Affiliations 

  • 1 Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM), Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Electronic address: will.mueller@iom-world.org
  • 2 Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Buxton, United Kingdom
  • 3 Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences (IRAS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
  • 4 Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Department Medical Education and Department Public Health Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, 88450 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia
  • 5 Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
  • 6 Uganda National Association of Community and Occupational Health (UNACOH), Kampala, Uganda
  • 7 Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM), Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Environ Res, 2024 Feb 01;242:117651.
PMID: 37996007 DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2023.117651

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Long-term exposure to pesticides is often assessed using semi-quantitative models. To improve these models, a better understanding of how occupational factors determine exposure (e.g., as estimated by biomonitoring) would be valuable.

METHODS: Urine samples were collected from pesticide applicators in Malaysia, Uganda, and the UK during mixing/application days (and also during non-application days in Uganda). Samples were collected pre- and post-activity on the same day and analysed for biomarkers of active ingredients (AIs), including synthetic pyrethroids (via the metabolite 3-phenoxybenzoic acid [3-PBA]) and glyphosate, as well as creatinine. We performed multilevel Tobit regression models for each study to assess the relationship between exposure modifying factors (e.g., mixing/application of AI, duration of activity, personal protective equipment [PPE]) and urinary biomarkers of exposure.

RESULTS: From the Malaysia, Uganda, and UK studies, 81, 84, and 106 study participants provided 162, 384 and 212 urine samples, respectively. Pyrethroid use on the sampling day was most common in Malaysia (n = 38; 47%), and glyphosate use was most prevalent in the UK (n = 93; 88%). Median pre- and post-activity 3-PBA concentrations were similar, with higher median concentrations post-compared to pre-activity for glyphosate samples in the UK (1.7 to 0.5 μg/L) and Uganda (7.6 to 0.8 μg/L) (glyphosate was not used in the Malaysia study). There was evidence from individual studies that higher urinary biomarker concentrations were associated with mixing/application of the AI on the day of urine sampling, longer duration of mixing/application, lower PPE protection, and less education/literacy, but no factor was consistently associated with exposure across biomarkers in the three studies.

CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a need for AI-specific interpretation of exposure modifying factors as the relevance of exposure routes, levels of detection, and farming systems/practices may be very context and AI-specific.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.