Safety of Working Conditions of Glyphosate Applicators on Eucalyptus Forests Using Knapsack and Tractor Powered Sprayers

Machado-Neto, J. G.; Bassini, Andrea; Aguiar, L.C.G.G.

doi:10.1007/s001280000001

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The total exposure of the tractor driver without individual protection, but with protected spray bar, was 838.88 mg/day of glyphosate and MOS of 8.62 [24]. Therefore, the protection of the spray bar made the tractor driver work safe, with acceptable poisoning risk and tolerable exposure levels.…”

Section: Controlling Worker Exposure To Herbicidesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The noncontrolled dermal exposure was reduced by 99%, from 838.88 to 8.62 mg/day of glyphosate in the case of the tractor driver applying glyphosate in eucalyptus plantations with the protective plastic cover over the sprayer bar ( Figure 4) and wearing PPE consisting of a set of waterrepellent parts (hood, long-sleeved shirt and pants), gloves, and waterproof boots. MOS increased from 8.62 to 103.24 [24]. The use of PPE made the working condition of the tractor driver even more secure.…”

Section: Individual Protectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The spray bar was reduced to 2.5 m in length and covered with sturdy plastic blades at the front, sides, and rear ( Figure 4). The bar has been adapted to apply nonselective pesticide over a 2.0-m-wide area on the weeds between the rows in areas planted with 1.0-m-tall young eucalyptus plants [24].…”

Section: Controlling Worker Exposure To Herbicidesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sprayer bar protected with plastic blades attached to the bar used to apply nonselective herbicide between plant rows in eucalyptus plantation areas[24].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Safety Measures for Handlers/Workers against Herbicide Intoxication Risk

Machado-Neto¹

2015

Herbicides, Physiology of Action, and Safety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the use of herbicides, there is a certain risk of intoxication to directly exposed workers, which depends on several factors. Risk factors can be grouped in the toxicity of herbicides and exposure provided by the specific working conditions. From the assessment of the risk of intoxication, working conditions can be classified as safe or unsafe. The safety of working conditions is based on the chronic toxicity of the pesticide and the absorbable amount of dermal and respiratory exposure. Safety can be determined by calculation of the margin of safety calculation MOS . If the value of MOS ≥ , the working condition is classified as safe, but if the MOS < , the condition and work is classified as unsafe. For working conditions classified as unsafe, workers should adopt safety measures to become safe. Safety measures at work are grouped into preventive and protection. The preventive safety measures are grouped into the selection of workers/personnel psychological measures administrative legislation, standards, and procedures and hygiene, cleaning, maintenance, and safety of the environment. The protection safety measures are grouped into collectives and individual. The "razilian labor law mandates the use of preventive measures and protection, according to the pesticide manufacturers recommendations on the labels.

show abstract

Section: Controlling Worker Exposure To Herbicidesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Individual Protectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Controlling Worker Exposure To Herbicidesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sprayer bar protected with plastic blades attached to the bar used to apply nonselective herbicide between plant rows in eucalyptus plantation areas[24].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Safety Measures for Handlers/Workers against Herbicide Intoxication Risk

Machado-Neto¹

2015

Herbicides, Physiology of Action, and Safety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The MOS was measured as previously reported (Berenstein et al, 2017). We considered an absorption factor of 0.11, which includes an effective dermal absorption of 10%, with an additional 1 % added to include the inhaled fraction (Machado-Neto et al, 2000). An AOEL ¼ 0.012 mg kg À1 .d À1 was used for procymidone (EU Pesticide Database).…”

Section: Mos Calculationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human exposure and mass balance distribution during procymidone application in horticultural greenhouses

Friedrichs

Berenstein

Nasello

et al. 2020

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of procymidone application in periurban horticultural greenhouses, especially on workers (applicators and assistants) and soil and plastic mulching, when mechanically pressurized application systems were employed. The mean Potential Dermal Exposure (PDE) was measured using the Whole Body Dosimetry technique. The PDE for the applicators was 188 mL h À1 AE 103 mL h À1 , and 14.7 mL h À1 AE 6.3 mL h À1 for the assistants. In the first case, the most exposed body sections were the upper right and left (46.8 mL h À1 AE 23.4 mL h À1 ; 47.0 mL h À1 AE 23.5 mL h À1 ) and lower (20.8 mL h À1 AE 10.4 mL h À1 ; 17.3 mL h À1 AE 8.7 mL h À1 ) legs, while in the case of assistants, hands and legs were the most impacted limbs. Regarding the Margin of Safety (MOS) during the mix and load stage, two of three pesticide preparations resulted unsafe, while for the applicators, six of six spraying operations were unsafe. For the assistants, five of five operations were safe, but three of them were close to the safety limit.Procymidone distribution between drift (0.03% AE 0.07 %), applicator (0.20% AE 0.15 %), polyethylene mulching (8.5% AE 4.5 %) and soil (3.0% AE 1.1 %) was determined with respect to the total pesticide applied. Procymidone soil impact was also evaluated using Eisenia andrei behavioral tests, finding positive correlations between procymidone application and avoidance and reproduction tests.

show abstract