Paraquat-Exposition in der Landwirtschaft
Paraquat exposure of knapsack applicators (01.01.96)
van Wendel de Joode BN, de Graaf IA, Wesseling C, and Kromhout H, Paraquat exposure of knapsack applicators on banana plantations in Costa Rica, International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 2, 294-304, 1996
A study on banana plantations measured the exposures of 11 spray applicators to diluted paraquat (0.1-0.2%): direct skin exposure was measured with the aid of skin pads and the respiratory exposure was measured with personal air samplers. Total dermal exposures (a sum of certain body areas) measured were 0.2-5.7 mg paraquat per hour (equivalent to doses of 3.5-113.0 mg/kg). Urinary levels (detected in 2 of 28 samples) were 0.24 mg/l and <0.03 mg/l; respiratory exposure was 0-0.043 mg/l, corresponding to 0.3% of the total dermal exposure. This is on the same order as the proportion of paraquat absorbed through intact skin (0.23-0.29%) (Wester et al 1984). It was not clear whether the measured levels of exposure would lead to acute or chronic health effects, however, it was found that the risk of a high and therefore hazardous exposure was continually present, due to poor working conditions. Health problems recorded were: blistering and burns of the hands, thighs, back, testicles and legs (due to defetive equipment or contact with sprayed leaves); two eye splashes causing redness and burning sensation. Three workers had nosebleeds (in one case frequently); nonspecific symptoms were headache, stomachache, nausea and blurred vision. No different exposures of wrists and legs were found in workers wearing gloves or overalls. When an apron was worn exposure on the back was relatively low (but not significantly lower), while wearing trousers resulted in significantly lower exposure of the legs. This study indicated that use of protective clothing does not necessary result in adequate protection as spray solution may get under clothing or soak into it and can get into gloves or boots. A study in Nicaragua measured lower paraquat than in the study above, but residues on skin were still considerable, especially on the hands; some workers carried out spraying with bare hands, in shorts and without shoes (Spruit & van Puijvelde 1998).
References:
Spruit O, and van Puijvelde, Evaluation of the protective equipment used during herbicide application on banana plantations, Internal report 1998-304, Wageningen Agricultural University 1998
Wester RC, Maibach HI, Bucks DA, and Aufrere MB, In vivo percutaneous absorption of paraquat from hand, leg, and forearm of humans, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 14(5-6), 759-762, 1984
A study on banana plantations measured the exposures of 11 spray applicators to diluted paraquat (0.1-0.2%): direct skin exposure was measured with the aid of skin pads and the respiratory exposure was measured with personal air samplers. Total dermal exposures (a sum of certain body areas) measured were 0.2-5.7 mg paraquat per hour (equivalent to doses of 3.5-113.0 mg/kg). Urinary levels (detected in 2 of 28 samples) were 0.24 mg/l and <0.03 mg/l; respiratory exposure was 0-0.043 mg/l, corresponding to 0.3% of the total dermal exposure. This is on the same order as the proportion of paraquat absorbed through intact skin (0.23-0.29%) (Wester et al 1984). It was not clear whether the measured levels of exposure would lead to acute or chronic health effects, however, it was found that the risk of a high and therefore hazardous exposure was continually present, due to poor working conditions. Health problems recorded were: blistering and burns of the hands, thighs, back, testicles and legs (due to defetive equipment or contact with sprayed leaves); two eye splashes causing redness and burning sensation. Three workers had nosebleeds (in one case frequently); nonspecific symptoms were headache, stomachache, nausea and blurred vision. No different exposures of wrists and legs were found in workers wearing gloves or overalls. When an apron was worn exposure on the back was relatively low (but not significantly lower), while wearing trousers resulted in significantly lower exposure of the legs. This study indicated that use of protective clothing does not necessary result in adequate protection as spray solution may get under clothing or soak into it and can get into gloves or boots. A study in Nicaragua measured lower paraquat than in the study above, but residues on skin were still considerable, especially on the hands; some workers carried out spraying with bare hands, in shorts and without shoes (Spruit & van Puijvelde 1998).
References:
Spruit O, and van Puijvelde, Evaluation of the protective equipment used during herbicide application on banana plantations, Internal report 1998-304, Wageningen Agricultural University 1998
Wester RC, Maibach HI, Bucks DA, and Aufrere MB, In vivo percutaneous absorption of paraquat from hand, leg, and forearm of humans, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 14(5-6), 759-762, 1984
 |
Paraquat Exposure of Knapsack Spray Operators on Banana Plantations in Costa Rica (full text) (4.1 MB) |
