4 Reduction efficiency database
4.2 Database content
Overall, 410 data entries have been entered into the Excel database. Thereby often one reference has led to more than one entry, i.e. one exposure reduction efficiency, e.g. if more than one substance or type of PPE has been sampled. A list of publications and the assigned number of database entries is given in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2 Database entries: Number of entries and publications Number of database entries per publication
Number of database entries per publication
APREA et al. (1994) 7 LANDER and HINKE (1992) 2
APREA et al. (2004) 2 LAPPHARAT et al. (2014) 1
APREA et al. (2009) 2 LEAVITT et al. (1982) 1
BALDI et al. (2006) 2 LEBAILLY et al. (2009) 1
BALDI et al. (2014) 3 LESMES-FABIAN et al. (2012) 2
BELLO et al. (2008) 3 LINKS et al. (2007) 6
BERGER-PREISS et al. (2005) 1 MACHERA et al. (2003) 1
BIERMAN et al. (1998) 1 MACHERA et al. (2009) 2
BRADMAN et al. (2009) 2 MADDY et al. (1989) 1
BROUWER et al. (2000) 3 MANDIC-RAJCEVIC et al. (2015) 3
CASTRO CANO et al. (2000) 2 METHNER and FENSKE (1994) 4
CASTRO CANO et al. (2001) 1 NIGG and STAMPER (1983) 4
CASTRO CANO et al. (2001) 6 NIGG et al. (1986) 3
CAVALLARI et al. (2012) 16 NIGG et al. (1992) 7
CESSNA and GROVER (2002) 2 NIVEN et al. (1996) 3
CHANG et al. (2004) 2 NORTON et al. (1988) 2
CHANG et al. (2007) 2 OJANEN et al. (1992) 1
CHRISTOPHER and GALEA (2008) 3 POPENDORF (1988) 2
CREELY and CHERRIE (2001) 3 POPENDORF and SELIM (1995) 1
DAVIES et al. (1982) 6 POPENDORF et al. (1979) 1
ERIKSSON et al. (2004) 2 POPENDORF et al. (1995) 2
ESPANHOL-SOARES et al. (2013) 8 PRELLER and SCHIPPER (1999) 1
FENSKE (1988) 2 PUTMAN et al. (1983) 9
FENSKE et al. (1986) 4 RECH et al. (1989) 5
Number of database entries per publication
Number of database entries per publication
FENSKE et al. (1990) 2 ROFF (1997) 2
FENSKE et al. (2002) 4 ROFF (2015) 3
FENT et al. (2009) 12 VAN ROOIJ et al. (1993) 1
FRANSMAN et al. (2004) 5 RUBINO et al. (2012) 4
FRANSMAN et al. (2005) 5 SCHEEPERS et al. (2009b) 1
FUSTINONI et al. (2014) 1 SCHIPPER et al. (1996) 4
GAO et al. (2014) 2 SHAW (2008) 2
GARRIGOU et al. (2011) 3 SHIH et al. (2009) 1
GARROD et al. (1998) 3 SOUTAR et al. (2000a) 6
GARROD et al. (1999) 3 SPEAR et al. (1977) 2
GARROD et al. (2000) 2 SPENCER et al. (1995) 1
GLASS et al. (2005) 7 STAMPER et al. (1989) 6
GOLD and HOLCSLAW (1985) 1 STONE et al. (2005) 3
GOLD et al. (1982) 1 TSAKIRAKIS et al. (2010) 2
GROßKOPF et al. (2013) 84 TSAKIRAKIS et al. (2011) 6
GROVER et al. (1986) 1 TSAKIRAKIS et al. (2014b) 3
HSE (1998) 4 TSAKIRAKIS et al. (2010) 1
HSL (2003) 7 TSAKIRAKIS (2014) 8
HUGHSON and CHERRIE (2001) 1 VAN DER JAGT et al. (2004) 4
JOHNSON et al. (2005) 1 VITALI et al. (2009) 2
KANGAS et al. (1993) 1 DE VREEDE et al. (1994) 1
KURTZ and BODE (1985) 42 WANG et al. (2006) 2
WILLER and FELTEN (2006) 3 Overall number of entries 410
The data entries represent information extracted from 93 publications.
The data cover a range of different types of PPE, however, there is a clear focus on coveralls / whole body garments and gloves. A summary of the types of PPE and used sampling techniques is given in Table 4.3. Definitions of the sampling techniques evaluated are given in the introduction. The category “other” has been used for one study applying gas phase measurements inside a gas tight hazmat suit and another combining two techniques (in situ sampling of the skin and extraction of substance from the worn garment) (BIERMAN et al., 1998; WILLER and FELTEN, 2006).
These datasets also include some evaluations where either negative efficiencies have been derived or some exposure values were below the limits of detection and could not be used for efficiency calculation purposes. Those entries were marked with “see further information” in the results field of the database. Details can then be found in the column beside the results. The corresponding datasets will be discussed separately and have not been used to for the derivation of average values in the following sections.
Table 4.3 Number of database entries per PPE type and sampling technique (all datasets included).
respiratory equipment 1 1
Overall number of entries per sampling technique
13 11 4 89 293 410
6 A hazmat suit is a piece of PPE made of impermeable material. The model evaluated by in the available study is gas tight and has therefore not been included into the category “overall/coverall” in the database.
A summary of datasets per physical state is given in Table 4.4. It seems at first sight that there is a comparably even distribution between solids, solid in solution and liquids.
However, if the corresponding publications are analysed more closely it is determined that only very few have evaluated true solids but most of them wettable powders, suspensions or other, typical pesticide formulations.
“Unknown/different” has been chosen as category in cases where products of different physical states were reported together or the product was only reported as “pesticide product” or similar (not identifying if a solution, emulsion or suspension was used).
Table 4.4 Number of database entries per PPE type and physical state (all datasets included)
different /
unknown gas liquid solid
solid in solution
overall number of entries per PPE type apron (1 entry with
efficiencies below 0 or
LOD) 4 4
barrier cream 1 3 4
boots 1 1
gloves (4 entries with efficiencies below 0 or
LOD) 35 30 43 43 151
hazmat suit (1 entry with efficiencies below
0 or LOD) 3 3
hood 3 1 1 3 8
mixed equipment 9 6 13 2 30
normal clothing 7 7 38 6 58
overall/coverall (5 entries with
efficiencies below 0 or
LOD) 24 41 28 57 150
respiratory equipment 1 1
overall number of entries per physical
state 82 3 87 123 115 410
A summary of the number of database entries per study type is given in Table 4.5.
There are very few laboratory studies, while the focus is clearly on the category
“workplace (other)”, which represents studies where potential and actual exposure have been sampled simultaneously at the same person. Thereby actual exposure describes the amount of substance which can be found under PPE (if PPE is worn), while potential exposure is the amount that would be found without any PPE (see also section 5.1).
Table 4.5 Number of database entries per study type (all datasets included)
Study type Number of database entries
Experimental (2 entries with efficiencies below 0 or
LOD) 19
workplace (intervention) 37
Workplace (Cross-sectional (a-posteriori design))
(3 entries with efficiencies below 0 or LOD) 111
Workplace (other) (6 entries with efficiencies below
0 or LOD) 243
Overall number of entries 410
Efficiencies have been included as exposure reductions in % (as opposed to penetration values). If possible the arithmetic mean has been used for the database entries. In cases where this was not possible, the geometric mean or median have been used and the choice was noted in the comments field of the database. A summary of the available results is given in Table 4.6. Further details will be discussed in chapter 5.
The efficiency values have been used as reported in the corresponding references or – if this was not possible or not considered reasonable – calculated from raw data with one of the following two equations (see also section 5.1; details are reported in the comment fields of the database):
(1) Efficiency (%) = 100 · (1- Skin exposure inside PPE / (Skin exposure inside PPE + Exposure outside PPE))
(used as an example for the combination of simultaneous sampling and PPE used as dosimeter)
(2) Efficiency (%) = 100 · (1- Skin exposure with/inside PPE / Skin exposure without/outside PPE)
(used as an example for the combination of simultaneous sampling and patch sampling; Intervention / cross sectional studies)
As the database entries have not been weighted for sample size and it was not possible to structure the result format in a completely homogeneous way (median / arithmetic mean etc.), all statistical output from the database should be seen with caution. For this reason it was also refrained from a detailed analysis (e.g. percentiles, standard deviation). However, parameters such as averages and ranges may give the reader a general idea of the database content and efficiencies to be expected for certain types of equipment.
The results show a large variability, however, this is not surprising considering the variability present within the rough categories of PPE shown in this overview and the age of some publications.
Table 4.6 Range of exposure reduction efficiencies for different PPE categories (without negative efficiencies and other not usable database entries (11 entries))
PPE type
Average exposure reduction (%)
Minimum exposure reduction (%)
Maximum exposure reduction (%)
Number of database entries
apron 50.9 0.0 87.6 3
barrier cream 63.7 40.0 82.9 4
Boots 64.0 64.0 64.0 1
gloves 84.1 4.4 100.0 147
hazmat suit 90.2 81.7 98.6 2
Hood 71.3 40.0 98.4 8
mixed equipment 70.9 8.7 100.0 30
normal clothing 70.5 4.0 97.7 58
overall/coverall 90.1 33.4 99.8 145
respiratory
equipment (dermal exposure under RPE measured)
45.0 45.0 45.0 1
Overall result 82.5 0.0 100.0 399
5 Dosimetry
Overall 116 dosimetry studies of potential relevance have been identified in the course of the literature screening. Of these, 88 have finally been included into the database, resulting in 397 database entries.
Apart from this, some general points of interest concerning methodology have been evaluated.