鄰苯二甲酸酯類（phthalate esters, PAEs）具良好的油溶性，可添加於印刷油墨中做為分散劑，使印刷油墨均勻附著於印刷基材上。本研究旨在評估勞工於印刷場所中PAEs暴露實態，並進一步探討其可能的暴露途徑，比較各種途徑對PAEs暴露量之貢獻程度。本研究選取印刷作業勞工男性31人、女性20人作為研究對象，進行個人空氣中PAEs（包括di-（2-ethyl hexyl）phthalate（DEHP）、di-n-butyl phthalate（DBP）、butyl benzyl phthalate（BBzP）及diethylphthalate（DEP））暴露、尿液中PAEs代謝物（包括mono-2-ethylhexyl phthalate（MEHP）、mono-（2-ethyl-5-hydroxyhexyl）phthalate（MEHHP）、mono-（2-ethyl-5-oxohexyl）phthalate（MEOHP）、mono-（2-ethyl-5-carboxypentyl）phthalate（MECPP）及mono-n-butyl phthalate（MBP））之採樣與分析、以及個人問卷調查。研究結果顯示：在男性勞工中，高暴露組（現場作業、包裝人員）與低暴露組（辦公室行政、巡廠人員）之空氣中DEHP濃度（0.5 μg/m^3 vs 0.3 μg/m^3, p<0.05），以及下班前尿中MBP濃度（94.8 μg/g-Cre vs. 67.6 μg/g-Cre, p<0.05）皆達顯著差異。比較下班前與上班前之尿中PAEs代謝物濃度，於高暴露組男性勞工中，亦觀察到顯著之差異情形：MBP（94.8 μg/g-Cre vs. 66.6 μg/g-Cre, p<0.05）、MEHP（14.0 μg/g-Cre vs.5.9 μg/g-Cre, p<0.05）、MEOHP（39.0 μg/g-Cre vs. 15.9 μg/g-Cre, p<0.05）、MEHHP（85.4 μg/g-Cre vs. 32.7 μg/g-Cre, p<0.05）、MECPP（69.7 μg/g-Cre vs. 27.9 μg/g-Cre, p<0.05），表示現場作業勞工確實有較明顯之職業暴露。進一步以日暴露劑量模式推估皮膚暴露貢獻量，以尿液中PAEs代謝物濃度中位數分組，結果顯示高濃度組勞工DBP及DEHP之皮膚暴露劑量占總暴露百分比分別為55%及51%，表示皮膚吸收PAEs可能為印刷作業勞工重要暴露來源。本研究發現空氣中DEHP與DBP濃度遠低於勞工作業環境空氣中有害物容許濃度標準（PEL-TWA: 5 mg/m^3），但觀察印刷過程中勞工皮膚常沾附油墨可能因而暴露PAEs，因此關於勞工PAEs暴露容許值建議以生物暴露指標訂定，較足以保護作業勞工之健康。

PAEs were widely added in printing ink as dispersing agents to increase quality of printing products. The aim of this study is to assess the exposure profiles of PAEs and the contributions of different exposure routes to total exposure for workers in printing industries. 31 male and 26 female workers in two printing plants were recruited as study subjects. Personal exposure to airborne PAEs, incuding di-(2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate (DEHP), di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP), butyl benzyl phthalate(BBzP) and diethyl phthalate (DEP), and urinary PAEs metabolites, including mono-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (MEHP), mono-(2-ethyl-5-hydroxyhexyl) phthalate (MEHHP), mono-(2-ethyl-5-oxohexyl) phthalate (MEOHP), mono-(2-ethyl-5-carboxypentyl) phthalate (MECPP) and mono-nbutyl phthalate (MBP), were measured. Occupational exposure information and time activity pattern for all selected workers were collected by using a questionnaire-based investigation. For the male workers, the airborne DEHP concentration (0.5 μg/m^3 vs 0.3 μg/m^3, p<0.05) and urinary MBP level (94.8 μg/g-Cre vs. 67.6 μg/g-Cre, p<0.05) of high-exposure workers (operator and packing) were significantly higher than those of low-exposure workers (administration and patrolling staffs). The post- and pre-shift urinary levels of PAEs metabolites of high-exposure male workers show significant differences: MBP( 94.8μg/g-Cre vs. 66.6μg/g-Cre, p<0.05), MEHP (14.0 μg/g-Cre vs. 5.9 μg/g-Cre, p<0.05), MEOHP (39.0 μg/g-Cre vs. 15.9 μg/g-Cre, p<0.05), MEHHP (85.4 μg/g-Cre vs. 32.7 μg/g-Cre, p<0.05), and MECPP (69.7 μg/g-Cre vs. 27.9 μg/g-Cre, p<0.05). Furthermore, the dermal exposure of PAEs for the workers was estimated based on a daily intake assessment model. The results show that individual contributions of skin absorption of DBP and DEHP (DIskin) in high-concentration group are 55% and 51% to the total exposure of PAEs, respectively. It means the dermal exposure may be an important potential exposure route for printing workers. We concluded the airborne PAEs exposure was minor, but dermal PAEs exposure played an important route for the printing workers. Therefore, we suggest that the biological exposure index of PAEs (urinary PAEs metabolites) is more representative of the PAEs exposure profile of workers.