sean|0000-0002-0462-7295en_UK
local.rioxx.authorvan Tongeren, Martie|en_UK
local.rioxx.projectInternal Project|University of Stirling|https://isni.org/isni/0000000122484331en_UK
local.rioxx.freetoreaddate2263-10-16en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/under-embargo-all-rights-reserved||en_UK
local.rioxx.filenameGorman Ng et al.pdfen_UK
local.rioxx.filecount1en_UK
local.rioxx.source2050-7887en_UK
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Gorman Ng et al.pdfFulltext - Published Version195.2 kBAdobe PDFUnder Permanent Embargo    Request a copy


This item is protected by original copyright



Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.