Pesticide exposure to greenhouse foggers

Stamper, J. H.; Nigg, H. N.; Mahon, W. D.; Nielsen, Alan; Royer, Michael D.

doi:10.1016/0045-6535(88)90071-9

Cited by 27 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many researchers found that the legs and feet were the most likely to be exposed parts of the whole body because spray droplets or clouds easily deposit on the legs and feet of the applicators during pesticide application (Hughes et al 2008;Stamper et al 1988;Bjugstad and Torgrimsen 1996;Martinez et al 2002). But the present study's results showed that the exposure of legs and feet accounted for only 20.2% and 21.7% of the total PDE for chlorothalonil and chlorpyrifos, respectively, so the legs and feet were not the major exposure parts of applicators' body during application.…”

Section: Dermal Exposurementioning

confidence: 97%

Potential Dermal Exposure and Risk Assessment for Applicators of Chlorothalonil and Chlorpyrifos in Cucumber Greenhouses in China

Jiang

et al. 2014

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Occupational exposure to pesticides has not been conducted in depth so far in China. The potential dermal exposure and risk assessment were conducted for applicators through application with a knapsack power sprayer in cucumber greenhouses. The spray suspension was prepared with 75% chlorothalonil WP and 48% chlorpyrifos EC. The dermal patch method was applied to assess the potential dermal exposure (PDE) of applicators during application. The average total PDE on the whole body of applicators during application of chlorothalonil and chlorpyrifos was 83.2 mL h −1 and 85.1 mL h −1 , respectively. The most exposed part of the body was arms, especially the right arm. For risk assessment, the margin of safety (MOS) was calculated from the PDE. The MOS values were 0.1 and 0.2 for application of chlorothalonil and chlorpyrifos, respectively, both less than 1, which indicated low possibility of health risk.

show abstract

Section: Dermal Exposurementioning

confidence: 97%

Potential Dermal Exposure and Risk Assessment for Applicators of Chlorothalonil and Chlorpyrifos in Cucumber Greenhouses in China

Jiang

et al. 2014

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…that the amount of ethazole breaking through both cloths is similar [20,29,30], Comparison of non-treated against coated coveralls using a fluorescence method indicated that the coating much reduced the amounts penetrating by 1 h of use [27], As is recognised from other, more gen eral statements [17], choice of coverall material therefore…”

Section: Air Levels Of Pesticide During and At The End Of Sprayingmentioning

confidence: 85%

The Management of Pesticide Exposure in Greenhouses

Illing¹

1997

Indoor Built Environ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The principles of risk assessment and risk management have been applied to the use of pesticides in greenhouses. Pesticide efficacy and safety require consideration of a number of exposure scenarios, and the optimal management procedure may need to take into account more than one of these. Worker exposure may occur during pesticide spraying and the subsequent handling of plant material. Exclusion and the wearing of personal protective equipment are occupational hygiene practices that are used to control human uptake arising from these exposures. The principal factor affecting exposure levels in air and their decay is the ventilation characteristics of the greenhouse, and is therefore site-specific. As the principal route of exposure of workers is dermal, and rates of penetration of pesticide through protective clothing vary, choice of protective clothing is also important. This paper demonstrates that there is a need for site-specific occupational hygiene advice when undertaking work in greenhouses.

show abstract

“…Humidity might play a bigger role outside greenhouses, but it still is an important factor inside them. (32,45) Oxidative loading to aluminum substrate of the ESP is a function of relative humidity. (38) By competing with chemicals of interest, high humidity can reduce the adsorptive capacity of sorbent tubes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exposure to Chlorpyrifos in Gaseous and Particulate Form in Greenhouses: A Pilot Study

Kim

Lee

et al. 2014

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phase distribution of airborne chemicals is important because intake and uptake mechanisms of each phase are different. The phase distribution and concentrations are needed to determine strategies of exposure assessment, hazard control, and worker protection. However, procedures for establishing phase distribution and concentration have not been standardized. The objective of this study was to compare measurements of an airborne semivolatile pesticide (chlorpyrifos) by phase using two different procedures. Six pesticide applications in two facilities were studied and at each site, samples were collected for three time slots: T1, the first 1 or 2 hr after the commencement of application; T2, a 6-hr period immediately following T1; and T3, a 6-hr period after the required reentry interval (24 hr for chlorpyrifos). Two phase-separating devices were co-located at the center of each greenhouse: semivolatile aerosol dichotomous sampler (SADS) using flow rates of 1.8 l.min−1 and 0.2 l.min−1, corresponding to a total inlet flow rate of 2.0 l.min−1 with a vapor phase flow fraction of 0.1; and an electrostatic precipitator (ESP), along with a standard OVS XAD-2 tube. Chlorpyrifos in vapor and particulate form in a SADS sampling train and that in vapor form in an ESP sampling train were collected in OVS tubes. Chlorpyrifos in particulate form in the ESP setting would have been collected on aluminum substrate. However, no chlorpyrifos in particulate form was recovered from the ESP. Overall (vapor plus particle) concentrations measured by OVS ranged 11.7 – 186.6 μg/m3 at T1 and decreased on average 77.1% and 98.9% at T2 and T3, respectively. Overall concentrations measured by SADS were 66.6%, 72.7%, and 102% of those measured by OVS on average at T1, T2, and T3, respectively. Particle fractions from the overall concentrations measured by SADS were 60.0%, 49.2%, and 13.8%, respectively, for T1, T2, and T3. SADS gives better guidance on the distribution of chlorpyrifos than does the ESP, although the accuracy of the concentration distribution cannot be verified in the absence of a standardized procedure for determining phase division.

show abstract

Pesticide exposure to greenhouse foggers

Cited by 27 publications

References 2 publications

Potential Dermal Exposure and Risk Assessment for Applicators of Chlorothalonil and Chlorpyrifos in Cucumber Greenhouses in China

Potential Dermal Exposure and Risk Assessment for Applicators of Chlorothalonil and Chlorpyrifos in Cucumber Greenhouses in China

The Management of Pesticide Exposure in Greenhouses

Exposure to Chlorpyrifos in Gaseous and Particulate Form in Greenhouses: A Pilot Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About