Iowa greenhouse applicators' perceptions and use of personal protective equipment.

Introduction

Greenhouse cultivation of plants may include five growth cycles annually and may require the use of several different pesticides. Waldron reported that greenhouse crops may have pesticide applications on a 3-day cycle (1). Applicators and workers are exposed to pesticides, through application processes and contact with benches and plants during handling or trimming.

Nigg's research review concerning reentry for agricultural workers noted the effect of environmental conditions on pesticide exposure, including contact with foliage and fruit residues, but cited no research about greenhouses (2). The exposure hazard is potentially higher in a greenhouse than outdoors partly because natural dilution occurs outdoors. Poorly ventilated greenhouses may pose a threat to both workers and applicators (1,2,3).

Brouwer et al. studied secondary contamination of applicators and workers from transfer of pesticide residues from sprayed carnations in greenhouses. In some instances employees working with sprayed plants were at a higher risk of exposure than applicators. The authors noted higher than expected incidence of skin disorders on hands of workers (4). Lander and Lings found that cholinesterase enzyme (ChE) activity decreased as weekly spraying time increased among greenhouse workers. They found that gloves were helpful in preventing ChE inhibition (5).

Lander et al. investigated pesticide exposure of greenhouse workers and the effect of using protective gloves during cultivation of flowers in greenhouses. They did not find that gloves helped prevent up-take of anti-ChE pesticides (6). Lander and Hinke studied the effect of PPE on greenhouse worker exposure. They found that the frequency of application and the use of protective clothing were related to ChE inhibition, but found no significant relationship between ChE inhibition and the use of protective gloves or face masks. Whole body protection (coveralls) seemed to prevent skin absorption and reduce secondary contamination from residues on plant leaves, benches, and equipment. They concluded that greenhouse workers not using PPE probably run considerable health risks (7).

Putnam et al. reported reduced pesticide exposure with use of rubber gloves, but concluded that gloves did not completely eliminate exposure when working with vegetable crops treated with nitrofen (8). Lavy, Mattice, and Flynn (9) reported that work habits affect dermal exposure and that contaminated gloves and footwear serve as a continuing source of exposure when workers wear them after chemical use. Despite mixed evidence concerning the efficacy of PPE, Pesticide Applicator Training (PAT) manuals emphasize use of PPE, especially gloves, as a means of reducing exposure (10).

Stone et al. surveyed farm pesticide applicators and found they did not vary their clothing according to the toxicity of the chemicals used (11). A 1991 survey showed that 90% of farm applicators "nearly always" wore or "planned to wear" chemically resistant gloves for mixing and loading pesticides. Fewer of these farmers reported poisoning symptoms than in the earlier study. This was attributed partly to more emphasis on PPE and personal hygiene in educational certification programs (12, 13). Greenhouse applicators were not included in these Iowa surveys.

Attitudes of pesticide applicators and handlers have been studied because PPE cannot provide benefit if workers are unwilling to use PPE correctly (14,15,16,17,18). Stone and Shelley classified Iowa farmers' attitudes about pesticides according to four dimensions: net benefit users, cautious users, understanding/control users, and fatalistic users. They found that farmers were more certain about the benefits of pesticides for crop production and the benefits of PPE than about the health risks involved with pesticides (16). No studies of greenhouse workers' attitudes were identified.

The Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides (WPS) specifies that PPE be used according to pesticide label requirements making employers responsible for employee compliance (19). Employers must provide adequate storage space for PPE with an area for cleanup after contact with pesticides and ensure that PPE is regularly replaced.

Many of the rules concerning PPE are difficult to implement in greenhouses where temperatures commonly range from 18 [degrees] to 32 [degrees] C and applicator comfort is a concern. The WPS ventilation requirements after application of certain pesticides are difficult to follow in greenhouses in winter climates because plants can easily freeze. Space for storage of personal clothing, changing into and out of PPE, and storage of PPE, may be a problem for both employers and employees in the industry.

Before the implementation of the WPS, it was observed that little data about greenhouse applicator practices with regard to PPE were available. No studies were identified that concerned the decision-making roles and responsibilities of employers and employees with regard to PPE for greenhouses or for its use and care.

Objectives

This study was conducted to establish a benchmark data set concerning greenhouse applicators' use of PPE, practices, experiences, and attitudes before enactment of the WPS. It was intended that the results could be used as a basis for measuring change and success of educational programs after the implementation of the WPS. The purpose of this manuscript is to compare greenhouse applicators who were employees with those who were self-employed concerning PPE use, safety attitudes, and perceptions of pesticide-related illnesses. It was hypothesized that: 1) greenhouse employees' PPE might be less likely to meet pesticide label requirements than PPE of the self-employed greenhouse applicators; 2) employee and self-employed groups differ in their use of PPE; 3) employees might have more positive attitudes than the self-employed about the effectiveness of PPE and regulations; and 4) fewer employees than self-employed might report poisoning symptoms associated with pesticide use.

Methods

A questionnaire was developed by using items from earlier surveys, by modifying some of those items, and by creating new items more specific to the greenhouse industry and proposed WPS regulations (3,15,16,17,20). The list of poisoning symptoms was based on frequency of response to earlier surveys (11,13). Statements expressing attitudes were presented using five-point Likert responses ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. They were selected from items showing variation in response in previous surveys (11,13). Another purpose of the survey was to evaluate the greenhouse pesticide applicator training program.

The mail questionnaire was sent to certified greenhouse applicators in 1992. Three weeks after the first mailing, a second questionnaire was sent to all nonrespondents. Continuing Education Credits were required for recertification to use pesticides in Iowa, and applicators could earn one credit by completing and returning the questionnaire. A 72% response resulting from greenhouse applicators was obtained, providing a sample of 185 observations. Data analysis included calculation of one-way frequencies and examination of two-way cross-tabulation tables, with significance indicated by the usual Pearson Chi Square statistic.

Results

Most greenhouse applicators (79%) were employees of firms, but 21% were self-employed. Figure 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the sample. The median age was 37 years, the range being 19 to 68 years. Employees were significantly more likely to fall into the younger age groupings. All but 5% of respondents mixed or applied pesticides as part of their job. The median number of days of application was 30 per year, but ranged up to 222 per year. Fumigants were applied by 26% of the greenhouse applicators.

Table 1 shows that most greenhouse applicators reported that their protective gear met or exceeded minimum pesticide label requirements for the pesticides they handled. The clothing worn by employees was significantly (p[is less than].02) more likely to meet "more than minimum label requirements," whereas most self-employed applicators clothing "met minimum label requirements." Most greenhouse applicators said that the lack of PPE at their workplace did not prevent them from following pesticide labels. Greenhouse applicators relied heavily on self-instruction and reading labels for information about PPE. Pesticide Applicator Training (PAT) and Iowa State University Extension were the next most frequently mentioned information sources. In response to open-ended questions about their need for additional education, greenhouse applicators said they would like more information about PPE and chemically resistant materials, especially if information were targeted to greenhouse working conditions.

A comparison of work clothing worn by employees and self-employed greenhouse applicators is shown in Figure 2. No significant differences were found between employees and self-employed greenhouse applicators with respect to regular work clothing choices, except with regard to the use of gloves. Self-employed applicators were more likely than employees to nearly always wear gloves.

Table 1. Perceptions of PPE Meeting Label Requirements and PPE Training.

                                                   Employee      Self-employed

                                                   f      %         f      %

(*) Protective gear meets label requirements      (n = 123)         (n = 36)

Yes, more than minimum                            63     51         9     25
Yes, minimum                                      35     29        16     44
Mostly, but not always                            25     20        11     31

Lack of gear prevents following label             (n = 134)         (n = 36)

Yes                                                8      6         3      8
No                                               111     83        32     89
Don't know or not applicable                      15     11         1      3

(**) PPE training received from                   (n = 127)         (n = 36)

Self-instruction/reading labels                   98     77        29     81
Employer                                          57     44        12     33
Iowa Agricultural Health and
  Safety Service Program (IA-HASSP)               10      8         1      3
Iowa State University Extension                   83     65        22     61
Pesticide Applicator Training                     88     69        29     80
Media                                             14     11         3      8
Other                                             21     17         6     17

* Chi Square significant at P [is less than] .05.

** Percentages reflect proportion who checked the response; multiple answers
were possible. In other items, percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Very few applicators reported wearing cotton coveralls; most reported wearing jeans. Applicators reported wearing both long- and short-sleeved shirts. Over two-fifths of both employee and self-employed applicators said their choice of sleeve length depended upon the weather. A slightly higher percentage of employees than those self-employed reported nearly always wearing t-shirts and undershorts or long johns.

Figure 3 shows a comparison of PPE worn by employees and self-employed greenhouse applicators. No significant differences were found between groups in PPE choices, except in the use of disposable coveralls and robber boots. Employees were more likely than self-employed applicators to nearly always wear disposable coveralls and rubber boots.

Most applicators reported either that they never wear a chemically resistant apron or that it is unnecessary for the pesticides they apply. Over one-third said that they nearly always wear chemical cartridge respirators, and 23% wear them occasionally, depending on the pesticide used. Other PPE items were rarely or never worn or greenhouse applicators thought them unnecessary for their protection with the pesticides they were using.

Table 2 shows responses about PPE use, care, and replacement of uniforms. About the same percentage of employees reported wearing cotton/polyester outer clothing (33%) when working with pesticides as reported wearing disposables (32%). Few employees (6%) reported that their pesticide-soiled clothing was usually laundered in company facilities. Pesticide-soiled clothing was most often washed in the family washer, separately from family clothes, but 17% of employees and 15% of self-employed greenhouse applicators reported washing pesticide work clothes with other family clothes. The pesticide storage area was used for storing PPE, 45% of the applicators reported.

Chemically resistant gloves were replaced primarily when a leak was detectable or on a seasonal basis. The data showed that self-employed applicators were significantly more likely than employees to replace gloves seasonally, but the small sample size prevents attaching importance to this finding.

Clothing and PPE most frequently mentioned as provided by employers were long-sleeved shirts, chemically resistant gloves, and rubber boots. Eleven greenhouse applicators said their employers required short-sleeved uniform shirts.

Table 2. PPE Use, Care, and Replacement.

                                                   Employee    Self-employed
                                                   f      %      f      %

Outer clothing worn for pesticide work             (n = 107)     (n = 32)
Cotton                                            18     17     10     31
Cotton/polyester                                  35     33     14     44
Water repellent                                   17     16      5     16
Tyvek disposable                                  34     32      3      9
Don't know                                         3      3      0      0

Clothing worn for pesticide work usually
laundered                                          (n = 117)     (n = 34)
By employer in company facilities                  7      6      1      3
In my family washer with family clothes           20     17      5     15
In my family washer, separately                   83     71     28     82
At a coin-operated laundromat                      7      6      0      0

(**) Chemically resistant glove replacement        (n = 125)     (n = 36)
When leak is detectable                           64     51     15     41
When employer provides new                         7      6      0      0
Weekly                                             9      7      1      3
Monthly                                            7      6      1      3
Seasonally                                        26     21     17     47
Other                                             25     20      4     11
Do not wear                                        8      6      3      8

                                                      YES           NO
                                                   f      %      f      %
Employer requires protective gear (n = 126)       88     70     38     30
Employer requires uniform (n = 126)               41     33     84     67

Among employees with required uniforms,
who decides when to replace uniforms               (n = 32)
Self                                               23    72
Employer                                            9    28

(**) Among employees with required uniforms,
how often uniforms are replaced response
checked                                            (n = 35)
Annually                                           13    37
Two times a year                                    7    26
Seasonally                                          5    14
If contaminated with pesticide spill                9    27

** Percentages reflect proportion who checked the response; multiple answers
were possible. In other items, percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

In the group of employees (n=41) that worn uniforms supplied by employers, about one-fourth said the employer decided when to replace them. The most frequently, mentioned replacement time was "annually."

Greenhouse applicators were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the series of attitude statements about pesticide use shown in Figure 4. No significant differences were found between employees and self-employed applicators with regard to these attitudes.

Perceptions of Pesticide Poisoning Symptoms

Perceptions of acute symptoms from pesticide exposure are shown in Table 3. No significant differences were found between employees and the self-employed greenhouse applicators with regard to the number of illness symptoms reported, and few attributed symptoms to pesticides. The most frequently named symptoms were headache, skin irritation, and eye irritation. Very few (5% or less) reported following up with medical treatment.

Only 5% of greenhouse applicators indicated any health problems of a chronic or long-term nature. Just five applicators wrote comments in space available on the questionnaire. They mentioned eye twitches, increased frequency of respiratory infection, eye damage, and sterility possibly caused by overexposure. Thirteen percent of applicators (n=173) reported having blood cholinesterase tests each spring, but only 40% of those individuals had follow-up tests in the fall.

Discussion

Both employees and self-employed applicators reported that their PPE met label requirements, but the hypothesis that employee's PPE would be less likely to meet minimum label requirements was rejected because the data showed the opposite.

No significant differences were found between the employee and the self-employed applicators with regard to most clothing worn for pesticide application, so further hypotheses regarding differences were rejected. Rather than wearing cover-alls, most greenhouse applicators wore jeans and a long- or short-sleeved shirt just as farmers reported in other studies (11,13,17,18). Both long and short-sleeves were chosen depending on the weather, but not according to pesticide used. Results of studies concerning greenhouse exposure (4,5,6,7) supports the conclusion that long-sleeved shirts should be worn. However, heat exhaustion is a recognized health risk that is not easily reconciled with the need for dermal protection in conditions of high heat and humidity.

The questionnaire asked both about "gloves" without specifying the material and about "chemically resistant gloves." Although self-employed applicators were significantly more likely than employees to wear "gloves" nearly always (as hypothesized), there was no significant difference in the wearing of "chemically resistant gloves" between the two groups. Chemically resistant gloves are highly recommended by the PAT program, so this result is confirmation of the effectiveness of the training and is consistent with recent Iowa surveys (12). In an earlier survey, 24% of Iowa agricultural applicators reported wearing leather gloves (11,20); work glove materials may be chosen for warmth and grip strength, reasons other than chemical resistance. Given the mixed findings regarding the effect of glove use (6,8,9) and the difficulties farmers report in using them (12), it is no wonder that gloves are not worn by all.

Many greenhouse applicators do not take advantage of the greater protection offered by wearing two layers of clothing and/or underwear, as found in previous studies (11,13,17) with other samples. Greenhouse applicators said the wearing of undergarments was often dependent on the weather and rarely on the pesticide used. Excess heat in the greenhouse during the summer months may explain this response.

Table 3. Greenhouse Applicator's Reports of Illness Symptoms from Pesticide
Exposure.

                                             Never        One or more times
                                            f       %           f      %

Symptoms

Excessive fatigue     Employee            103      90         11     10
                      Self-Employed        32      97          1      3

Headache              Employee             85      71         34     29
                      Self-employed        26      79          7     21

Dizziness             Employee             106     91         11      9
                      Self-employed         33    100          0      0

Eye irritation        Employee             106     91         11      9
                      Self-employed         30     91          3      9

Skin irritation       Employee             100     84         19     16
                      Self-employed         32     97          1      3

Nausea                Employee             108     94          7      6
                      Self-employed         32     97          1      3

Diarrhea              Employee             112     97          3      3
                      Self-employed         33    100          0      0

General weakness      Employee             108     93          8      7
                      Self-employed         33    100          0      0

Chest discomfort      Employee             109     93          8      7
                      Self-Employed         32     97          1      3

The only significant differences found between employees and self-employed applicators' PPE choices that support hypothesis 2 that employee and self-employed groups differ in their use of PPE were the reported use of disposable coveralls and rubber boots. Disposable cover-alls and boots were significantly more likely to be "nearly always" worn by employees than by self-employed applicators. Employees may be following company policies regarding coveralls and boots. The self-employed applicators were more likely to wear boots depending on the weather and to say that boots were unnecessary for the pesticides they were applying. The self-employed may manage smaller operations and lack access to information about safety-related PPE that often comes from larger chemical dealers. In their open-ended responses, greenhouse applicators said they wanted further information about products such as Tyvek [R], how they should be used, the protection they offer, and disposal methods.

With regard to PPE use, care, and replacement, no significant difference was found between employees and self-employed greenhouse applicators providing further evidence that hypothesis 2 could not be fully supported. In 1992, most employers did not take responsibility in this area, with 72% of employees deciding for themselves when to replace uniforms. Both employees and employers will need to learn characteristics of PPE deterioration that indicate the time for disposal and replacement. Theoretically, employees will be taken care of under the WPS, but self-employed applicators may be willing to assume greater personal risk for themselves. Education about PPE benefits may help them make the financial commitment.

PAT materials emphasize that clothing worn for pesticide application should be washed separately to avoid pesticide transfer to noncontaminated clothing through the wash water (10). Table 2 shows that many greenhouse applicators washed pesticide-soiled clothes with family clothes. Chemicals used in greenhouses vary in toxicity, but normally include some of the most toxic pesticides that inhibit ChE (4,5,6,7). Greenhouse applicators may not understand that clothing can be a medium for contamination if not used and cared for properly. Management of both clean and pesticide-soiled PPE storage seems to be a problem yet to be resolved by greenhouse applicators. Volatile chemicals can be absorbed by fabrics, so that separate storage for clean PPE is required under WPS. Greenhouse applicators need additional education about laundering practices, storage, and replacement of PPE.

No significant differences were found between employee and self-employed applicators with regard to any of the attitude statements about pesticides included in this survey; hypothesis 3 that employees might have more positive attitudes about the effectiveness of PPE and regulations than the self-employed, was not supported. Although no statistical analysis comparing data sets was made, greenhouse applicators seemed to differ in their attitudes about pesticides in comparison to previous sample groups (15,16).

Three attitude statements were repeated exactly from the previous Stone and Shelley study. Greenhouse applicators disagreed with statement 6 that "the amount of pesticide that gets on clothing is nothing compared to the amount of pollution in the air" and statement 8 that "risks are just part of the job in pesticide application" more often than the private agricultural applicators did earlier (16). A larger proportion of greenhouse applicators strongly disagreed with statement 5 that "most people are tough enough to take exposure to pesticides without harm."

Greenhouse applicators expressed most uncertainty about the link between pesticides and cancer in humans. This is consistent with the findings of uncertainty about health risk identified by other studies (15,16,18).

PAT training may serve to dampen negative attitudes about governmental regulations. About half the employees disagreed that "we already have too much regulation on the use of pesticides," and this may mean that employees see government in a "protector" role. If so, the greenhouse provisions of the WPS (3,19) may be easily accepted. However, 46% of employees and 69% of self-employed applicators agreed or strongly agreed with statement 12 that "there is too much concern over harmful effects of pesticides and too little about their benefits." Some greenhouse owners may be afraid that environmental and safety regulations may interfere with their profit margins.

Reports of Poisoning Symptoms

No significant differences were found between employees and self-employed greenhouse applicators reports of poisoning symptoms, so hypothesis 4 was rejected. Consistent with agricultural survey results, most applicators did not attribute illness symptoms to pesticide use (11,13,17,20). The symptoms reported are similar to other common illnesses. Skin rash, for example, may occur because of allergic sensitivity to latex. A few greenhouse applicators attributed illness symptoms to heat build-up, sweating, and dehydration caused by protective suits. Very few applicators wrote comments about illness symptoms in the spaces provided in the questionnaire. One mentioned bleeding gums and ears after application. Another mentioned a skin rash on his leg when his jean's split and he wasn't wearing protective clothing. Another mentioned headaches after spraying with 2,4-D mixtures but sought no medical help.

Just five applicators wrote comments about chronic or long-term health problems that they believed were pesticide related. Problems mentioned were eye twitches, respiratory infection frequency, eye damage, and sterility. In each case, uncertainty or admitted lack of documentation that could prove cause and effect was acknowledged. One applicator mentioned not understanding cholinesterase blood test results. These few responses may indicate that there are very few health-related problems arising from greenhouse spraying because most applicators use work clothing and PPE that meets label requirements. Their positive attitudes toward protective clothing (Attitude statements 1-4, Figure 4) support this idea. Or, it may be that applicators are not fully aware of poisoning indicators and/or that they deny the relationship between overexposure and health problems as mentioned by Rucker et al. (15). Their greater uncertainty about exposure and health risk (Attitude statements 5-7, Figure 4) supports this notion.

Summary and Conclusions

Most greenhouse applicators reported that their work clothing and PPE met or more than met pesticide label requirements. Greenhouse applicators, whether employees of firms or self-employed, were similar in their use of work clothing and PPE. The majority of those who were required to wear uniforms chose the timing of PPE replacement. If applicators are well informed about PPE failure indicators, they can minimize exposure by replacing PPE. More agreement was found about what to wear for pesticide work than about pesticide safety and governmental regulation, as expressed through attitude statements. Few greenhouse workers reported poisoning symptoms; even fewer reported long-term health effects, despite their repeated pesticide exposure, indoor work environment, and somewhat limited use of PPE.

Voluntary adoption of PPE by greenhouse applicators must be encouraged. Regulatory agencies will find it hard to enforce compliance with the WPS, especially with small independent firms. This survey shows that additional educational programs concerning PPE will be welcomed if specifically targeted to greenhouse applicators and workers.

References

1. Waldron, A. C. (1985), "The Potential for Applicator-Worker Exposure to Pesticides in Greenhouse Operations," In: R. C. Honeycutt, G. Zweig, N. N. Ragsdale, Eds. Dermal Exposure Related to Pesticide Use, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 311-319.

2. Nigg, H. N. (1980), Prediction of Agricultural Worker Safety Reentry Times for Organophosphate Insecticides, Amer Indus Hyg Assoc J 41:340-345.

3. Federal Register (1992), Part III: EPA, 40 CFR, Parts 156 and 170. EPA, Worker Protection Standard, Hazard Information, Hand Labor Tasks on Cut Flowers and Ferns Exception; Final Rule, and Proposed Rules 57(163):38107-38122.

4. Brouwer, R., D. H. Brouwer, G. de Mik, and J. J. van Hemmen (1991), "Exposure to Pesticides, Part 1. The Cultivation of Carnations in Greenhouses," The Hague: Directorate-General of Labour from the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, 1-27.

5. Lander, F. and S. Lings (1991), "Variation in Plasma Cholinesterase Activity Among Greenhouse Workers, Fruitgrowers, and Slaughtermen," Brit J Indus Med 48:164-166.

6. Lander, F., E. Pike, K. Hinke, A. Brock and J. B. Nielsen (1992), "Anti-Cholinesterase Agents Uptake During Cultivation of Greenhouse Flowers," Arch of Enviro Contam Toxicol 22:159-162.

7. Lander, F. and K. Hinke (1992), "Indoor Application of Anti-cholinesterase Agents and the Influence of Personal Protection on Uptake," Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 22:163-166.

8. Putnam, A. R., M. D. Willis, L. K. Binning and P. F. Boldt (1983), "Exposure of Pesticide Applicators to Nitrofen: Influence of Formulation, Handling Systems, and Protective Garments," J Agric Food Chem 31:645-650.

9. Lavy, T. L., J. D. Mattice and R. R. Flynn (1983), "Field Studies Monitoring Worker Exposure to Pesticides," In: Pesticide Formulations and Application Systems, K. G. Seymour, Ed. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 60-74.

10. Wintersteen, W., R. Hartzler, L. Sweets, R. Voss, J. Stone, G. Czapar, J. Pease and G. Bryan (1992), 1992-93 Private Pesticide Applicator Study Guide, PAT 1, Iowa State U. Ext. Ames, Iowa.

11. Stone, J. F., M. L. Eichner, C. Kim and K. Koehler (1988), "Relationships Between Clothing and Pesticide Poisoning: Symptoms Among Iowa Farmers," J. of Environ Health 50(4):210-215.

12. Stone, J., W. Wintersteen and S. Padgitt (1994), "Applicators Experiences with Chemically Resistant Gloves as a Means of Reducing Pesticide Exposure," Proceedings Third International Symposium, Issues in Health Safety and Agriculture, Human Sustainability in Agriculture: Health, Safety, Environment, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, In press.

13. Padgitt, S., W. Wintersteen, and J. Stone (1994), "Agricultural Pesticide Exposure, Safety Precautions and Pesticide Attributed Illnesses Among Iowa Farmers," Proceedings Third International Symposium, Issues in Health Safety and Agriculture, Human Sustainability in Agriculture: Health, Safety, Environment. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, In press.

14. DeJonge, J. O., J. Vredevoogd, and M. S. Henry (1983), "Attitudes, Practices, and Preferences of Pesticide Users Toward Protective Apparel," Cloth and Tex Resear J 2:9-14.

15. Rucker, M, H., K. M. McGee and T. Chordas (1986), "California Pesticide Applicators' Attitudes and Practices Regarding the Use and Care of Protective Clothing," Performance of Protective Clothing. ASTM STP 900. R. L. Baker and G. C. Coletta, Eds. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 103-113.

16. Stone, J. and M. Shelley (1988), "Iowa Farmers' Attitudes About Pesticides and Clothing: Perception of Risk, Benefit, and Safety Practices," Symposium Proceedings, The First International Symposium on the Impact of Pesticides, Industrial and Consumer Chemicals on the Near Environment, B. Reagan, D. Johnson, and S. Dusaj. Eds., Orlando, Flor., 243-254.

17. Rucker, M., D. Branson, C. Nelson, W. Olson, A. Slocum and J. Stone (1988), "Farm Families' Attitudes and Practices Regarding Pesticide Application and Protective Clothing: A Five-State Comparison, Part 1: Applicator Data," Cloth and Tex Resear J, 6:4:37-46.

18. Herzfeld, D. and R. Meronuck (1993), "Pesticide Applicators' Perception of Personal Health Risks," Second International Symposium Proceedings: Consumer Environmental Issues: Safety, Health, Chemicals, and Textiles in the Near Environment. B. M. Rcagan, J. Huck, and J. Porter, Eds., St. Petersburg, Florida, 136-144.

19. U. S. EPA (1993), The Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides--How to Comply. EPA 735-B-93-001.

20. Stone, J. F., Ed., D. Branson, C. Nelson, W. Olson, M. Rucker, and A. Slocum (1989), Use and Care of Clothing Worn for Pesticide Application. A Five-State Survey Report. AES and USDA NCR Publication 318.

Acknowledgements

Journal Paper No. J-15724 of the Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station, Ames, Iowa, Project 2599. This research is part of the USDA NC-170 Regional Research Project, "Enhancing Worker Safety Through Personal Protective Equipment," and was supported by the Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station, Ames, Iowa, by Iowa State University Extension Service, and by a grant from the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship.

No endorsement of products mentioned is intended, nor is criticism implied of similar products not mentioned.

Janis Stone, Ph.D., 1055 LeBaron Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-6712