Assessment of dermal exposure to N,N‐dimethylacetamide in spray workers by combining personal exposure monitoring, biological monitoring, and glove permeation monitoring: A pilot study

OBJECTIVES: We assessed dermal exposure to N,N‐dimethylacetamide (DMAC) in a spray worker by utilizing a combination of personal exposure monitoring, biological monitoring, and glove permeation monitoring. We also determined the protective effects of chemical protective gloves (CPGs). METHODS: Surveys with and without CPG usage were performed on different days. In the survey with CPG usage, the worker had worn leather gloves over the CPG. Personal exposure monitoring and glove permeation monitoring were performed using 3M Organic Vapor Monitor 3500 and PERMEA‐TEC Pads respectively. Urinary concentration of DMAC and its metabolites (N‐methylacetamide [NMAC], N‐hydroxymethyl‐N‐methylacetamide [DMAC‐OH], S‐(acetamidomethyl) mercapturic acid [AMMA]) were measured in the before‐shift and end‐of‐shift samples collected from the worker. RESULTS: Personal exposure DMAC concentration in the survey with CPG usage (0.32 ppm) was twice that in the survey without CPG usage (0.15 ppm). However, urinary concentrations of DMAC‐OH and AMMA in the end‐of‐shift samples in the survey with CPG usage (DMAC‐OH, 0.74 mg/g creatinine; AMMA, 0.10 mg/g creatinine) were lower than those in the survey without CPG usage (DMAC‐OH, 1.27 mg/g creatinine; AMMA, 0.24 mg/g creatinine). Urinary concentrations of DMAC and NMAC were below the limit of detection in all samples. DMAC concentrations in PERMEA‐TEC Pads that were used in the surveys with and without CPG usage were in the range of 0.3‐2.1 µg/sample and 16.4‐1985.2 µg/sample respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of CPG usage and leather gloves was effective in preventing dermal exposure to DMAC.