The 130th Annual Meeting of APHA

Abstract #43696

Greg Sirianni, MS, Industrial Hygiene, Jonathan Borak & Company INC., 234 Church Street, Suite 1100, New Haven, CT 06510, (203) 777-6611, gsirianni@jborak.com, Susan M. Chemerynski, MPH, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University, 60 College St., New Haven, CT 06520-8034, Howard J Cohen, PhD, CIH, University of New Haven, West Haven, CT, 300 Orange Avenue, West Haven, CT 06516, Jonathan B Borak, MD, DABT, School of Medicine, Yale University, 234 Church ST, Suite 1100, New Haven, CT 06510, and Frans Jongeneelen, IndusTox Consult, Toernooiveld 100, NL-6525 EC, Nijmegen, Netherlands.

Traditional methods of exposure assessment for creosote-exposed wood preservation workers (WPW) have been based on gravimetric measurement of the benzene-soluble fraction (BSF) of breathing zone particulates. This approach assumes that inhalation is the dominant route of exposure and that BSF meaningfully reflects exposure of the relevant toxicants, notably polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). We compared and correlated measures of inhalation exposure (BSF and specific PAHs) and biomarker-related measures of systemically absorbed creosote components at two similar facilities. Subjects included 24 WPW at site 1 and 34 WPW at site 2. Full-shift inhalation exposure was assessed by OSHA Method #58 (particulate collection on Teflon filters, extraction with benzene and weighing, followed by HPLC for 16 PAHs). Gaseous PAHs were collected by ORBO 43 adsorbent tubes placed behind the Teflon filters and analyzed by HPLC for 16 PAHs. Urinary 1-hydroxypyrene (1-OHP), a biomarker of pyrene exposure, was measured by the method of Jongeneelen. At both sites, results of air sampling indicated lack of association between workers’ BSF samples and urinary 1-OHP [Site 1: r2=0.006; Site 2: r2=0.051]. Slightly better correlation was seen between sorbent tube pyrene results and 1-OHP levels [Site 1: r2=0.268; Site 2: r2=0.035]. Toxicokinetic modeling showed that 90-99% of doses could be attributed to dermal, not inhalation uptake. These findings indicate that traditional methods of exposure assessment do not accurately characterize creosote exposure in WPW. The implications of these findings are relevant to current OSHA regulations, ambient monitoring and public health concerns.

Learning Objectives:

• Dermal Exposure, not inhalation, is the dominant route of exposure for creosote exposed workers.
• Recognize the current OSHA methods for exposure assessment, along with ambient monitoring of public areas, are of very limited value in characterizing and controlling exposures to creosote.
• Available methods of biological monitoring will give an accurate depiction of exposure, as well as, a cost effective means of monitoring and controlling exposure to creosote.

Keywords: Occupational Exposure, Public Health

Presenting author's disclosure statement:
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.