title: Pesticide personal protective clothing.
abstract: A fairly large established data base provides information on clothing worn by U.S. and Canadian farmers to work with pesticides, their attitudes and beliefs about pesticide risk, and clothing as a dermal barrier. Very limited similar data are available for farmers in less developed countries. Clearly, farmers perceive the benefits of pesticides to far exceed any risks. While few report poisoning symptoms, most believe that their usual work clothing offers a sufficient pesticide barrier, and few wear special-purpose protective clothing. Gloves of various materials, including cotton and leather, appear to be the major protective clothing item. Although farmers feel that their usual work clothing provides excellent protection, fabric penetration research does not support this. Shirting-weight fabrics offer some limited protection against light spray of field-strenght pesticides. Heavier-weight fabrics, such as denim and twill, are better barriers. With a heavier spray or a spill, usual work clothing does not give sufficient protection. Greater protection can usually be achieved with the use of a fluorocarbon finished fabric, such as Scotchgard or Zepel. Scotchgard can readily be applied at home. A durable-press finish does not appear to improve fabric's pesticide-barrier resistance and some data suggest that it may decrease barrier properties. A second alternative for increased protection is the use of a special-purpose fabric, such as a coated nonwoven or possibly Gore-Tex. Numerous other new "waterproof breathable" fabrics have recently come to the market. Many of these are finished or coated fabrics and one would expect them to be at least somewhat resistant to pesticides. However, they have not been tested. Wearing an additional layer also appears to be another clothing strategy to minimize exposure. Fabric penetration research also shows that pesticide formulation, volume or spray regime, concentration, and active ingredients influence the barrier properties of fabrics. Clothing evaluation studies have shown that protective clothing and coveralls of various materials and designs were effective in reducing exposure. Results of some of these studies suggested that the farmer's typical work clothing was more effective than fabric penetration results suggested. This apparent conflict is not surprising, given the methods used in both types of research. The field studies use pads placed in various areas under the clothing. This method assumes that exposure is uniform over entire body regions. But fluorescent tracer research has shown that this is not a valid assumption (DeJonge et al. 1985; Fenske 1988). Also, the way in which the pads are attached may make a difference, although no research has examined this issue.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
authors.affiliation: Department of Design, Housing and Merchandising, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater 74078-0337.
authors.forename: D H
authors.initials: DH
authors.lastname: Branson
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Sweeney
mesh_terms: D000382:Agricultural Workers' Diseases / Q000139:chemically induced / Q000517:prevention & control*; D000383:Agriculture / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000379:methods*; D002170:Canada; D007722:Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; D006801:Humans; D007880:Legislation, Drug; D010575:Pesticides; D011481:Protective Clothing / Q000592:standards; D012106:Research; D014481:United States
chemical_list: D010575:Pesticides