Iowa Greenhouse Applicators' Perceptions and Use of Personal Protective Equipment

By Stone, Janis; Padgitt, Steven et al. | Journal of Environmental Health, October 1994 | Go to article overview

Iowa Greenhouse Applicators' Perceptions and Use of Personal Protective Equipment


Stone, Janis, Padgitt, Steven, Wintersteen, Wendy, Shelley, Mack, Chisholm, Sandra, Journal of Environmental Health


Introduction

Greenhouse cultivation of plants may include five growth cycles annually and may require the use of several different pesticides. Waldron reported that greenhouse crops may have pesticide applications on a 3-day cycle (1). Applicators and workers are exposed to pesticides, through application processes and contact with benches and plants during handling or trimming.

Nigg's research review concerning reentry for agricultural workers noted the effect of environmental conditions on pesticide exposure, including contact with foliage and fruit residues, but cited no research about greenhouses (2). The exposure hazard is potentially higher in a greenhouse than outdoors partly because natural dilution occurs outdoors. Poorly ventilated greenhouses may pose a threat to both workers and applicators (1,2,3).

Brouwer et al. studied secondary contamination of applicators and workers from transfer of pesticide residues from sprayed carnations in greenhouses. In some instances employees working with sprayed plants were at a higher risk of exposure than applicators. The authors noted higher than expected incidence of skin disorders on hands of workers (4). Lander and Lings found that cholinesterase enzyme (ChE) activity decreased as weekly spraying time increased among greenhouse workers. They found that gloves were helpful in preventing ChE inhibition (5).

Lander et al. investigated pesticide exposure of greenhouse workers and the effect of using protective gloves during cultivation of flowers in greenhouses. They did not find that gloves helped prevent up-take of anti-ChE pesticides (6). Lander and Hinke studied the effect of PPE on greenhouse worker exposure. They found that the frequency of application and the use of protective clothing were related to ChE inhibition, but found no significant relationship between ChE inhibition and the use of protective gloves or face masks. Whole body protection (coveralls) seemed to prevent skin absorption and reduce secondary contamination from residues on plant leaves, benches, and equipment. They concluded that greenhouse workers not using PPE probably run considerable health risks (7).

Putnam et al. reported reduced pesticide exposure with use of rubber gloves, but concluded that gloves did not completely eliminate exposure when working with vegetable crops treated with nitrofen (8). Lavy, Mattice, and Flynn (9) reported that work habits affect dermal exposure and that contaminated gloves and footwear serve as a continuing source of exposure when workers wear them after chemical use. Despite mixed evidence concerning the efficacy of PPE, Pesticide Applicator Training (PAT) manuals emphasize use of PPE, especially gloves, as a means of reducing exposure (10).

Stone et al. surveyed farm pesticide applicators and found they did not vary their clothing according to the toxicity of the chemicals used (11). A 1991 survey showed that 90% of farm applicators "nearly always" wore or "planned to wear" chemically resistant gloves for mixing and loading pesticides. Fewer of these farmers reported poisoning symptoms than in the earlier study. This was attributed partly to more emphasis on PPE and personal hygiene in educational certification programs (12, 13). Greenhouse applicators were not included in these Iowa surveys.

Attitudes of pesticide applicators and handlers have been studied because PPE cannot provide benefit if workers are unwilling to use PPE correctly (14,15,16,17,18). Stone and Shelley classified Iowa farmers' attitudes about pesticides according to four dimensions: net benefit users, cautious users, understanding/control users, and fatalistic users. They found that farmers were more certain about the benefits of pesticides for crop production and the benefits of PPE than about the health risks involved with pesticides (16). No studies of greenhouse workers' attitudes were identified.

The Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides (WPS) specifies that PPE be used according to pesticide label requirements making employers responsible for employee compliance (19). …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Iowa Greenhouse Applicators' Perceptions and Use of Personal Protective Equipment
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.