因施用动物杀虫剂而受到的暴露。

P Stewart, T Fears, H F Nicholson, B C Kross, L K Ogilvie, S H Zahm, M H Ward, A Blair
{"title":"因施用动物杀虫剂而受到的暴露。","authors":"P Stewart,&nbsp;T Fears,&nbsp;H F Nicholson,&nbsp;B C Kross,&nbsp;L K Ogilvie,&nbsp;S H Zahm,&nbsp;M H Ward,&nbsp;A Blair","doi":"10.1080/00028899908984437","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Part of an investigation of data collection methods in epidemiologic studies of farmers evaluated exposures received by farmers from the application of insecticides to animals. Twenty farmers were monitored during a normal application using a fluorescent dye surrogate for the active ingredient (AI). Two exposure measures were estimated, AI concentration and the time-weighted average for the application period (TWAa). Four application methods were used: high- (n = 5) and low-pressure (n = 3) spraying, backpack (n = 2) and pour-on (n = 10). The two farmers using a backpack sprayer had nondetectable levels of dye. Only two of the farmers using the pour-on method had detectable dye levels, but these levels were high. All of the low- and high-pressure sprayers had detectable amounts of dye. Multiple layers of clothing, gloves, and boots (n = 10) were associated with a low mean AI concentration for the exposed farmers (18 micrograms) and more than two-thirds of the farmers wearing this amount of clothing had nondetectable exposures. In contrast, clothing providing little or no protection was associated with a significantly higher (p < 0.01) average AI concentration (4420 micrograms), and less than a third of the farmers with this degree of protection had nondetectable exposures. Poor work practices (leaking equipment, contact with wet animals or fences, and back splash) were associated with statistically higher exposure levels (p < 0.01) than the absence of such practices. There was a moderate statistically significant association between AI concentration and TWAa with total volume of the AI/dye/water mixture using the Spearman coefficient. Time was significantly inversely proportional to the two exposure measures. The association between the two exposure measures and AI volume was not significant.</p>","PeriodicalId":7930,"journal":{"name":"American Industrial Hygiene Association journal","volume":"60 2","pages":"208-12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00028899908984437","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exposure received from application of animal insecticides.\",\"authors\":\"P Stewart,&nbsp;T Fears,&nbsp;H F Nicholson,&nbsp;B C Kross,&nbsp;L K Ogilvie,&nbsp;S H Zahm,&nbsp;M H Ward,&nbsp;A Blair\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00028899908984437\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Part of an investigation of data collection methods in epidemiologic studies of farmers evaluated exposures received by farmers from the application of insecticides to animals. Twenty farmers were monitored during a normal application using a fluorescent dye surrogate for the active ingredient (AI). Two exposure measures were estimated, AI concentration and the time-weighted average for the application period (TWAa). Four application methods were used: high- (n = 5) and low-pressure (n = 3) spraying, backpack (n = 2) and pour-on (n = 10). The two farmers using a backpack sprayer had nondetectable levels of dye. Only two of the farmers using the pour-on method had detectable dye levels, but these levels were high. All of the low- and high-pressure sprayers had detectable amounts of dye. Multiple layers of clothing, gloves, and boots (n = 10) were associated with a low mean AI concentration for the exposed farmers (18 micrograms) and more than two-thirds of the farmers wearing this amount of clothing had nondetectable exposures. In contrast, clothing providing little or no protection was associated with a significantly higher (p < 0.01) average AI concentration (4420 micrograms), and less than a third of the farmers with this degree of protection had nondetectable exposures. Poor work practices (leaking equipment, contact with wet animals or fences, and back splash) were associated with statistically higher exposure levels (p < 0.01) than the absence of such practices. There was a moderate statistically significant association between AI concentration and TWAa with total volume of the AI/dye/water mixture using the Spearman coefficient. Time was significantly inversely proportional to the two exposure measures. The association between the two exposure measures and AI volume was not significant.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7930,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Industrial Hygiene Association journal\",\"volume\":\"60 2\",\"pages\":\"208-12\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00028899908984437\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Industrial Hygiene Association journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00028899908984437\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Industrial Hygiene Association journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00028899908984437","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

对农民流行病学研究中数据收集方法的调查的一部分评估了农民因向动物施用杀虫剂而受到的暴露。20名农民在正常施用期间使用荧光染料替代活性成分(AI)进行监测。估计了两种暴露措施,即应用期间的AI浓度和时间加权平均值(TWAa)。采用高压喷雾(n = 5)、低压喷雾(n = 3)、背负式喷雾(n = 2)、倒灌式喷雾(n = 10) 4种施用方式。使用双肩包喷雾器的两名农民的染料水平无法检测到。只有两个使用倒灌法的农民检测到染料水平,但这些水平都很高。所有的低压和高压喷雾器都含有可检测到的染料。多层衣服、手套和靴子(n = 10)与暴露的农民的平均人工智能浓度较低(18微克)有关,超过三分之二的穿着这一数量的衣服的农民无法检测到暴露。相比之下,提供很少或没有防护的服装与显著较高的平均AI浓度(4420微克)相关(p < 0.01),并且在具有这种防护程度的农民中,不到三分之一的人无法检测到暴露。不良的工作实践(设备泄漏、接触湿动物或围栏、背部飞溅)与统计上较高的暴露水平相关(p < 0.01)。使用Spearman系数,AI浓度和TWAa与AI/染料/水混合物的总体积之间存在中度统计学显著相关。时间与两种暴露量显著成反比。两种暴露量与AI量之间的相关性不显著。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exposure received from application of animal insecticides.

Part of an investigation of data collection methods in epidemiologic studies of farmers evaluated exposures received by farmers from the application of insecticides to animals. Twenty farmers were monitored during a normal application using a fluorescent dye surrogate for the active ingredient (AI). Two exposure measures were estimated, AI concentration and the time-weighted average for the application period (TWAa). Four application methods were used: high- (n = 5) and low-pressure (n = 3) spraying, backpack (n = 2) and pour-on (n = 10). The two farmers using a backpack sprayer had nondetectable levels of dye. Only two of the farmers using the pour-on method had detectable dye levels, but these levels were high. All of the low- and high-pressure sprayers had detectable amounts of dye. Multiple layers of clothing, gloves, and boots (n = 10) were associated with a low mean AI concentration for the exposed farmers (18 micrograms) and more than two-thirds of the farmers wearing this amount of clothing had nondetectable exposures. In contrast, clothing providing little or no protection was associated with a significantly higher (p < 0.01) average AI concentration (4420 micrograms), and less than a third of the farmers with this degree of protection had nondetectable exposures. Poor work practices (leaking equipment, contact with wet animals or fences, and back splash) were associated with statistically higher exposure levels (p < 0.01) than the absence of such practices. There was a moderate statistically significant association between AI concentration and TWAa with total volume of the AI/dye/water mixture using the Spearman coefficient. Time was significantly inversely proportional to the two exposure measures. The association between the two exposure measures and AI volume was not significant.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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