Stewart P, Fears T, Nicholson H F, Kross B C, Ogilvie L K, Zahm S H, Ward M H, Blair A
Division of Cancer Etiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892-7240, USA.
Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1999 Mar-Apr;60(2):208-12. doi: 10.1080/00028899908984437.
Part of an investigation of data collection methods in epidemiologic studies of farmers evaluated exposures received by farmers from the application of insecticides to animals. Twenty farmers were monitored during a normal application using a fluorescent dye surrogate for the active ingredient (AI). Two exposure measures were estimated, AI concentration and the time-weighted average for the application period (TWAa). Four application methods were used: high- (n = 5) and low-pressure (n = 3) spraying, backpack (n = 2) and pour-on (n = 10). The two farmers using a backpack sprayer had nondetectable levels of dye. Only two of the farmers using the pour-on method had detectable dye levels, but these levels were high. All of the low- and high-pressure sprayers had detectable amounts of dye. Multiple layers of clothing, gloves, and boots (n = 10) were associated with a low mean AI concentration for the exposed farmers (18 micrograms) and more than two-thirds of the farmers wearing this amount of clothing had nondetectable exposures. In contrast, clothing providing little or no protection was associated with a significantly higher (p < 0.01) average AI concentration (4420 micrograms), and less than a third of the farmers with this degree of protection had nondetectable exposures. Poor work practices (leaking equipment, contact with wet animals or fences, and back splash) were associated with statistically higher exposure levels (p < 0.01) than the absence of such practices. There was a moderate statistically significant association between AI concentration and TWAa with total volume of the AI/dye/water mixture using the Spearman coefficient. Time was significantly inversely proportional to the two exposure measures. The association between the two exposure measures and AI volume was not significant.
一项关于农民流行病学研究中数据收集方法的调查，对农民在给动物施用杀虫剂时所接触的暴露情况进行了评估。在正常施药期间，使用一种荧光染料替代活性成分（AI）对20名农民进行了监测。估计了两种暴露指标，即AI浓度和施药期间的时间加权平均值（TWAa）。使用了四种施药方法：高压（n = 5）和低压（n = 3）喷雾、背负式（n = 2）和浇泼式（n = 10）。两名使用背负式喷雾器的农民染料水平未检出。只有两名使用浇泼式方法的农民染料水平可检出，但这些水平较高。所有高低压喷雾器都有可检测到的染料量。多层衣物、手套和靴子（n = 10）与暴露农民的低平均AI浓度（18微克）相关，超过三分之二穿着这种数量衣物的农民暴露水平未检出。相比之下，几乎没有或没有防护作用的衣物与显著更高（p < 0.01）的平均AI浓度（4420微克）相关，且在有这种防护程度的农民中，不到三分之一的人暴露水平未检出。不良的工作习惯（设备泄漏、接触湿动物或围栏以及反溅）与不存在此类习惯相比，在统计学上具有更高的暴露水平（p < 0.01）。使用斯皮尔曼系数，AI浓度和TWAa与AI/染料/水混合物的总体积之间存在中等程度的统计学显著关联。时间与这两种暴露指标呈显著负相关。两种暴露指标与AI体积之间的关联不显著。
