Pesticide Exposure of Residents Living Close to Agricultural Fields in the Netherlands:Protocol for an Observational Study

Background: Application of pesticides in the vicinity of homes has caused concern regarding possible health effects in residents living nearby. However, the high spatiotemporal variation of pesticide levels and lack of knowledge regarding the contribution of exposure routes greatly complicates exposure assessment approaches. Objective: The objective of this paper was to describe the study protocol of a large exposure survey in the Netherlands assessing pesticide exposure of residents living close ( Methods: We performed an observational study involving residents living in the vicinity of agricultural fields and residents living more than 500 m away from any agricultural fields (control subjects). Residential exposures were measured both during a pesticide use period after a specific application and during the nonuse period for 7 and 2 days, respectively. We collected environmental samples (outdoor and indoor air, dust, and garden and field soils) and personal samples (urine and hand wipes). We also collected data on spraying applications as well as on home characteristics, participants' demographics, and food habits via questionnaires and diaries. Environmental samples were analyzed for 46 prioritized pesticides. Urine samples were analyzed for biomarkers of a subset of 5 pesticides. Alongside the field study, and by taking spray events and environmental data into account, we developed a modeling framework to estimate environmental exposure of residents to pesticides. Results: Our study was conducted between 2016 and 2019. We assessed 96 homes and 192 participants, including 7 growers and 28 control subjects. We followed 14 pesticide applications, applying 20 active ingredients. We collected 4416 samples: 1018 air, 445 dust (224 vacuumed floor, 221 doormat), 265 soil (238 garden, 27 fields), 2485 urine, 112 hand wipes, and 91 tank mixtures. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study on residents' exposure to pesticides addressing all major nondietary exposure sources and routes (air, soil, dust). Our protocol provides insights on used sampling techniques, the wealth of data collected, developed methods, modeling framework, and lessons learned. Resources and data are open for future collaborations on this important topic

Sequential Indoor Use of Pesticides: Operator Exposure via Deposit Transfer from Sprayed Crops and Contaminated Application Equipment

Dermal transfer of pesticide residues to human skin due to contact with treated crops, treated surfaces, or contaminated surfaces is an important route of exposure for operators, workers and possibly for bystanders and residents. However, information on dermal transfer data is limited and mainly available for workers. The aim of the present study has been to generate both dermal exposure and transfer data related for operators involved in sequential tasks of mixing/loading and application of pesticides in a southern EU zone greenhouse. Exposure measurements were based on the principles of the whole-body dosimetry (WBD) method involving the use of cotton coveralls and gloves as dosimeters. Six field trials were conducted in three tomato greenhouses, on the island of Crete, Greece. The study results showed that the contribution of existing pesticide deposits on the treated crops, i.e., from an application conducted earlier the same day, was in the range of 8–16% for the application task and 0.9–18% for the mixing/loading task in relation to the measured total exposure to this pesticide during a short-term sequential application. The results of this study have been incorporated in the GAOEM (Greenhouse Agricultural Operator Exposure Model) included in the updated EFSA Guidance on the assessment of exposure of operators, workers, residents and bystanders in risk assessment of plant protection products. The low values of the pesticide amount penetrating the coverall (actual dermal exposure) in all cases highlight and confirm the need for the use of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) for operator safety

Sequential Indoor Use of Pesticides: Operator Exposure via Deposit Transfer from Sprayed Crops and Contaminated Application Equipment

Dermal transfer of pesticide residues to human skin due to contact with treated crops, treated surfaces, or contaminated surfaces is an important route of exposure for operators, workers and possibly for bystanders and residents. However, information on dermal transfer data is limited and mainly available for workers. The aim of the present study has been to generate both dermal exposure and transfer data related for operators involved in sequential tasks of mixing/loading and application of pesticides in a southern EU zone greenhouse. Exposure measurements were based on the principles of the whole-body dosimetry (WBD) method involving the use of cotton coveralls and gloves as dosimeters. Six field trials were conducted in three tomato greenhouses, on the island of Crete, Greece. The study results showed that the contribution of existing pesticide deposits on the treated crops, i.e., from an application conducted earlier the same day, was in the range of 8–16% for the application task and 0.9–18% for the mixing/loading task in relation to the measured total exposure to this pesticide during a short-term sequential application. The results of this study have been incorporated in the GAOEM (Greenhouse Agricultural Operator Exposure Model) included in the updated EFSA Guidance on the assessment of exposure of operators, workers, residents and bystanders in risk assessment of plant protection products. The low values of the pesticide amount penetrating the coverall (actual dermal exposure) in all cases highlight and confirm the need for the use of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) for operator safety

Pesticide Exposure of Residents Living Close to Agricultural Fields in the Netherlands: Protocol for an Observational Study

Contains fulltext : 233734.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access

The BROWSE model for predicting exposures of residents and bystanders to agricultural use of plant protection products : an overview

New models have been developed, with the aim of improving the estimate of exposure of residents and bystanders to agricultural pesticides for regulatory purposes. These are part of a larger suite of models also covering operators and workers. The population that is modelled for residents and bystanders relates to people (both adults and children) who have no association with the application (i.e. not occupational exposure) but are adjacent to the treated area during and/or after the application process. The scenarios that the models aim to describe are based on consideration of both best practice and of real practice, as shown in surveys and from expert knowledge obtained in stakeholder consultations. The work has focused on three causes of exposure identified as having potential for improvement: boom sprayers, orchard sprayers and vapour emissions

The BROWSE model for predicting exposures of residents and bystanders to agricultural use of plant protection products: An overview

New models have been developed, with the aim of improving the estimate of exposure of residents and bystanders to agricultural pesticides for regulatory purposes. These are part of a larger suite of models also covering operators and workers. The population that is modelled for residents and bystanders relates to people (both adults and children) who have no association with the application (i.e. not occupational exposure) but are adjacent to the treated area during and/or after the application process. The scenarios that the models aim to describe are based on consideration of both best practice and of real practice, as shown in surveys and from expert knowledge obtained in stakeholder consultations.The work has focused on three causes of exposure identified as having potential for improvement: boom sprayers, orchard sprayers and vapour emissions.An overview of the models is given, and a description of model input values and proposed defaults. The main causes of uncertainty in the models are also discussed. There are a number of benefits of the BROWSE model over current models of bystander and resident exposure, which includes the incorporation of mitigation measures for reducing exposure and the use of probabilistic modelling to avoid an over-conservative approach.It is expected that the levels of exposure that the BROWSE model predicts will, in some cases, be higher than those predicted by the current UK regulatory model. This is largely because the modelled scenarios have been updated to account for current practice and current scientific knowledge.<br/

Pesticide Exposure of Residents Living Close to Agricultural Fields in the Netherlands: Protocol for an Observational Study

Background: Application of pesticides in the vicinity of homes has caused concern regarding possible health effects in residents living nearby. However, the high spatiotemporal variation of pesticide levels and lack of knowledge regarding the contribution of exposure routes greatly complicates exposure assessment approaches. Objective: The objective of this paper was to describe the study protocol of a large exposure survey in the Netherlands assessing pesticide exposure of residents living close (<250 m) to agricultural fields; to better understand possible routes of exposure; to develop an integrative exposure model for residential exposure; and to describe lessons learned. Methods: We performed an observational study involving residents living in the vicinity of agricultural fields and residents living more than 500 m away from any agricultural fields (control subjects). Residential exposures were measured both during a pesticide use period after a specific application and during the nonuse period for 7 and 2 days, respectively. We collected environmental samples (outdoor and indoor air, dust, and garden and field soils) and personal samples (urine and hand wipes). We also collected data on spraying applications as well as on home characteristics, participants' demographics, and food habits via questionnaires and diaries. Environmental samples were analyzed for 46 prioritized pesticides. Urine samples were analyzed for biomarkers of a subset of 5 pesticides. Alongside the field study, and by taking spray events and environmental data into account, we developed a modeling framework to estimate environmental exposure of residents to pesticides. Results: Our study was conducted between 2016 and 2019. We assessed 96 homes and 192 participants, including 7 growers and 28 control subjects. We followed 14 pesticide applications, applying 20 active ingredients. We collected 4416 samples: 1018 air, 445 dust (224 vacuumed floor, 221 doormat), 265 soil (238 garden, 27 fields), 2485 urine, 112 hand wipes, and 91 tank mixtures. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study on residents' exposure to pesticides addressing all major nondietary exposure sources and routes (air, soil, dust). Our protocol provides insights on used sampling techniques, the wealth of data collected, developed methods, modeling framework, and lessons learned. Resources and data are open for future collaborations on this important topic

Exposure profiles of pesticides among greenhouse workers: implications for epidemiological studies.

Contains fulltext : 51497.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)The aim of this study was to assess exposure to pesticides for a longitudinal epidemiological study on adverse reproduction effects among greenhouse workers. Detailed information on pesticide use among greenhouse workers was obtained on a monthly basis through self-administered questionnaires and subsequent workplace surveys. Questionnaires were filled in for a whole year. Dermal exposure rankings were developed for each task using the observational method Dermal Exposure Assessment Method (DREAM). Exposure scores were calculated for each worker for each month during the year, taking into account frequency, duration and exposure intensity for each task. A total number of 116 different active ingredients were used in the population, whereas a mean number of 15 active ingredients were applied per greenhouse. DREAM observations provided insight into the exposure intensity of 12 application techniques and three mixing and loading activities. Relatively high DREAM scores were obtained for scattering, fogging, dusting, and mixing and loading of powders. Observations with DREAM indicated that application with a horizontal ground-boom, motor driven boom, and bulb shower resulted in low dermal exposure. Exposure scores showed substantial variation between workers and over the year. It can be concluded that exposure variation between- and within greenhouses is very large, both in terms of chemical composition and exposure intensity. This may be a significant contributor to the inconsistent results of studies evaluating health effects of pesticide exposure