ArticleHeliyon2024
Assessment of pesticide exposure to applicators during spraying in orchards with a stretcher-mounted sprayer.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Various health risk assessment models have been developed to evaluate occupational pesticide exposure in China. However, there has been limited investigation into the relationship between health risks and pesticide spraying in orchards. In this study, we analyzed pesticide exposure of applicators while spraying with a stretcher-mounted sprayer in orchards located in four different climatic regions. All garments' unit exposure (UE) demonstrated a right-skewed distribution, with gloves and shins accounting for the highest proportion of dermal pesticide exposure. We observed little difference in dermal and inhalation UE levels between apple and citrus orchards, except for pesticide exposure levels on wipes and faces. While 57% of the inhalation UE distribution variance was attributed to clustering and location effects, no significant differences were observed in dermal exposure levels. We evaluated the impact of different levels of protective clothing on pesticide exposure levels, according to applicators' working habits in China. Our findings revealed that improved levels of protection significantly reduced dermal exposure to pesticides, particularly when wearing gloves during spraying with a stretcher-mounted sprayer. Based on our empirical data, we utilized a simple random sampling model and an intercept-only lognormal mixed model to estimate dermal and inhalation exposure levels. The estimated dermal UE was accurate to within 3-fold with 95% confidence, and half of the estimated inhalation UE was acceptable according to the fold relative accuracy (fRA). Our established and verified statistics for dermal and inhalation UE can be utilized to evaluate the potential pesticide exposure to applicators during spraying in orchards with a stretcher-mounted sprayer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.