Risk assessment of human exposure to cypermethrin during treatment of mandarin fields

• Published in: Archives of environmental contamination and toxicology Vol. 50; no. 3; pp. 437 - 442
• Main Authors: CHOI, H, MOON, J. K, LIU, K. H, PARK, H. W, IHM, Y. B, PARK, B. S, KIM, J. H
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Heidelberg Springer-Verlag 01.04.2006; Berlin Springer Nature B.V; New York, NY
• Subjects: Air Pollutants, Occupational - analysis; Animal, plant and microbial ecology; Applied ecology; Biological and medical sciences; Citrus; Cypermethrin; Ecotoxicology, biological effects of pollution; Exposure; Female; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; General aspects; Humans; Inhalation Exposure - analysis; Insecticides - analysis; Korea; Male; Occupational Exposure - analysis; Occupational safety; Pesticides; Pyrethrins - analysis; Risk Assessment; Skin - drug effects; Sprays; Korea; Human; Pollution; Insecticide; Ecotoxicology; Cypermethrin; Pesticides; Pyrethroids; Environment; Risk analysis
• ISSN: 0090-4341; 1432-0703
• DOI: 10.1007/s00244-005-1050-3

The potential dermal and respiratory exposure assessment and risk assessment for applicator were performed with cypermethrin EC. The pesticide was applied on a mandarin field using a power sprayer. Gloves were used for the hand exposure assessment, mask for face, and dermal patches for the other parts of the body. Personal air monitor equipped with a XAD-2 resin was used for the respiratory exposure assessment. During the application of cypermethrin in the field, the rate of potential dermal exposure ranged from 28.1 to 58.8 mg/h. The major exposure parts were upper-arms (22.1-24.6%) and legs (thigh and shin, 28.3-29.2%) for females and thigh (21.0-46.9%) and hand (14.9-19.3%) for males. Females were exposed more than males. No exposure was detected from the respiratory monitoring. For risk assessment, the potential dermal exposure (PDE), the absorbable quantity of exposure (AQE), and the margin of safety (MOS) were calculated. Among those four risk assessments, MOS was < 1 in only trial I, which indicated any possibility of risk. However, in the others, the possibility of risk was little. Moreover, the safe work time ranged from 3.61 h to 9.69 h.