Worker exposure and protective clothing performance during manual seed treatment with lindane

Abstract

Twelve workers were monitored for exposure to 18.75% lindane dust formulation during manual wheat seed treatment. The mean total actual exposure rate was 32.89 mg/hr. Potential respiratory exposure averaged 0.0057 mg/hr (less than 1% of the total), with seven workers receiving no measurable respiratory exposures. Mean hand exposure was 1.84 mg/hr (5.6%). Dermal exposure to the head and neck averaged 4.28 mg/hr (13%). Exposure measured beneath the workshirt and workpants averaged 26.8 mg/hr (81.4%). The workshirt and workpants provided 3.4-fold and 11.5-fold protection factors, respectively. Forearm exposure measured beneath the workshirt represented more than 40% of total actual exposure. The small contribution of hand exposure to total dermal exposure was consistent with the use of chemical-resistant gloves by all workers. Total dermal exposure could be reduced substantially by wearing coveralls over regular work clothing, and by the use of guantlet-type gloves. It is recommended that worker education concerning personal hygiene and the appropriate use of protection clothing be made essential components of exposure reduction programs.

Evaluating health risks from occupational exposure to pesticides and the regulatory response.

“…This result is similar to that reported by Rutz and Krieger (87,88) in a review of the exposure studies prepared for the State of California, which compared the exposures from different formulations, handling systems, and application methods. A major advantage of technology-based protective measures is they reduce the burden on workers.…”

“…The hands are not necessarily the most important exposure sites. Significant exposure can occur through garment openings and underneath shirt-weight fabrics (87,88). However, using less permeable fabrics can result in thermal discomfort (86).…”

Assessment of Exposure for Pesticide Handlers in Agricultural, Residential and Institutional Environments

“…Studies in greenhouses have also used patches to characterize the effects of ventilation (Methner and Fenske, 1994a). Numerous investigators have quantified protective clothing penetration by placing patch samplers inside and outside of the fabric barrier (Gold et al, 1982;Nigg et al, 1986;Keeble et al, 1988;Fenske et al, 1990;.…”

Assessment of the dermal exposure to azoxystrobin among women tending cucumbers in selected Polish greenhouses after restricted entry intervals expired — the role of the protective gloves

“…So the protective gloves, instead of reducing the exposure, in fact are rather a source of additional exposure. Lots of studies showed that, in practice, personal protective equipment is often not as effective as it should be as a risk reduction measure [13,14] and can in some cases actually increase the risk. The reasons why gloves are not the effective protection can be: the selection of completely wrong type of gloves: cotton gloves with a leather palm (such gloves were worn by some of the study participants) provides no protection against chemicals and may actually increase exposure as the chemical tends to be held in contact with the skin [15].…”