Abstract
On 18 farms for rose culture in greenhouses in The Netherlands, dermal exposure of hands and forearms to abamectin (avermectin B1), dodemorph (4-cyclododecyl-2,6-dimethylmorpholinium acetate) and bupirimate (5-butyl-2-(ethylamino)-6-methyl-4-pyrimidinyl dimethylsulphate) was measured during crop activities. Dermal exposure during cutting (75 workers) amounted to 13 μg/h, 1.8 mg/h, and 2.2 mg/h for abamectin, dodemorph and bupirimate, respectively. Dermal exposure to abamecting and dodemorph during sorting (21 workers) and bundling (30 workers) was comparable with that during cutting. From the dependence of dermal exposure on the amount of dislodgeable foliar residue (DFR) a transfer factor was estimated to be 1,200, 4,550, and 2,400 cm2/h for abamectin, dodemorph and bupirimate, respectively. For sorting and bundling these factors were of the same order of magnitude. The results suggested that work rate was also a determinant of dermal exposure.
The within-farm variance of dermal exposure during cutting appeared to account for approximately 30% of the unexplained part of the variation remaining after regression on DFR and application technique. The final unexplained part in the variation of dermal exposure during cutting was amongst others due to the variation between the different farms in which the measurements were performed.
A health risk evaluation of the observed levels of dermal exposure after re-entry of greenhouses led to the conclusion that a health hazard may exist, especially after application of high rates of relatively toxic pesticides which easily penetrate the skin.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brouwer DH, Brouwer R, Mik G de, Maas CL, Hemmen JJ van (1992a) Pesticides in the cultivation of carnations in greenhouses. Part I: Exposure and concomitant health risks. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J (in press)
Brouwer R, Brouwer DH, Tijssen SCHA, Hemmen JJ van (1992b) Pesticides in the cultivation of carnations in greenhouses. Part II: Relationship between foliar residues and exposure. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J (in press)
Brouwer R, Brouwer DH, Mik G de, Hemmen JJ van (1991) Exposure to pesticides. Part I. The cultivation of carnations in greenhouses. S-series nr 131–1. Directorate-General of Labour of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, The Hague, The Netherlands
Bruynzeel DP, Ketel WG van (1986) Contact dermatitis due to chlorothalonil in floriculture. Contact Dermatitis 14:67–68
Campbell WC (1989) Ivermectin and abamectin. Springer-Verlag, NY
CBS, Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (1990) Statistical Yearbook, SDU publishers, The Hague, The Netherlands
Davis JE, Stevens ER, Staiff DC, Butler LC (1982) Potential exposure of apple thinners to phosalone. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 29:592–598
Davis JE, Stevens ER, Staiff DC (1983) Potential exposure of apple thinners to azinphosmethyl and comparison of two methods for assessment of hand exposure. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 31:631–638
Draper NR, Smith H (1981) Applied regression analysis, 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons, NY
Fenske RA, Birnbaum SG, Methner M, Soto R (1989) Methods for assessing fieldworker hand exposure to pesticides during peach harvesting. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 43:805–813
Fregert S (1967) Allergic contact dermatitis from pesticides captan and phaltan. Contact Dermatitis Newsletter 2:11–12
Genderen H van, Heijden CA van der, Berry CL, Vocci F, Farber T, Charratt M, Watanabe PC, Reitz RH, Ikeda M, Swaen GHM (1988) Workshop on new approaches in extrapolation procedures and standard settings for non-carcinogenic substances in human exposure. J Reg Tox Pharm 8(4)
Goedicke HJ, Hermes H, Wagner R (1989) Exposition durch Rückstände auf Pflanzenoberflächen nach Anwendung von Pflanzen-schutzmitteln im Gewächshaus. Z ges Hyg 35:531–533
Gunther FA, Iwata Y, Carman GE, Smith CA (1977) The citrus reentry problem: research on its causes and effects, and approaches to its minimization. Residue Reviews 67:2–139
Iwata Y, Knaak JB, Spear RC, Foster RJ (1977) Worker re-entry into pesticide-treated crops: I. Procedure for determination of dislodge-able residues on foliage. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 10:649–655
Iwata Y, Knaak JB, Carman GE, Düsch ME, Gunther FA (1982) Fruit residue data and worker reentry research for chlorthiophos applied to California citrus trees. J Agric Food Chem 30:215–222
Jongen MJM, Engel R, Leenheers LH (1991) High performance liquid chromatography method for the determination of occupational exposure to the pesticide abamectin. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 52:433–437
—, —, — (1992) Assessment of dermal exposure of greenhouse workers to the pesticide bupirimate. J Anal Toxicol 16:60–62
Ketel WG van (1976) Sensitivity to pesticide benomyl. Contact Dermatitis 2:290
Krieger R, Blewett C, Edmiston S, Fong H, Gibbons D, Meiders D, O'Connell L, Ross J, Schneider F, Spencer J, Thongsinthusak T (1990) Gauging pesticide exposure of handlers (mixer/loader/applicator) and harvesters in California agriculture. Med Lav 81:474–479
Leenheers LH, Ravensberg JC, Kerstens HJ, Jongen MJM (1992) Gas chromatographic determination of the pesticide dodemorph for assessment of occupational exposure. J Chromatogr Sci (in press)
Liesivuori J, Liukkonen S, Pirhonen P (1988) Re-entry intervals after pesticide application in greenhouses. Scand J Environ Health 14, Suppl 1:35–36
Maddy KT, Edmiston S, Richmond D (1990) Illness, injuries, and deaths from pesticide exposure in California. Rev Env Contam Toxicol 114:58–123
McEwen FL, Ritcey G, Braun H, Frank R, Ripley BD (1980) Foliar pesticide residues in relation to worker re-entry. Pestic Sci 11:643–650
Morse DL, Baker EL, Landrigan PJ (1979) Cut flowers: a potential pesticide hazard. Am J Public Health 69:53–56
Nigg HN, Stamper JH, Queen RM (1984) The development and use of a universal model to predict tree crop harvester pesticide exposure. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 45:182–186
Peachey RDG (1981) Skin hazards in farming. Br J Dermatol 105, Suppl 21:45–49
Popendorf WJ, Spear RC (1974) Preliminary survey of factors affecting the exposure of harvesters to pesticide residues. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 35:374–380
Popendorf WJ, Leffingwell JT (1982) Regulating OP pesticide residues for farmworker protection. Residue Rev 82:125–199
Popendorf WJ (1985) Advances in the Unified Field Model for re-entry hazards. In: Honeycutt RC, Zweig G, Ragsdale NN (eds) Dermal exposure related to pesticide use. Discussion of risk assessment. ACS Symp Ser 273:323–340
Rappaport SM (1991) Assessment of long-term exposures to toxic substances in air. A review. Ann Occup Hyg 35:61–121
Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1982) Statistical methods, 7th ed. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, AI
Spencer JR, Bissell SR, Sanborn JR, Schneider FA, Margetich SS, Krieger RI (1991) Chlorathalonil exposure of workers on mechanical tomato harvesters. Toxicol Letters 55:99–107
Szeto SY, Mackenzie JR, Brown MJ (1984) Disappearance of dimethoate, methamidophos and pirimicarb in lettuce. J Environ Sci Health B19:225–235
Thongsinthusak T, Ross J, Fond HR, Formoli T, Krieger RI (1990) Estimation of exposure of persons in California to pesticide products that contain abamectin. California Department of Food and Agriculture HS-1567
Veien NK, Hatel T, Justesen O, Norholm A (1980) Occupational contact dermatitis due to spiramycin and/or tysolin among farmers. Contact Dermatitis 6:410–413
Wicker GW, Guthrie FE (1980) Worker-crop contact analysis as a means of evaluating re-entry hazards. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 24:161–167
Willems H, Verlinden F, Biersteker K (1984) Arbeid en gezondheid van de Nederlandse agrariër. Tijdschrift voor de Sociale Gezondheidszorg 62:21–27 (in Dutch, English summary)
Zweig G, Leffingwell JT, Popendorf W (1985) The relationship between dermal pesticide exposure by fruit harvesters and dislodge-able foliar residues. J Environ Sci Health B20:27–59
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brouwer, R., Marquart, H., de Mik, G. et al. Risk assessment of dermal exposure of greenhouse workers to pesticides after re-entry. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 23, 273–280 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00216233
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00216233