温室喷洒中潜在的皮肤接触和人体工程学评估。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Mude Arjun Naik, Adarsh Kumar, Suman Gupta, Dilip Kumar Kushwaha, Hari Lal Kushwaha, Awani Kumar Singh, Ramasubramanian Vaidhyanathan, Murtaza Hasan
{"title":"温室喷洒中潜在的皮肤接触和人体工程学评估。","authors":"Mude Arjun Naik, Adarsh Kumar, Suman Gupta, Dilip Kumar Kushwaha, Hari Lal Kushwaha, Awani Kumar Singh, Ramasubramanian Vaidhyanathan, Murtaza Hasan","doi":"10.1080/15459624.2024.2400241","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Greenhouses are space-efficient structures used in the production of produce. However, occupational health issues like exposure to chemicals, and physiological and postural stresses are experienced by operators while performing farm activities due to the enclosed environment of the greenhouse. This study assesses chemical exposure and physiological and postural parameters of operators during spraying with two different types of sprayers (Battery-powered knapsack sprayer [Battery sprayer] and AC-powered stationary sprayer [Stationary sprayer]) with two different application techniques (continuous and alternate row). The mean Potential Dermal Exposure (PDE) for a continuous row of spraying was 54 and 70 mL h<sup>-1</sup> with battery and stationary sprayers, respectively. However, PDE in alternate row spraying was approximately 16 and 25% less in battery and stationary sprayers than in a continuous row. The upper and left portions of the body had higher exposure compared to the lower and right half portions in all treatments. The ergonomic parameters (physiological and postural assessment) in continuous and alternate row spraying techniques did not differ but varied with the type of sprayer used. Mean values of energy expenditure rate, body part discomfort score, overall discomfort score, and risk index were 210 ± 35 W, 27 ± 2.0, 6.1 ± 0.4, and 1.0, respectively, in the battery sprayer compared to 290 ± 80 W, 35 ± 4.1, 8.3 ± 1.0, and 2.0 in the stationary sprayer. This study concluded that the use of a battery sprayer with an alternate row spraying technique resulted in lower dermal exposure (45 mL h<sup>-1</sup>) and was ergonomically less demanding.</p>","PeriodicalId":16599,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene","volume":" ","pages":"817-830"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Potential dermal exposure and ergonomic assessment in greenhouse spraying.\",\"authors\":\"Mude Arjun Naik, Adarsh Kumar, Suman Gupta, Dilip Kumar Kushwaha, Hari Lal Kushwaha, Awani Kumar Singh, Ramasubramanian Vaidhyanathan, Murtaza Hasan\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15459624.2024.2400241\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Greenhouses are space-efficient structures used in the production of produce. However, occupational health issues like exposure to chemicals, and physiological and postural stresses are experienced by operators while performing farm activities due to the enclosed environment of the greenhouse. This study assesses chemical exposure and physiological and postural parameters of operators during spraying with two different types of sprayers (Battery-powered knapsack sprayer [Battery sprayer] and AC-powered stationary sprayer [Stationary sprayer]) with two different application techniques (continuous and alternate row). The mean Potential Dermal Exposure (PDE) for a continuous row of spraying was 54 and 70 mL h<sup>-1</sup> with battery and stationary sprayers, respectively. However, PDE in alternate row spraying was approximately 16 and 25% less in battery and stationary sprayers than in a continuous row. The upper and left portions of the body had higher exposure compared to the lower and right half portions in all treatments. The ergonomic parameters (physiological and postural assessment) in continuous and alternate row spraying techniques did not differ but varied with the type of sprayer used. Mean values of energy expenditure rate, body part discomfort score, overall discomfort score, and risk index were 210 ± 35 W, 27 ± 2.0, 6.1 ± 0.4, and 1.0, respectively, in the battery sprayer compared to 290 ± 80 W, 35 ± 4.1, 8.3 ± 1.0, and 2.0 in the stationary sprayer. This study concluded that the use of a battery sprayer with an alternate row spraying technique resulted in lower dermal exposure (45 mL h<sup>-1</sup>) and was ergonomically less demanding.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16599,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"817-830\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2024.2400241\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2024.2400241","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

温室是用于农产品生产的空间高效结构。然而,由于温室的封闭环境,操作人员在从事农业活动时会遇到接触化学品、生理和姿势压力等职业健康问题。本研究评估了操作人员在使用两种不同类型的喷雾器(电池供电的背负式喷雾器[电池喷雾器]和交流电供电的固定式喷雾器[固定喷雾器])和两种不同的喷洒技术(连续喷洒和隔行喷洒)进行喷洒时的化学接触情况以及生理和姿势参数。电池喷雾器和固定喷雾器连续喷洒的平均皮肤潜在暴露量(PDE)分别为 54 毫升/小时和 70 毫升/小时。但在交替喷洒中,电池式和固定式喷洒器的潜在皮肤暴露量分别比连续喷洒低约 16% 和 25%。在所有处理中,上半身和左半身的暴露量都高于下半身和右半身。连续喷洒和隔行喷洒技术的人体工程学参数(生理和姿势评估)没有差异,但因使用的喷洒器类型而异。电池喷雾器的能量消耗率、身体部位不适评分、总体不适评分和风险指数的平均值分别为 210 ± 35 W、27 ± 2.0、6.1 ± 0.4 和 1.0,而固定喷雾器的能量消耗率、身体部位不适评分、总体不适评分和风险指数的平均值分别为 290 ± 80 W、35 ± 4.1、8.3 ± 1.0 和 2.0。这项研究的结论是,使用电池喷雾器和交替行喷洒技术可降低皮肤接触量(45 毫升/小时-1),而且对人体工学的要求较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Potential dermal exposure and ergonomic assessment in greenhouse spraying.

Greenhouses are space-efficient structures used in the production of produce. However, occupational health issues like exposure to chemicals, and physiological and postural stresses are experienced by operators while performing farm activities due to the enclosed environment of the greenhouse. This study assesses chemical exposure and physiological and postural parameters of operators during spraying with two different types of sprayers (Battery-powered knapsack sprayer [Battery sprayer] and AC-powered stationary sprayer [Stationary sprayer]) with two different application techniques (continuous and alternate row). The mean Potential Dermal Exposure (PDE) for a continuous row of spraying was 54 and 70 mL h-1 with battery and stationary sprayers, respectively. However, PDE in alternate row spraying was approximately 16 and 25% less in battery and stationary sprayers than in a continuous row. The upper and left portions of the body had higher exposure compared to the lower and right half portions in all treatments. The ergonomic parameters (physiological and postural assessment) in continuous and alternate row spraying techniques did not differ but varied with the type of sprayer used. Mean values of energy expenditure rate, body part discomfort score, overall discomfort score, and risk index were 210 ± 35 W, 27 ± 2.0, 6.1 ± 0.4, and 1.0, respectively, in the battery sprayer compared to 290 ± 80 W, 35 ± 4.1, 8.3 ± 1.0, and 2.0 in the stationary sprayer. This study concluded that the use of a battery sprayer with an alternate row spraying technique resulted in lower dermal exposure (45 mL h-1) and was ergonomically less demanding.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 环境科学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
10.00%
发文量
81
审稿时长
12-24 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene ( JOEH ) is a joint publication of the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA®) and ACGIH®. The JOEH is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to enhancing the knowledge and practice of occupational and environmental hygiene and safety by widely disseminating research articles and applied studies of the highest quality. The JOEH provides a written medium for the communication of ideas, methods, processes, and research in core and emerging areas of occupational and environmental hygiene. Core domains include, but are not limited to: exposure assessment, control strategies, ergonomics, and risk analysis. Emerging domains include, but are not limited to: sensor technology, emergency preparedness and response, changing workforce, and management and analysis of "big" data.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信