本研究針對一位合成皮作業勞工,於一般正常8小時的工作輪班中,在可能短的時間間隔內的DMF暴露測定資料,包括:(1) 以被動式採樣器測定8小時時量加權平均個人空氣暴露濃度;(2) 收集工作前後尿液樣本和工作期間唾液樣本以測定暴露濃度;(3) 以直讀式儀器量測個人即時空氣暴露濃度。裝置有熱離子偵測器的氣相層析儀(GC/TSD),用以分析空氣、唾液及尿液樣本,並以直讀式儀器HOBO Figaro TGS-822 Sensor即時量測勞工呼吸區帶DMF暴露濃度。從連續21天所測得的暴露資料發現,個人空氣採樣樣本濃度與作業勞工唾液樣本濃度有相同的變化趨勢,但二者間測定濃度相關性不明顯,主要是因為空氣樣本濃度是一整天的累積暴露濃度,而唾液樣本是每隔30分鐘的短時暴露濃度,存在相當暴露變異,導致彼此間的相關性不顯著。同樣地,比較HOBO與唾液樣本濃度相關性,亦發現兩者相關程度並不顯著,可能與HOBO為每30秒鐘的一個暴露測定值,而唾液樣本是每30分鐘的暴露測定濃度值,HOBO的暴露測定值中包含相當多量的尖峰暴露值及很大的暴露變異,而唾液樣本並沒有反映出這樣的暴露狀況,所以兩者間的相關性並不顯著,因此無法估計空氣DMF暴露濃度和唾液樣本DMF含量的比例關係。以每天空氣樣本與HOBO測得的8小時時量加權平均暴露濃度估計勞工21天的平均暴露值,空氣樣本對HOBO測定估計的平均暴露值存在顯著差異(t = 3.28,p = 0.0022)。棉紗及採樣套件是否對欲DMF及其代謝物測定造成影響,應該在未來的研究中予以評估,以釐清以唾液樣本測定評估勞工DMF暴露的問題。
In this study a worker employed by a synthetic-leather manufacturing factory was selected in regularly 8-hour work shifts to collect different types of exposure information of N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF), including: (1) to use passive samplers to measure 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) of personal airborne exposure concentrations; (2) to collect pre- and post-shift urine samples to measure exposure concentrations; (3) to collect pre-, during and post-shift salivary samples to measure exposure concentrations; (4) to use direct-reading instrument to measure personal real-time airborne exposure concentrations. A gas chromatography equipped with a thermionic sensitive detector was used to analyze the samples collected by the passive samplers and from saliva and urine. The direct-reading instrument HOBO was used to measure DMF exposure concentration of worker’s breathing zone. Based on the analyses of the samples collected in 21 continuous workdays, the exposure concentrations of the worker’s personal air and salivary samples showed a similar fluctuation pattern. But, the association between these two measured exposure concentrations was not statistically significant. High exposure variability of salivary samples collected in each 30-minute probably resulted in the weak association. Similarly, the association between the exposure measurements of HOBO and salivary samples was not statistically significant. This was probably due to a number of peak values occurring in the exposure measurements recorded by HOBO in each 30 seconds. However, the salivary samples did not reflect such as exposure events. It was not possible to estimate the ratio of the air DMF exposure concentration to the amount of DMF in salivary samples. Comparing the means of 8-hour TWA values estimated by air and HOBO measurements in 21 days, a significant difference between these two types of measurements was observed (t = 3.28, p = 0.0022). Whether the cotton rolls used in the saliva collection influenced the detection of DMF in the salivary samples should be evaluated in the future study. This will be important for elucidating the feasibility of using salivary samples for assessing workers’ DMF exposure.