DDT and methyl parathion residues found in cotton and cotton-polyester fabrics worn in cotton fields

Finley, E. L.; Rogillio, J. R. B.

doi:10.1007/bf01560965

Cited by 33 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2 Laughlin, Gold, and Tupy, 1981;Easley, Laughlin, Gold, and Schmidt, 1982;Easter, 1983;Finley, and Rogillio, 1969;Finley et al, 1974;Kim, Stone, and Sizer, 1982;Laughlin, Easley, Gold, and Tupy, 1981;Lillie et al, 1981;Satoh, 1979). Agricultural pesticide handlers' actual clothing and equipment practices remain largely unexplored, though inroads have been made (Dejonge, Vredevoogd, and Henry, 1983-84;McLellan, Hranitzky, Day, and Keith, 1982).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Clothing and Personal Equipment Used by Fruit Growers and Workers When Handling Pesticides

Keeble

Norton

Drake

1987

Clothing and Textiles Research Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A 24060. AbstractFruit growers and workers were surveyed to determine the types of protective clothing and equipment they would wear while mixing and applying Parathion and Captan; their knowledge of pesticide hazard; and the relationships between knowledge of hazard, demographic data, and clothing and equipment choices. The data indicate that the growers and workers often do not wear recommended clothing and equipment when handling pesticides. The majority of the sample would normally wear work shirts and pants for mixing and spraying either pesticide. Nearly 50 percent of the respondents would wear waterproof gloves and respirators when handling Parathion. A statistically significant relationship was found between respondents' knowledge of the relative hazard of Parathion and the use of protective clothing. Growers and workers rating Parathion as "very hazardous" would use more protective clothing and equipment than would those giving Parathion a lower rating. The results suggest that agencies with major responsibilities for training and advising growers and workers on pesticide safety should give greater emphasis to the protective gear needed for pesticides with varying toxicities.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Clothing and Personal Equipment Used by Fruit Growers and Workers When Handling Pesticides

Keeble

Norton

Drake

1987

Clothing and Textiles Research Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A majority of studies that evaluated laundering variables included only one or two pesticides [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. Based on these one or two-chemical studies, recommendations to maximize removal are being made for pesticides across the board [1][2][3].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Laundering Procedures and Functional Finishes on Removal of Insecticides Selected from Three Chemical Classes

Keaschall

Laughlin

Gold

1986

Performance of Protective Clothing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eleven pesticides from three chemical classes were chosen for comparison of residues after laundering. Pesticide was introduced to the fabric surface of one of three fabrics—unfinished (UN), renewable consumer applied fluorocarbon finished (RF), and commercially applied fluorocarbon finished (CM) fabric. The fabrics were laundered using one of three laundry treatments—a heavy-duty liquid detergent (HDL) alone, an HDL with a prewash spray, and an HDL with an agriculturally marketed pretreatment. Gas chromatographic analysis showed that the fluorocarbon-finished fabrics absorbed only 10% of the pesticide absorbed by the UN fabrics. Residues after laundering were significantly different both among and within classes. Although both fluorocarbon finishes reduced absorption of pesticide, they did not facilitate removal of the contaminant through laundering. Laundry additives significantly aided residue reduction.

show abstract

“…Research has documented that harvestors, crop consultants, and field inspectors are subject to transfer of pesticide residues from pesticide-treated foliage and fruit during field work activities (Batista, Stamper, Nigg, & Knapp, 1985;Cloud, Boethel, & Buco, 1988;Finley & Rogillio, 1969;Nigg, Stamper, & Queen, 1984). Although the amount of pesticide transferred to skin or clothing is much less than in other situations, such residues have been shown to be biologically active (Finley, Graves, Summers, Schilling, & Morris, 1977).…”

Section: Previous Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Field-Wear Abrasion on Barrier Properties of Nonwoven Fabrics

Cloud

Lowe

1995

Clothing and Textiles Research Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of a series of papers from the S-208 Regional Research Committee. Abstract Eight nonwoven fabrics were made into experimental protective pants and worn into two types of low crop fields. Barrier properties (water penetration resistance, oil repellency, and air permeability) were measured for control fabrics and fabrics taken from pants worn in the field Results indicate that while loss of breaking strenth due to abrasion was minimal, effects of field wear on barrier properties were significant. Water penetration resistance and oil repellency were reduced and air permeability was increased for most specimens after wear in at least one of the fields. Fluorochemical finishes used on three of the fabrics were less effective after wear. The study suggests that performance of protective clothing may not be adequately assessed by testing fabrics prior to wear.

show abstract

DDT and methyl parathion residues found in cotton and cotton-polyester fabrics worn in cotton fields

Cited by 33 publications

References 1 publication

Clothing and Personal Equipment Used by Fruit Growers and Workers When Handling Pesticides

Clothing and Personal Equipment Used by Fruit Growers and Workers When Handling Pesticides

Effect of Laundering Procedures and Functional Finishes on Removal of Insecticides Selected from Three Chemical Classes

Effects of Field-Wear Abrasion on Barrier Properties of Nonwoven Fabrics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About