Abstract
The accurate quantification of the absorbed dose of pesticides following occupational exposures generally requires complete 24-hour urine collections, often over extended periods of time. Difficulty in obtaining volunteer cooperation may result in incomplete urine collections. Traditionally, 24-hour urinary creatinine has been used to identify incomplete urine samples and has been used to standardize pesticide and other chemical dose estimates. More recently, the use of creatinine to standardize dose estimates has been questioned, as has its utility in the identification of incomplete urine collections. This research evaluates the use of personal observation, statistical methods, and published models to predict creatinine excretion to identify and adjust for incomplete urine collections. Based on the use of published creatinine prediction models, an evaluation of the day-to-day creatinine excretion within subjects, and personal observation, a small number of suspected urine samples were identified. Although it is likely that these samples were incomplete, correction of these urine volumes based on the published models did little to improve pesticide dose prediction. Further, results indicate that subjects who report missed urine samples may be able to estimate the missing volumes with some accuracy. In future pesticide exposure studies, the use of self-reported missed volumes may help to increase the accuracy of dose prediction when there is strong cooperation with collection procedures. A statistical model to predict creatinine excretion in professional turf applicators was developed to provide a preliminary screening for urinary completeness for future studies in which compliance with urinary collection is thought to be insufficient.