Pesticide protective clothing.

In looking into future directions of "protective clothing" for pesticide users, the final EPA ruling scheduled for release in June 1992 (Smith personal communication) places the majority of its recommendations on the label. Therefore, it will be up to pesticide manufacturers to provide protective clothing information on their products labels. Research on protective clothing continues to show variations due to fabric characteristics of fiber content, fabric construction and finish. These variabilities are compounded by variation s due to pesticide formulation and pesticide chemical and are further compounded by field studies vs laboratory simulations. With hundreds of fabric variations compounded by the thousands of chemical compounds and formulation variations, the consumer cannot be expected to make proper decisions regarding protective clothing. The user of the product does not have the knowledge to select the appropriate clothing. Manufacturers must supply this information, but they must also have data to support recommendations of their clothing for pesticide protection. This shifts the responsibility for recommending adequate protective clothing, as well as the concern for product liability, to the manufacturer.

Protection afforded citrus pesticide applicators by coveralls.

Four airblast applicators of the pesticides dicofol and ethion to Florida citrus were monitored for pesticide exposure with pads placed inside and outside two types of protective coveralls. Hand exposure was not assessed. Pesticide accumulated uniformly over the coveralls' outer surface at a mean rate of 55 ±6 mg/hr. The penetration of ethion through a reusable treated twill suit was 8 ±2% and through a disposable synthetic suit was 6 ±4%; corresponding values for dicofol were 4 ±1% and 1 ±0%, respectively. While these four penetration values could not be separated statistically at p<0.05, it isprobable (p<0.20) that ethion was the better penetrator, and the disposable synthetic suit the better protector against dicofol.