Worker reentry into pesticide-treated crops. I. Procedure for the determination of dislodgable pesticide residues on foliage

Iwata, Yutaka; Spear, Robert C.; Knaak, James B.; Foster, Robert J.

doi:10.1007/bf01691975

Cited by 104 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Portions of leaves were sampled with a punch (Iwata et al, 1977). Each sample consisted of 18 discs, 1.5 cm in diameter, from different leaves, making a total leaf surface area of Table 2.…”

Section: Determination Of Dislodgeable Foliar Residuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of inhaled and cutaneous doses of imidacloprid during stapling ornamental plants in tunnels or greenhouses

Aprea¹,

Lunghini²,

Banchi³

et al. 2008

J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this research was to assess dermal and respiratory exposure of workers to imidacloprid during manual operations with ornamental plants previously treated in greenhouses or tunnels. A total of 10 female workers, 5 in greenhouses and 5 in tunnels, were monitored for 3 or 5 consecutive days. Actual skin contamination, excluding hands, was evaluated using nine filter paper pads placed directly on the skin. To evaluate the efficacy of protective clothing in reducing occupational exposure we also placed four pads on top of the outer clothing. Hand contamination was evaluated by washing with 95% ethanol. Respiratory exposure was evaluated by personal air sampling. Respiratory dose was calculated on the basis of a lung ventilation of 15 l/min. Absorbed doses were calculated assuming a skin penetration of 10% and a respiratory retention of 100%. Dislodgeable foliar residues (DFRs) were determined during the days of re-entry in order to determine the dermal transfer factor. From the dependence of dermal exposure of hands from DFRs, a mean transfer factor was estimated to be 36.4 cm 2 /h. Imidacloprid was determined by liquid chromatography with selective mass detection and electrospray interface in all matrices analysed. Respiratory dose was 4.1 ± 4.0 (0.1-14.3)% and 3.0 ± 2.0 (0.6-6.9)% (mean ± SD (range)) of the total real dose during work in tunnels and greenhouses, respectively. The estimated absorbed doses, 0.29 ± 0.45 mg/kg (0.06-2.25 mg/kg) body weight and 0.32±0.18 mg/kg (0.07-0.66 mg/kg) body weight (mean±SD (range)) in tunnels and in greenhouses, respectively, were less than the acceptable operator exposure level of 0.15 mg/kg body weight and than the acceptable daily intake of 0.05 mg/kg body weight. The hands and exposed skin of all workers were found to be contaminated, indicating that greater precautions, such as daily changing of gloves and clothing, are necessary to reduce skin exposure.

show abstract

Section: Determination Of Dislodgeable Foliar Residuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of inhaled and cutaneous doses of imidacloprid during stapling ornamental plants in tunnels or greenhouses

Aprea¹,

Lunghini²,

Banchi³

et al. 2008

J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Each sample consisted of 18 discs punched from different leaves [5]. Since the discs measured 2 cm in diameter, samples represented 38.52 cm 2 of leaf, counting only one side.…”

Section: Determination Of Dislodgeable Foliar Residues (Dfr)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring and Control of Exposure to Buprofezin in Greenhouses

Aprea¹,

Centi²,

Lunghinim³

et al. 2016

Toxicol Open Access

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to assess dermal and respiratory exposure of workers to Buprofezin during spraying and during stapling of previously treated ornamental plants in greenhouses.Eight workers were monitored. A combination of hand washing and pads placed on the skin was used to evaluate actual skin contamination. The efficacy of protective clothing was evaluated placing pads on top of outer clothing. Respiratory exposure was evaluated by personal air sampling. Respiratory dose was calculated on the basis of a lung ventilation of 15 l/min for females and 20 l/min for males. Absorbed doses were calculated assuming a skin penetration of 40% and a respiratory retention of 100%. Dislodgeable foliar residues (DFRs) were evaluated during re-entry. Buprofezin was determined by gas chromatography with selective mass detection in all matrices.Respiratory dose was 1.5-12.8% and 3.6-15.4% of the total real dose during spraying and stapling, respectively. The estimated absorbed doses, 0.05-0.57 µg/kg body weight and 0.19-1.54 µg/kg body weight during spraying and stapling, respectively, were less than the acceptable operator exposure level of 40 µg/kg body weight. During stapling, a mean dermal transfer factor of 1.13 cm 2 /h was estimated.During spraying, the efficacy of protective clothing depends on the spraying device used. During stapling, daily replacement of cotton gloves appears to reduce actual exposure. Since proper use of equipment and protective clothing is essential, training of workers is of fundamental importance.

show abstract

“…Existing sampling and analytical methods for assessing pesticides on foliage were identified and reviewed. (1,2,3,4) To determine the optimum method, two techniques (leaf punch and leaf wipe) for sample collection and analysis were field tested in February 1995 at a greenhouse where applications of known pesticides had occurred. The sampling and analytical methodology was further refined after a June 1995 survey at the USDA Plant Inspection and Quarantine Service facility in Miami, Florida (HETA 95-0353-2629).…”

Section: Foliage Residuementioning

confidence: 99%

Health hazard evaluation report: HETA-96-0083-2628, United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) report and any recommendations made herein are for the specific facility evaluated and may not be universally applicable. Any recommendations made are not to be considered as final statements of NIOSH policy or of any agency or individual involved.Additional HHE reports are available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports This Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) report and any recommendations made herein are for the specific facility evaluated and may not be universally applicable. Any recommendations made are not to be considered as final statements of NIOSH policy or of any agency or individual involved.Additional HHE reports are available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports This Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) report and any recommendations made herein are for the specific facility evaluated and may not be universally applicable. Any recommendations made are not to be considered as final statements of NIOSH policy or of any agency or individual involved. applicable. Any recommendations made are not to be considered as final statements of NIOSH policy or of any agency or individual involved.Additional HHE reports are available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports ii PREFACEThe Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch of NIOSH conducts field investigations of possible health hazards in the workplace. These investigations are conducted under the authority of Section 20(a)(6) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 669(a)(6) which authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services, following a written request from any employer or authorized representative of employees, to determine whether any substance normally found in the place of employment has potentially toxic effects in such concentrations as used or found.The Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch also provides, upon request, technical and consultative assistance to Federal, State, and local agencies; labor; industry; and other groups or individuals to control occupational health hazards and to prevent related trauma and disease. Mention of company names or products does not constitute endorsement by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Copies of this report have been sent to employee and management representatives at APHIS and the OSHA Regional Office. This report is not copyrighted and may be freely reproduced. Single copies of this report will be available for a period of three years from the date of this report. To expedite your request, include a self-addressed mailing label along with your written request to: On May 7-9, 1996, NIOSH investigators conducted an initial site visit at the APHIS operations in Miami, Florida, in conjunction with a follow-up survey to the PIQS. The objectives of this visit were to review the commodity inspection process; obtain samples from various imported cut flowers, plants, fruits, and vegetables; conduct personal monitoring to assess potential skin exposure to pesticides; and collect air samples to assess exposure...

show abstract

Worker reentry into pesticide-treated crops. I. Procedure for the determination of dislodgable pesticide residues on foliage

Cited by 104 publications

References 7 publications

Evaluation of inhaled and cutaneous doses of imidacloprid during stapling ornamental plants in tunnels or greenhouses

Evaluation of inhaled and cutaneous doses of imidacloprid during stapling ornamental plants in tunnels or greenhouses

Monitoring and Control of Exposure to Buprofezin in Greenhouses

Health hazard evaluation report: HETA-96-0083-2628, United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About