CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 59Toxic Organic Pollutants ImpactOccupational Health and Safety in WorkplacesOccupational Health and Performance

Dermal Exposure and Urinary 1-Hydroxypyrene among Asphalt Roofing Workers

McClean, M. D., Rinehart, R. D., Sapkota, A., Cavallari, J. M., Herrick, R. F.·2007·Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
DOI 10.1080/15459620701334756
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The primary objective of this study was to identify significant determinants of dermal exposure to polycyclic aromatic compounds (PACs) among asphalt roofing workers and use urinary 1-hydroxyprene (1-OHP) measurements to evaluate the effect of dermal exposure on total absorbed dose. The study population included 26 asphalt roofing workers who performed three primary tasks: tearing off old roofs (tear-off), putting down new roofs (put-down), and operating the kettle at ground level (kettle). During multiple consecutive work shifts (90 workerdays), dermal patch samples were collected from the underside of each worker's wrists and were analyzed for PACs, pyrene, and benzo(a)pyrene (BAP). During the same work week, urine samples were collected at pre-shift, post-shift, and bedtime each day and were analyzed for 1-OHP (205 urine samples). Linear mixed effects models were used to evaluate the dermal measurements for the purpose of identifying important determinants of exposure, and to evaluate urinary 1-OHP measurements for the purpose of identifying important determinants of total absorbed dose. Dermal exposures to PAC, pyrene, and BAP were found to vary significantly by roofing task (tear-off > put-down > kettle) and by the presence of an old coal tar pitch roof (pitch > no pitch). For each of the three analytes, the adjusted mean dermal exposures associated with tear-off (812 ng PAC/cm2, 14.9 ng pyrene/cm2, 4.5 ng BAP/cm2) were approximately four times higher than exposures associated with operating the kettle (181 ng PAC/cm2, 4.1 ng pyrene/cm2, 1.1 ng BAP/cm2). Exposure to coal tar pitch was associated with a 6-fold increase in PAC exposure (p = 0.0005), an 8-fold increase in pyrene exposure (p < 0.0001), and a 35-fold increase in BAP exposure (p < 0.0001). Similarly, urinary 1-OHP levels were found to be significantly higher on days when an old pitch roof was removed, accounting for a 3.7-fold difference at pre-shift (p = 0.01), a 5.0-fold difference at post-shift (p = 0.004), and a 7.2-fold difference at bedtime (p = 0.002). The pyrene measurements obtained during the work shift were found to be strongly correlated with urinary 1-OHP measurements obtained at the end of that shift (r = 0.8, p < 0.001) as well as at bedtime (r = 0.7, p < 0.001). Ultimately, the results of a distributed lag model indicated that dermal exposure during the preceding 40 hours had a statistically significant effect on urinary 1-OHP. The presence of coal tar pitch was the primary determinant of dermal exposure, particularly for exposure to BAP. However, the task-based differences that were observed while controlling for pitch suggest that exposure to asphalt also contributes to dermal exposures. We found that dermal exposure was a significant determinant of total absorbed dose, suggesting that control strategies aimed at reducing occupational exposure to PACs should include an effort to minimize dermal exposure.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15459620701334756

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Dermal uptake is a direct route of pollutant contamination.

    “These studies all indicate that dermal uptake is a direct route of pollutant contamination (Fig. 1).”

    From The impact of airborne pollution on skin (2019) · cites this paper as [21]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
McClean, M. D., Rinehart, R. D., Sapkota, A., Cavallari, J. M., & Herrick, R. F.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • Occupational Safety & Health Administration (US)
  • Centre international de recherche sur le cancer (FR)
  • Harvard University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2007-05-16
Volume
4
Issue
sup1
Pages
118-126
ISSN
  • 1545-9624 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-9632
DOI
10.1080/15459620701334756
OpenAlex
W2046918720
Cited by
59
References
19
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 6
FWCI
3.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (1 R01 CA 74413-01, R01CA074413)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Toxic Organic Pollutants Impact
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Performance
Keywords
dermal exposure, polycyclic aromatic compounds, urinary 1-hydroxypyrene, benzo[a]pyrene, pyrene, coal tar pitch, occupational exposure, exposure determinants, urinary biomarkers, occupational health risk assessment, personal protective equipment
MeSH terms
Air Pollutants, Occupational, Coal Tar, Construction Materials, Facility Design and Construction, Humans, Hydrocarbons, Male, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Pyrenes, Skin Absorption, Tobacco Smoke Pollution, Occupational Exposure

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review