Exposure of amateur gardeners to pesticides via the non-gloved skin per day.

To predict a risk to gardeners not wearing protective gloves, the dermal absorption of three active insecticides was assessed in vitro using porcine ear-skin simulating 1-h handling of diluted plant protection products. Acetamiprid and Pirimicarb were found in the receptor fluid immediately after 1-h skin exposure, whereas Chlorpyrifos-methyl absorbed in the skin was not released into the receptor fluid even after 23 hours. The Estimated Gardener Exposure Level (EGEL) at 23 hours after 1-h exposure for two worst-case scenarios (i) non-gloved hands; (ii) non-gloved hands/uncovered forearms, was (i) 0.002, 0.042, and 0.057; (ii) 0.006, 0.101, and 0.135 mg/kg bw/day for Acetamiprid, Pirimicarb, and Chlorpyrifos-methyl, respectively, although the systemically available Chlorpyrifos-methyl amount, due to retention in the skin, is probably lower than determined. The Gardener Exposure Risk (GER), as a ratio of Acceptable Operator Exposure Level (databased values) to EGEL, for Acetamiprid was (i) 35 and 12-fold higher than the limit 1, so the risk via the skin is assumed to be low. Based on the GER values of (i) 0.83 and 0.18; (ii) 0.34 and 0.07 (i.e.<1) for Pirimicarb and Chlorpyrifos-methyl, respectively there is a level of concern regarding the health risk to gardeners handling pesticide products without skin protection.

Margin of safety for two UV filters estimated by in vitro permeation studies mimicking consumer habits: Effects of skin shaving and sunscreen reapplication.

Sunscreens are intended to work on the skin. To be both efficient and safe, the lowest possible percutaneous permeation of UV filters should occur. The potential for systemic absorption of Benzophenone-3 (BP3, 10%) and Ethylhexyl Triazone (EHT, 5%) in a silicone-based water-in-oil emulsion was assessed in vitro using a full-thickness porcine-ear skin mimicking in-use conditions. The estimated Systemic Exposure Dose (SED) after the sunscreen application at 1.0 mg/cm2 for 6 h (i) on the face; (ii) on the whole-body skin, was (i) 136 and 30; (ii) 4200 and 933 µg/kg_bw/d for BP3 and EHT, respectively. Reapplication does not mean the double risk; the SED values were only 1.40-1.37-fold greater. Skin shaving increased BP3 and EHT bioavailability 1.38 and 1.80-fold, respectively. Margin of Safety values were estimated according to guidelines applicable for European Union. For three realistic exposure scenarios, MoS of 48, 34 and 34 for BP3 in the sunscreen applied on the whole-body indicate some concerns regarding the safety for consumers (MoS<100). Despite undeniable functional benefits in sunscreens, BP3 concentration allowed in EU cosmetics (max. 10%) should be reviewed, especially in products intended for whole-body applications. The development of new UV filters should be focused on their specific physico-chemical properties.

Estimated exposure of hands inside the protective gloves used by non-occupational handlers of agricultural pesticides.

Exposure of handlers'/operators' hands is a main route of agricultural pesticides entry into their body. Non-occupational handlers still lack information about appropriate selection of protective gloves to minimize exposure and reduce adverse effects of these chemicals. According to the results of our previous survey, six commercially available, water-resistant gloves commonly used by non-professional gardeners were evaluated for permeation of Acetamiprid, Pirimicarb, and Chlorpyrifos-methyl (Chlorp-m) pesticides by means of in vitro testing. In-use conditions were mimicked as close as possible. Chlorp-m through latex was observed inside the glove from >10 to ⩽15 min; however, Acetamiprid and Pirimicarb through neoprene/latex and all the three pesticides through butyl were not observed inside gloves for the duration of the experiments (the Breakthrough time (BT)>8 h). The 1-h exposure proved the interior glove contamination with Chlorp-m through disposable latex, vinyl, and nitrile gloves (51, 33, and 41% of applied dose (AD), respectively) just as with Acetamiprid and Pirimicarb through latex glove (11 and 14%AD, respectively). However, when storing the used gloves for 4 days after the exposure, no release of the three pesticides from the butyl and Acetamiprid from neoprene/latex gloves was detected. In all other cases, pesticides were found in the interior glove (36-79, 31-63, and 51-81%AD for Acetamiprid, Pirimicarb, and Chlorp-m, respectively). If used repeatedly, gloves contaminated in this way lose their protective function but give the user a false sense of security. The results suggest that (i) water-resistant gloves are not necessarily pesticide resistant; (ii) disposable latex gloves commonly worn by non-professional gardeners provide inadequate protection even for a short-time contact with pesticides; (iii) to assess the efficiency of reusable gloves, not only BT value but also the reservoir/release effect of parent pesticide and its degradation products should be evaluated; and (iv) awareness-raising activities for non-occupational handlers of pesticides should be enhanced.