Attitudes, Practices, and Preferences of Pesticide Users Toward Protective Apparel

Abstract

As a contribution to advancing the adoption of protective apparel, this study examines the relationship between attitudes and behavior of farmers who use pesticides and their preference in protective apparel. A mailed questionnaire to certified pesticide users provided the data for analysis. Rogers and Shoemaker's attributes of innovation (relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability) provided the framework for both attitudinal and behavioral question development. Attitude toward protection was found to be the greatest influence in behavior. Because fruit growers held the highest beliefs in protection and also took more action for protection, they would be most likely to be receptive to new ideas in pesticide protection. Education and age variables were influenced by the fact the majority of fruit growers fell into the older and less educated groups. Garments preferred recommended by all respondents were the traditional shirt, pants, and hat. Comfort was an important value influencing garment preference of all except fruit growers.

Training and other predictors of personal protective equipment use in Australian grain farmers using pesticides

“…Rates of glove use in these studies differ widely, from more than 80% to less than 10% of respondents. In our survey, reported glove use was highly variable, between 68% and 18% depending on the pesticide class and task, and these differences may be related to perceptions of risk or convenience of use 29. Glove use was noticeably highest for insecticide mixing (71%) and also relatively high for fungicide mixing (46.3%).…”

“…However basic skin covering with suitable clothing, gloves and boots represents an absolute minimum level of protection for handling pesticides6 26 and may indeed be inadequate protection in many situations 29. While it not easy to generalise about what level of protection or combination of items represents sufficient protection,2 clearly pesticide users with neither gloves, long trousers/sleeves nor boots would be inadequately protected for farm pesticide mixing and application tasks 26…”

Pesticide Knowledge, Attitudes, and Clothing Practices of Turkish Farmers

“…Such attitudes places farmers and other sub-populations at a risk from pesticide exposure and may discourage farmers from taking protective measures (Lorenz et al, 2012). In addition, personal protective equipment (PPE) and personal protective clothing (PPC) might not benefit farmers during the application process if farmers are not using them correctly (DeJonge, Vredevoogd, & Henry, 1983;Rucker, McGee, & Chordas, 1986;Stone et al, 1994).…”

Determination of Pesticide Levels as the Result of Cross-Contamination During Laundering

“…However, the literature and field observations suggest that agricultural workers often do not dress appropriately to protect themselves from splashes, spills, and spray drifts (Keeble, Norton, & Drake, 1987). DeJonge, Vredevoogd, and Henry (1983-84) stated that currently available protective clothing was not chosen by most farmers, with the exception of the highly pesticideexposed fruit orchard workers. It was only when desire for protection outranked desire for comfort that protective garments were chosen (DeJonge et al, 1983-84).…”

“…DeJonge, Vredevoogd, and Henry (1983-84) stated that currently available protective clothing was not chosen by most farmers, with the exception of the highly pesticideexposed fruit orchard workers. It was only when desire for protection outranked desire for comfort that protective garments were chosen (DeJonge et al, 1983-84).…”