Machera K, Tsakirakis A, Charistou A, Anastasiadou P, Glass C R
Laboratory of Pesticides Toxicology, Department of Pesticides Control and Phytopharmacy, Benaki Phytopathological Institute, 8 St Delta Street, GR-145 61 Kifissia, Athens, Greece.
Ann Occup Hyg. 2009 Aug;53(6):573-84. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mep032. Epub 2009 May 27.
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(R) 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.
在本研究中，测定了农药施用人员使用的两种工作服设计的田间性能。根据此前在南欧田间条件下进行的舒适性测试数据，选择了两种工作服类型。在希腊克里特岛伊腊佩特拉地区的温室辣椒作物中，11名操作人员使用类似的手持喷枪进行了22次施药操作，并测量了皮肤暴露情况。所研究的一种工作服设计由经过防水拒污（Resist Spills®）处理的棉/聚酯材料制成，在田间研究中，将其与设计类似但使用未处理的机织棉材料的工作服进行比较。开发并验证了一种内部分析方法，用于测定剂量计上活性物质马拉硫磷的残留量。得出的皮肤暴露水平用作两种工作服防护效果的衡量指标。此外，通过比较从外部和内部剂量计回收的活性物质总量（棉质工作服的潜在皮肤暴露量为238.8 mg kg⁻¹活性物质，防水拒污工作服为160.44 mg kg⁻¹活性物质），可以确定工作服的渗透程度。以外套工作服的平均渗透量（毫克/千克活性物质）占总污染量的百分比计算，防水工作服为0.4%，棉质工作服为2.3%。实验室和田间强化样品的平均回收率分别>91%和74%，用作分析数据质量控制的主要标准。在所评估的田间试验条件下，两种工作服设计提供的防护均优于最相关的预测暴露模型中使用的默认值。因此，在特定应用场景下，当同时考虑舒适性和田间性能时，它们可被视为合适的个人防护工具。
Zotero 插件