Melissa J Perry1, Anne Marbella, Peter M Layde. 1. Occupational Health Program, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA. mperry@hsph.harvard.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study measured compliance with pesticide-specific protective gear use requirements practiced by farmers applying pesticides to field crops. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and twenty randomly selected dairy farmers were interviewed 1 week after pesticide application to determine use of personal protective equipment while applying at least 1 of 15 possible restricted use pesticides (response rate = 82.4%). RESULTS: Among the three most common pesticides used (dicamba, atrazine, and cyanazine), the proportions of farmers fully complying with gear use requirements were 8.8, 8.6, and 2.5%, respectively. For those same pesticides, the proportions (and 95% CI) using none of the required gear were 56.9% (47.3-66.5%), 38.6% (27.2-50.0%), and 47.5%(32.0-63.0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both full and partial compliance with required personal protective equipment was low for each of the 15 chemicals applied by the applicators in this sample. Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
BACKGROUND: This study measured compliance with pesticide-specific protective gear use requirements practiced by farmers applying pesticides to field crops. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and twenty randomly selected dairy farmers were interviewed 1 week after pesticide application to determine use of personal protective equipment while applying at least 1 of 15 possible restricted use pesticides (response rate = 82.4%). RESULTS: Among the three most common pesticides used (dicamba, atrazine, and cyanazine), the proportions of farmers fully complying with gear use requirements were 8.8, 8.6, and 2.5%, respectively. For those same pesticides, the proportions (and 95% CI) using none of the required gear were 56.9% (47.3-66.5%), 38.6% (27.2-50.0%), and 47.5%(32.0-63.0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both full and partial compliance with required personal protective equipment was low for each of the 15 chemicals applied by the applicators in this sample. Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Curt T DellaValle; Jane A Hoppin; Cynthia J Hines; Gabriella Andreotti; Michael C R Alavanja Journal: J Agromedicine Date: 2012 Impact factor: 1.675
Authors: Jonathan N Hofmann; Matthew C Keifer; Anneclaire J De Roos; Richard A Fenske; Clement E Furlong; Gerald van Belle; Harvey Checkoway Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2009-10-09 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Sara A Quandt; María A Hernández-Valero; Joseph G Grzywacz; Joseph D Hovey; Melissa Gonzales; Thomas A Arcury Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Shedra A Snipes; Francisco A Montiel-Ishino; Joshua M Smyth; Dennis J Murphy; Patricia Y Miranda; Lisa A Davis Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2016-04-11 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Charles Benbrook; Melissa J Perry; Fiorella Belpoggi; Philip J Landrigan; Michelle Perro; Daniele Mandrioli; Michael N Antoniou; Paul Winchester; Robin Mesnage Journal: Environ Health Date: 2021-08-03 Impact factor: 5.984