Skip to main content
Log in

Occupational exposure and drift hazard during aerial application of paraquat to cotton

  • Published:
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two worker-exposure and drift trials were conducted during the aerial application of paraquat to cotton in California, USA. The dermal and respiratory exposure of pilots, flaggers, and a mixer-loader was shown to be low. Dermal exposure ranged from 0.05 (pilot) to 2.39 (flagger) mg/ hr. The dermal exposure of the mixer-loader was similar to that of the pilots. No respirable paraquat was detected in the breathing zone of any worker. The highest total paraquat concentration was 26.3 μg/m3 for a flagger, which is a factor of 19 less than the TLV for total paraquat. The combined dermal and respiratory exposure of this flagger was equivalent to 19.4 mg/8hr working day. Paraquat drift concentrations decreased with increasing distance downwind of the spray application. The highest concentrations of total and respirable paraquat were 16.7 and 0.15 μg/m3 at 50 m from the application site perimeter. The respective concentrations at 1600 m downwind were 0.5 and 0.01 μg/m3. Measurement of the particle size distribution of paraquat drift showed that 0.95 to 1.96% of spray droplets was within the respirable range at all distances downwind. The highest percentage of respirable droplets was equivalent to 1.2 (μg paraquat, which was measured at 400 m downwind. Respirable fractions of 1 and 0.95% were measured at 50 and 100 m downwind, which represented 1.8 μg paraquat. There was no evidence, therefore, of a toxic hazard to pilots, ground crew, and downwind bystanders, as a consequence of the aerial application of paraquat.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akesson NB, Yates WE, Cowden RE (1977). Procedures for evaluating the potential losses during and following pesticide application. Paper No 77-1504 presented at the 1977 Winter Meeting of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Chicago, Illinois

  • Andersen 2000 Inc (1976). Operating manual for high volume particle sizing samplers. Andersen 2000 Inc, Atlanta, Georgia

    Google Scholar 

  • Anonymous (1983). Threshold limit values for chemical sub-stances and physical agents in the workroom environment with intended changes for 1983-4. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, Ohio

  • Chester G, Woollen BH (1982). Studies of the occupational exposure of Malaysian plantation workers to paraquat. Brit J Ind Med 39:23–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Documenta Geigy (1972) Scientific Tables. 7th edn. Diem K and Lentner C (ed). Ciba Geigy Limited, Basle, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Durham WF, Wolfe HR (1962). Measurement of exposure of workers to pesticides. Bull World Health Org 26:75–91

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fresno County (California) Department of Agriculture (1979). Cotton harvest aid uses. Sacramento, California

  • Hogarty C (1975). Exposure of spray operators to paraquat. Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, Dublin, Ireland

    Google Scholar 

  • Jegier Z (1964). Health hazards in insecticide spraying of crops. Arch Environ Health 8:670–674

    Google Scholar 

  • NIOSH/OSHA (1981). Occupational health guidelines for chemical hazard-paraquat. January. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Orenstein AJ (1960) ed. Recommendations P619. Proc Pneumoconiosis. Conf. Univ of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa 1959. J A Churchill, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter ED, Cohen B, Livia M, Schoenberg J, Weisenberg E, Gordon M (1980). Exposure of aerial spray workers to parathion. Isr J Med Sci 16:96–100

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seiber JN, Woodrow JE (1981). Sampling and analysis of air-borne residues of paraquat in treated cotton field environments. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 10:133–149

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Staiff DC, Comer SW, Armstrong JS, Wolfe HR (1975). Exposure to the herbicide paraquat. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 14:334–340

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Swan AAB (1969). Exposure of spray operators to paraquat. Brit J Ind Med 26:322–329

    Google Scholar 

  • Wojeck GA, Price JF, Nigg HN, Stamper JH (1983). Worker exposure to paraquat and diquat. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 12:65–70

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe HR, Durham WF, Armstrong JF (1967). Exposure of workers to pesticides. Arch Environ Health 14:622–633

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization (1982). Field surveys of exposure to pesticides. Standard Protocol, VBC/82.1. Division of Vector Biology and Control, Geneva, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates WE, Akesson NB, Coutts HH (1966). Evaluation of drift residues from aerial applications. Trans ASAE 9:389–393, 397

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates WE, Akesson NB, Cowden RE (1974). Criteria for minimizing drift residues on crops downwind from aerial applications. Trans ASAE 17:627–632

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chester, G., Ward, R.J. Occupational exposure and drift hazard during aerial application of paraquat to cotton. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 13, 551–563 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01056333

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01056333

Keywords

Navigation