ArticleJournal of occupational health2021
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.
Article in Journal of occupational health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Study of Moringa oleifera and Sclerocarya birrea Extracts in Forensic Urine Analysis.ChemistryOpen · 2026Article
- 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.Journal of occupational health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe 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).
methodsSurveys 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.
resultsPersonal 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.
conclusionsThe combination of CPG usage and leather gloves was effective in preventing dermal exposure to DMAC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.