Based on the assessment of toluene exposure, the aim of this work was to evaluate the effects of some steps likely to bias the results and to measure urinary toluene both in volunteers experimentally exposed and in workers of rotogravure factories.\n\nMethods Static headspace was used for toluene analysis. o-Cresol was also measured for comparison. Urine collection, storage and conservation conditions were studied to evaluate possible loss or contamination of toluene in controlled situations applied to six volunteers in an exposure chamber according to four scenarios with exposure at stable levels from 10 to 50 ppm. Kinetics of elimination

of toluene were determined over 24 h. A field study was then carried out in a total of 29 workers from two Saracatinib chemical structure rotogravure printing facilities.\n\nResults Potential contamination during urine collection in the field is confirmed

to be a real problem but technical precautions for sampling, storage and analysis can be easily followed to control the situation. In the volunteers at rest, urinary toluene showed a rapid increase after 2 h with a steady level after about 3 h. At 47.1 ppm the mean cumulated excretion was about 0.005% of the amount of the toluene ventilated. Correlation between the toluene levels LY2606368 in vivo in air and in end of exposure urinary sample was excellent (r = 0.965). In the field study, the median personal exposure to toluene was 32 ppm (range 3.6-148). According to the correlations between

environmental and biological monitoring data, the post-shift urinary toluene (r = 0.921) and o-cresol (r = 0.873) concentrations were, respectively, 75.6 mu g/l and 0.76 mg/g creatinine for 50 ppm toluene personal exposure. The corresponding urinary toluene concentration before the next shift was 11 mu g/l (r = 0.883).\n\nConclusion Urinary toluene was shown once more time a very interesting surrogate to o-cresol and could be recommended as a biomarker of choice for solvent exposure.”
“The aim of this article was to evaluate the clinical, endocrine, and cardiovascular ASP2215 manufacturer disease risk profile differences among main polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) phenotypes. One hundred and thirty-nine consecutive women were included in the study. Body mass index (BMI), serum follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), progesterone, estradiol, testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate, fasting glucose, low density lipoprotein (LDL-C), total cholesterol, high density lipoprotein (HDL-C) high sensitive CRP, c-peptide, insulin, insulin sensitivity and carotid intima thickness were compared among different phenotype groups of PCOS: Group 1-PCO (polycystic ovaries)-anovulation (n = 34), Group 2-Hyperandrogenemia (HA)-anovulation (n = 30), Group 3-HA-PCO (n = 32), and Group 4-HA-PCO-anovulation (n = 43).