Submitted to: Symposium on Consumer Environmental Issues Safety Health Chemicals Textile
Publication Type: Proceedings
Publication Acceptance Date: 5/7/1997
Publication Date: N/A
Citation: Interpretive Summary:
Technical Abstract: Off-target spray movement not only affects the environment but may also have serious consequences for the equipment operator. The paper reports one part of a multi-disciplinary effort designed to compare the performance of a conventional, air-assist vineyard sprayer and a hooded sprayer designed to partially enclose the treatment area. The hooded sprayer did not use any form of air-assisted spray delivery. The top, sides, and back of the operator station on the tractor were covered with temporary panels but edges were not sealed. Neutron activation was used to detect pesticide residues on the operator's clothing. Spray deposits detected on the coveralls of the equipment operator were signicantly higher for applications made with the conventional, air-assist sprayer. Reduced volume applications made with the hooded sprayer did not offer improved operator safety. Highest deposits tended to be on the upper area of the operator's body. These results illustrate that even covering the spray area can not eliminate the risk of operator exposure to the pesticides. The results also illustrate the increased risk of exposure to chemicals from operating conventional air-assist compared to application techniques that are designed to reduce spray drift.