142
Views
4
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

Exposure risks to pesticide applicators posed by the use of electric backpack sprayers and stretcher-mounted sprayers in orchards

, , , , , & show all
Pages 2288-2301 | Received 01 Aug 2019, Accepted 29 Sep 2019, Published online: 04 Nov 2019
 

Abstract

The introduction of the pesticide registration system in pesticide risk assessments has promoted the scientific and safe use of pesticides, and the assessment of occupational exposure risk. In the present study, we performed an experiment in a citrus orchard subject to normal orchard management practices. By measuring the exposure of applicators’ (farmers and technicians) body parts to 45% malathion emulsifiable concentrate during its application using electric backpack sprayers (0.25 KPa) and stretcher-mounted sprayers (1.5 KPa), the unit exposure (UE) was determined. The risks of exposure for pesticide applicators who adopted five different protective measures (A: no personal protective equipment (PPE), i.e., no clothes, no gloves, no caps, and no socks; B: short-sleeved top and shorts; C: short-sleeved top, shorts, and a single pair of gloves; D: short-sleeved top, shorts, a single pair of gloves, and a cap; E: long-sleeved top, long pants, a single pair of gloves, and a cap) were also assessed. The results were as follows: 1) The total levels of exposure for pesticide applicators using electric backpack sprayers and stretcher-mounted sprayers were 3613.63 µg and 5654.28 µg, respectively. When electric backpack sprayers were used, the body parts that had the highest exposure were the head (13.8%), hands (19.9%) and back (14.0%), and when stretcher-mounted sprayers were used, the hands (32.5%) and lower legs (21.1%) had the highest level of exposure; 2) In the absence of PPE, the UE values for farmers who used electric backpack sprayers and farmers who used stretcher-mounted sprayers were significantly different. However, when PPE was used, the difference in UE values between the farmers using the two different types of sprayers was not significant; 3) When protective measure A was adopted, the risk quotient (RQ) values of the farmers and technicians who used electric backpack sprayers for the application of malathion were 1.44 and 0.54, respectively; the corresponding RQ values when protective measure B was adopted were 0.97 and 0.28, respectively. When stretcher-mounted sprayers were used for the application of chlorpyrifos, the RQ value of the farmers who adopted protective measure E was 0.43 while other types of PPE use resulted in RQ values greater than 1. In contrast, the RQ value for technicians was 1.62 when protective measure A was used and 1.02 when protective measure B was adopted, whereas other types of PPE use resulted in RQ values less than 1. Therefore, besides increasing the awareness of personal protection among pesticide applicators, improvement in the management of pesticide use and the enhancement of standard operations are of practical significance for controlling occupational exposure to pesticides.

Additional information

Funding

This study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (21607134).

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 61.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 358.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.