OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess workers' lifetime occupational pesticide exposure and examine the relationship with neurobehavioral health.

METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 158 pesticide-exposed and 176 non-exposed workers. To collect historical exposure and job tasks, a questionnaire and an occupational history interview were used. Pesticide exposure was measured in a subgroup of workers via inhalation and skin contact. The total pesticide intake of each worker was assessed using inhalation and dermal exposure models. CANTAB® computerised neurobehavioral performance assessments were used.

RESULTS: The participants' mean age was 31 (8) years. Pirimiphos-methyl (median = 0.569 mg/m3, Interquartile range [IQR] = 0.151, 0.574) and permethrin (median = 0.136 mg/m3, IQR = 0.116, 0.157) had the highest measured personal inhalation concentrations during thermal spraying. The estimated total lifetime pesticide intake for exposed workers ranged from 0.006 g to 12800 g (median = 379 g and IQR = 131, 794 g). Dermal exposure was the predominant route of pesticide intake for all workers. Compared to controls, workers with high lifetime pesticide intake had lower Match to Sample Visual (adjusted B = -1.4, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = -2.6, 0.1), Spatial Recognition Memory (adjusted B = -3.3, 95% CI = -5.8, 0.8), Spatial Span (SSP) (adjusted B = -0.6, 95% CI = -0.9, 0.3) scores. Workers with low pesticide intake performed worse than controls (adjusted B = -0.5, 95% CI = -0.8, -0.2) in the SSP test, but scored higher in the Motor Screening test (adjusted B = 0.9, 95% CI = 0.1, 1.6). Higher Paired Associates Learning test scores were observed among higher (adjusted B = 7.4, 95% CI = 2.3, 12.4) and lower (adjusted B = 8.1, 95% CI = 3, 13.2) pesticide intake groups. There was no significant difference between the Reaction Time and Pattern Recognition Memory tests with lifetime pesticide intake after adjusting for confounders.

OBJECTIVE: The Improving Exposure Assessment Methodologies for Epidemiological Studies on Pesticides (IMPRESS) project aims to assess the reliability and external validity of the surrogate measures used to assign exposure within individuals or groups of individuals, which are frequently based on self-reported data on exposure determinants. IMPRESS will also evaluate the size of recall bias on the misclassification of exposure to pesticides; this in turn will affect epidemiological estimates of the effect of pesticides on human health.

METHODS: The IMPRESS project will recruit existing cohort participants from previous and ongoing research studies primarily of epidemiological origin from Malaysia, Uganda, and the United Kingdom. Consenting participants of each cohort will be reinterviewed using an amended version of the original questionnaire addressing pesticide use characteristics administered to that cohort. The format and relevant questions will be retained but some extraneous questions from the original (eg, relating to health) will be excluded for ethical and practical reasons. The reliability of pesticide exposure recall over different time periods (<2 years, 6-12 years, and >15 years) will then be evaluated. Where the original cohort study is still ongoing, participants will also be asked if they wish to take part in a new exposure biomonitoring survey, which involves them providing urine samples for pesticide metabolite analysis and completing questionnaire information regarding their work activities at the time of sampling. The participant's level of exposure to pesticides will be determined by analyzing the collected urine samples for selected pesticide metabolites. The biomonitoring measurement results will be used to assess the performance of algorithm-based exposure assessment methods used in epidemiological studies to estimate individual exposures during application and re-entry work.

RESULTS: The project was funded in September 2017. Enrollment and sample collection was completed for Malaysia in 2019 and is on-going for Uganda and the United Kingdom. Sample and data analysis will proceed in 2020 and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in 2021.

CONCLUSIONS: The study will evaluate the consistency of questionnaire data and accuracy of current algorithms in assessing pesticide exposures. It will indicate where amendments can be made to better capture exposure data for future epidemiology studies and thus improve the reliability of exposure-disease associations.