Annals of Occupational Hygiene Advance Access published online on May 27, 2009
Annals of Occupational Hygiene, doi:10.1093/annhyg/mep032
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dermal Exposure of Pesticide Applicators as a Measure of Coverall Performance Under Field Conditions
1 Laboratory of Pesticides Toxicology, Department of Pesticides Control and Phytopharmacy, Benaki Phytopathological Institute, 8 St Delta Street, GR-145 61 Kifissia, Athens, Greece
2 Food and Environment Research Agency, Environmental Risk, Sand Hutton, York YO41 1LZ, UK
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed: Tel: +30-210-818-0339; fax: +30-210-807-7506; e-mail: machera{at}otenet.gr
In this study, the field performance of two coverall designs used by pesticide applicators was determined. Two coverall types were selected based on data from previously conducted comfort testing under field conditions in southern Europe. Dermal exposure was measured during 22 applications conducted with 11 operators using similar hand-held spray guns in greenhouse pepper crops in the Ierapetra region of Crete, Greece. One of the coverall designs studied was made from a cotton/polyester material treated with a water-repellent Resist Spills® finish, which was compared in the field study to a coverall of similar design, but using a woven, untreated cotton material. An in-house analytical method was developed and validated for determining residues of the active substance (a.s.) malathion on the dosimeters. The derived levels of dermal exposure were used as a measure of the protection provided by the two types of coveralls. In addition, by comparing the total amount of the a.s. recovered from outer and inner dosimeters (potential dermal exposure = 238.8 mg kg–1 a.s. for the cotton coverall and 160.44 mg kg–1 a.s. for the Resist Spills coverall), a value could be determined for the degree of coverall penetration. The mean penetration (milligrams per kilogram a.s.) of the outer coveralls, calculated as a percentage of the total contamination, was 0.4% for the water-repellent coverall and 2.3% for the cotton coverall. The mean recovery from the laboratory and field-fortified samples was >91 and 74%, respectively and used as the main criterion for quality control of the analytical data. Under the field trial conditions evaluated, both the coverall designs gave better protection than the default values used in the most relevant predictive exposure model. Therefore, they could be considered as appropriate tools of personal protection when both comfort and field performance is taken into account under the specific application scenario.
exposure • greenhouse • personal protection • pesticides
Received March 30, 2008; in final form March 27, 2009