Protective Headgear for Midwestern Agriculture: A limited Wear Study.

Baseball caps are popular with farm workers, but have been criticized because they do not sufficiently shade the face, neck, and ears. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards require workers to wear chemical-resistant hoods or chemical-resistant hats with wide brims during the application of pesticides whose labels call for head protection. In this study, four farm workers wore baseball caps and two alternative types of headgear with wide brims for 20 to 36 hours during planting of corn and soybeans to compare performance features and practicality. Afterwards, researchers analyzed the headgear fabrics by gas chromatography or high-performance liquid chromatography to determine the levels at which five herbicides were deposited on the headgear: 2,4-D, metolachlor, acetochlor, ethalfluralin, and glyphosate. Chemical analysis revealed that 12 percent of specimens had detectable residue: levels of glyphosate in the nanograms-per-square-centimeter (ng/[cm.sup.2]) range and levels of 2,4-D in the micrograms-per-square-centimeter ([micro]g/[cm.sup.2]) range. Workers, however, preferred the baseball caps because of problems with the wind and feelings of embarrassment about wearing other types of headgear. An acceptable, protective substitute for the baseball cap has yet to be designed.

ABSTRACT

Introduction

Midwestern farmers commonly wear baseball caps for all tasks associated with crop production. In an Ohio study, 61 percent of farmers who wore a hat chose a baseball cap, and 36 percent reported wearing a cloth fishing-style hat [1]. Other studies have pointed out that baseball caps do not provide sun protection for the ears and neck and that the incidence of skin cancer is increasing [2,3].

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA's) Worker Protection Standard for Agriculture requires a chemical-resistant hood or chemical-resistant hat with a wide brim for pesticide application if the pesticide label calls for head protection [4]. Farmers in the Midwest seem to widely ignore this requirement during corn and soybean production.

Studies reporting pesticide exposure to the head have not been directly aimed at understanding head protection. In fact, Fenske used the unprotected head as an indicator of exposure potential in an early study of protective clothing performance [5]. Popendorf reported deposition of captafol on gauze pads attached to the sides of caps during a field study of orange grove spraying, but, again, the purpose was to estimate exposure to unclothed areas [6]. For mixers/loaders, the exposures to the outside of the headgear ranged from 0.03 to 0.62 micrograms per hour per square centimeter ([micro]g/h/[cm.sup.2]), and for spray applicators, exposures to the outside of the headgear ranged from 0.13 to 0.43 [micro]/h/[cm.sup.2]

Using cellulose patches, Keeble et al. found deposition of Guthion on hoods during 1.8 to 2.6 hours of orchard spraying. The mean contamination of the hood neck was 1.39 [micro]g/[cm.sup.2], but that of the hood seam was 3.03 [micro]g/[cm.sup.2] [7].

Fenske later showed nonuniform deposition on various body regions depending on the work activity and the type of application [8]. He found that in air blast spraying, the front of the head received three times (71 [micro]g/[cm.sup.2]) the exposure of the side of the head (24 [micro]g/[cm.sup.2]), but that for mixers, exposure of the front was three times lower than exposure of the side (0.8 versus 2.8 [micro]g/[cm.sup.2]).

Obendorf et al. reported that deposits on Comfort-Gard II [TM] coverall hoods worn during greenhouse spraying varied with the sprayer and the pesticide concentration. For acephate at a higher concentration, the hood received 58 ng/[cm.sup.2] with the Dramm sprayer and 105 ng/[cm.sup.2] with the electrostatic sprayer, but for fenpropathrin, the amounts were 1 ng[cm.sup.2] and 7 ng/[cm.sup.2], respectively [9].

Headgear that offers both chemical and sun protection is needed, but few alternatives are available on the consumer market. Although they are not chemical resistant, Booney Solarweave [R] hats offer a wide brim, and their advertising claims that the fabric blocks "99.1% of harmful UVB rays and 93.5% of UVA rays" [10]. In response to a farm show survey, 88 percent of participants agreed that a sun-blocking material was important or very important; 80 percent agreed that the Booney gave good sun protection [11]. These opinions were based on shadows provided by the brim under lights rather than on wearing for work or physical tests.

Another head protection alternative is the Tyvek QC [R] cover for baseball caps. These covers have 3-inch brims and are available via farm catalogs to meet the Worker Protection Standard. No evidence was found in the literature on actual performance of these covers in field work.

The purposes of this study were 1) to determine farm workers' opinions of three headgear alternatives after actual wear in farm work, including pesticide spray operations and 2) to determine levels at which pesticides were deposited on this headgear worn during and immediately following corn and soybean planting. The assumption was that the findings might offer clues to guide headgear manufacturers in designing more protective styles as well as provide regulators with another perspective on head protection for farm work.

Methods

This study had two parts: 1) the wear study, which involved actual use of three types of headgear with pre- and postwear interviews of farm workers, and 2) analysis of headgear materials to determine the levels at which pesticides were deposited during the wear time. Since the headgear used did not comply with the requirements of all pesticide labels, the study was conducted during a time when herbicides were being applied whose labels generally had minimal headgear requirements. The human-subjects committee of the university approved the project undertaking this work.

Wear Study Methods

For the wear study, four workers at the Iowa State University Agricultural Engineering Research Farm agreed to participate by wearing specified headgear, according to a rotating schedule, as they worked--whether applying pesticides or not. Before the study began, the workers completed a questionnaire about their preferences for headgear (see photo above). None of the workers indicated any experience with skin cancer. During the wear study, each worker recorded the date, weather conditions, pesticides applied, and any problems encountered. At the end of the study the workers completed a follow-up questionnaire, participated in a group interview, and received a new Booney hat as a thank-you gift.

The headgear used in the study was purchased from Gempler's Catalog. A navy-colored cotton twill baseball cap, a tan Booney Solarweave full-brimmed hat, and a second navy twill baseball cap with the Tyvek cover were selected. Sterile gauze pads 4 X 4 [cm.sup.2] were hand-stitched under the brim at the back of each Booney and at the back hem of all the baseball caps to serve as monitoring patches. The authors wanted to compare levels at which pesticides were deposited on a common material at approximately the same location on the head and expected that levels under a brim might be lower. At the beginning of the wear study, workers received a rotation plan showing which headgear should be worn each morning and afternoon of the three-week wear period. Each style of headgear was expected to receive 40 hours of wear, but the exposure would be spread over the entire time of the study Every worker received, in separate zip-close, gallon-size plastic bags, a baseball cap, a Booney Solarweave, and a baseball cap with a Tyvek QC cover. This headgear, a clipboard with pencil attached, and the record-keeping forms were distributed to the workers in large, covered, plastic storage boxes marked with their names. Verbal instructions were given on how to fill out the record forms, and workers were asked to put the headgear into the bags in the boxes between wearings to minimize random contamination.

At the conclusion of the wear study workers' records of pesticides used were verified by other farm records. These data were used to decide which of the pesticides applied might be identified on the headgear specimens with chemical analysis. Five .chemicals--acetochlor (Harness [R], Surpass [R], TopNotch [R]), ethalfiuralin (Sonalan [R]), metolachlor (Dual [R]), glyphosate (Roundup [R]), and 2,4-D--were selected because they were applied in greater quantities and more easily detected (Table 1). Limited resources did not permit testing for all herbicides applied during the wear study (Table 2). Ethalfluralin was not applied during the wear study, but its application a few days before the study suggested it might be identified.

Following the wear period, all headgear was collected, and specimens were cut directly from the material at locations shown in the photo on page 14. At the same locations, one specimen, 4 X 4 [cm.sup.2] was cut for analysis by gas chromatography (GC) while another specimen of the same size was cut for high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analysis. The monitoring gauze (also 4 X 4 [cm.sup.2]) was divided into two equal parts (2 X 4 [cm.sup.2] each), one for GC and the other for HPLC. With the Tyvek cover, a front and back brim and crown specimen were used, but the inside headband specimen was from the baseball cap worn underneath. In all, 56 specimens were cut from headgear, and controls were cut from additional, unexposed headgear.

Determination of Pesticide Residues 

For GC analysis, each of the relevant headgear specimens was placed in a 50-milliliter (mL) Teflon [R]-lined screw-cap glass tube and extracted with 20 mL of ethyl acetate for 24 hours. These specimens were analyzed for acetochlor (Harness, Surpass, Top-Notch), ethalfiuralin (Sonalan), and metolachlor (Dual) on a Varian 3400 GC equipped with a [Ni.sup.63] electron capture detection and an Xpertex XP-225 capillary column. Initial column temperature was 135[degrees]C, then the temperature was ramped to 240[degrees]C at a rate of 20[degrees]C per minute. The injector temperature was 240[degrees]C, and the detector temperature was 300[degrees]C. One or two microliters of extraction solvent was directly injected onto the GC to determine the presence of any pesticide analytes. Additional unexposed samples were artificially incurred and quantified from a standard curve constructed for each analyte. The recoveries were as follows: acetochlor, 89 to 100 percent; ethalfluralin, 68 to 84 percent; and metolachlor, 87 to 100 percent.

The same ethyl acetate extracts were used for the 2,4-D analysis. A 200-microliter ([micro]L) portion of the extract was first derivatized to the ethyl ester along with an analytical 2,4-D reference standard, as described by Stahr (12). Similar GC parameters were used for analysis and quantification. Average recoveries were 90 percent or better.

A separate set of hat specimens also was analyzed for the presence of glyphosate by HPLC. The specimens were placed in 50-ml glass screw-cap tubes and extracted with 10 mL of distilled, deionized water. Standards and samples were derivatized precolumn with a fluorescent compound, 9-fluorenyl-methyl chloroformate, as described by Miles et al. (13). All samples were run on a Waters 2690 Alliance System equipped with a McPherson SF-749 spectrofluorometer and 4.6-by-250-millimeter (mm) Alltech [NH.sub.2] column. Artificially incurred 1-part-per-million (ppm) glyphosate recoveries ranged from 73 to 94 percent.

Results

Rain and cool weather delayed field work during the first half of June, making the goal of 40 hours of wearing time with sun exposure impossible. Since it is a common practice in the corn belt to finish planting within a five- to seven-day period of suitable working days, pesticide exposure time was expected to be limited. Table 2 summarizes the total number of hours the types of headgear were worn, the time periods (dates actually worn), the pesticides applied, and any problems workers noted during the study Table 3 summarizes weather conditions as noted by workers for each day of wearing.

Workers' Opinions Before and After Wearing

In interviews before the wear study, the workers all said they worked in an enclosed cab most of the time, but said they spent from five to eight hours working outdoors on a typical day. All reported usually wearing a baseball cap for field work because baseball caps came free of cost (as advertising promotional items), were comfortable and cool, and gave good shade for the eyes.

Before the wear study, the workers agreed that the baseball cap was their first preference because it was most comfortable and it was a style their friends would like. They all said the Tyvek cover would be embarrassing to wear. Three thought the Booney would be best for sun protection, but one said the baseball cap with Tyvek cover would be most protective.

After the wear study, each worker rated the three headgear styles as best, next best, or worst for each of 11 features. They agreed on most features, as shown in Table 4. All agreed that the baseball cap had the best appearance, fit, and comfort, and that it was easiest to put on and keep on. They also agreed it was worst at sun protection and repelling rain or spray. The Booney was rated best for sun protection and next best for sun blocking, fit, comfort, ease of putting on, and appearance. They all rated the Tyvek cover best only in repelling rain or spray.

Features noted as particularly good about the baseball cap were its comfort, performance in the wind, and ease of putting on. With the Booney, all workers mentioned sun protection or "good shade." With the Tyvek cover, they noted moisture repellence as a particularly good feature. They noted that the Tyvek cover would keep the baseball hat cleaner, and one said it gave fewer problems in the wind than the Booney, probably because it was anchored by the tight-fitting baseball cap.

Baseball cap features noted as particularly annoying were the navy-blue color and the monitoring patch, which workers felt made the cap hot. With the Booney annoying features were the floppy brim in the wind, the chin strap, and the patch. With the baseball cap/Tyvek cover, it was annoying that the hat was "floppy in the wind," hard to keep on, and hot.

The photos on page 14 show the workers in the headgear on a rather windy afternoon at the end of the wear study. When asked about the headgear they might choose in the future, all said they would continue wearing baseball caps.

Levels of Pesticides Deposited on Headgear

Following the wear study, pesticide products used on pre-emergent crops (acetochlor, ethalfluralin, and metolachlor, at the nanogram level) were not found to have been deposited on any of the headgear specimens. Glyphosate, however, was identified on five of the 56 specimens, and 2,4-D was found on two specimens (Table 5). Analysis found glyphosate on the inside headband on both baseball caps worn by one worker (1-J), who had used it in spraying. Glyphosate also was found on the baseball cap brim (bill) and on the brim of the Tyvek cover of another worker (2-D), even though he had not worn either hat when he was applying glyphosate.

Thus, two of three workers who had sprayed glyphosate (Roundup) had it on their headgear. The two workers (3-R and 4-P) who had 2,4-D on their headgear had not used it in spraying during the wear study--and one of them had it on the monitoring patch of his Booney, under the brim, where the authors had least expected to find it!

Discussion

It is clear that the workers were not pleased with the protective headgear chosen for this study because of the problems they experienced. Afterward, they said they thought farmers already were subject to too many regulations, so the Worker Protection Standard for Agriculture (WPS) should not require, but might suggest, a wide-brimmed hat for sun protection. One worker noted that if headgear is necessary "it should be on the pesticide label and be specific." Another said that the WPS "shouldn't require anything, but give you an option and leave it your responsibility for your own personal concerns."

The amount of herbicide found on the headgear (above 1,000 ng/[cm.sup.2]) in this study was about equal to an application of 0.1 kilograms (kg) of active ingredient per hectare. Depending on the concentration of active ingredient, this equates to 10 to 100 percent of a direct sprayer application. Although glyphosate or 2,4-D was deposited on just 12 percent of headgear specimens, there seemed to be an equal likelihood that both applicators and nonapplicators in the general vicinity of spraying might have headgear contamination. The levels of contamination found in this study were fairly comparable to those Fenske reported for mixers (8).

At the same time, no pesticides were detected on 88 percent of the specimens, and no acetochlor, ethalfluralin, or metolachlor was found. Since 280 detections would have been made if all specimens had been contaminated with all five pesticides, the number picked up in this study seems small. This result suggests either that pesticides are less likely to be deposited on headgear in Midwestern corn and soybean operations than in orchard or greenhouse spraying, or that other variables in the study strongly affected the results (6-9).

A combination of several factors can explain the findings. First, the record of headgear use shows that one of the workers applied no pesticides and another applied only a limited amount during the wear study (Table 2). The greatest exposure time for any worker was only 36 hours. Second, common sense suggests that the soil incorporation and low-boom spray methods used in corn and soybean production should result in less overall head exposure than methods used in other agricultural operations, such as orchard spraying. Third, although the workers reported windy days, wet weather conditions tended to minimize dust or small droplets and to minimize the evaporation of water carrier containing residues that could be spread around by wind in dry weather. Fourth, although all specimens were cut and frozen at the end of the wear study, some volatilization may have occurred in storage before extraction. Extracts were refrigerated until analysis, which occurred within eight weeks of the end of the study for all herbic ides except 2,4-D and glyphosate. The glyphosate specimens were kept frozen and not extracted until just before HPLC. Because of staff changes, the HPLC analysis of glyphosate and the GC work on the 2,4-D had to be delayed, the latter more than a year. Also, any pre-emergent products deposited on the samples may have been reduced to nondetectable levels through volatilization before they could be frozen for extraction and analysis; because of the weather, the wear time extended longer than had been planned (Table 2, Table 3).

Brim or crown contamination could have come directly from particles deposited from the air or indirectly from hand contamination as the headgear was handled. Inside headband contamination could occur when caps were not on the head--perhaps on the cab floor of a vehicle--between wearings. Workers all reported taking the embarrassing headgear off when inside their vehicles. Another possible explanation for contamination inside the headband might be that the contamination occurred first on the skin of the forehead and then was wicked into the inside headband via perspiration or body oils. If was the case, the headband would have held the contamination against the forehead like an occlusive bandage for the duration of the work time and thereafter as many times as the cap was worn.

The higher level of glyphosate contamination found on one of the Tyvek cover specimens may be an indication of the barrier resistance, low absorbency, and wicking ability of the nonwoven, web-structured polylefin material. If the contamination was retained on the surface, extraction perhaps was easier and more complete.

This kind of interdisciplinary field study is difficult because of the costs of personnel time, headgear, supplies, and chemical analysis. The findings of this study should, however, be confirmed by additional field studies under different weather conditions. Future field studies should incorporate the following improvements:

* more workers and replicates of headgear,

* prompt extraction following exposure,

* timely chemical analysis, and

* additional headgear designs.

Conclusions and Implications

Human factors play an important role in the use and performance of personal protective equipment. Although the headgear used in this study was unsatisfactory in many ways, the workers all were interested in sun and pesticide protection. The long-term threat of skin cancer, however, did not outweigh the short-term benefit of getting farm work done without annoyance.

The findings that only 12 percent of specimens examined had detectable pesticide deposits and that three of five herbicides applied could not be detected suggest that exposure to the head is not a great threat in corn and soybean production. The finding of 2,4-D on the headgear of workers who had not applied this chemical--at levels comparable to crop doses--seems to suggest that it is difficult to avoid exposure in the vicinity of spray operations.

Midwestern farmers are likely to continue exposing their ears and necks to the sun unless sun-protective headgear with a more secure fit and less floppy brim becomes available and is judged by them as socially acceptable. The wide-brimmed straw or cowboy hats that were once farm stereotypes could provide better sun protection than baseball caps, but farmers no longer choose to wear them.

These findings have five implications:

1. Creative, functional design ideas for production of sun- and pesticide-protective headgear are needed.

2. To provide shade, brims must be stiff and headgear mut fir securely on the head in wind.

3. Workers, employers, and companies that use headgear for advertising must be willing to pay for sun protection, because full-brim designs may cost more to produce than baseball caps.

4. Regulatory agencies may need to consider headgear protection for row-crop agriculture in relation t both pesticide and sun safety.

5. More research is needed.

In the long run, the sun may be greater health hazard for the head, face, ears, and neck than the herbicides if they are applied correctly according to the label.

Editor's Note: Trade and company names are mentioned in this paper for the reader's benefit and do not imply endorsement or preferential treatment of the product by Iowa State University. Nor is criticism implied of similar companies or of products not mentioned.

Acknowledgements: The authors thank Richard VanDePol, Jeff Erb, Dan Crosman and Paul Weigel, manager and staff of the Agricultural Engineering Research Center at Iowa State University, for wearing the headgear and participating in this study. This article is adapted from Journal Paper No. J18407 of the Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station, Ames, Iowa, Project Number 2599. The research was supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture NC-170 Regional Research Project, the Diagnostic Laboratory of the College of Veterinary Medicine, and the University Extension at Iowa State University.

RFFERENCES

(1.) Smith, J.A. (1997), "Incidence of Skin Cancer and Sun Safety Practices of Ohio Farmers," In Proceedings: Third International Symposium on Consumer Environmental Issues, Manhattan, Kans.: Kansas State University, pp. 121-131.

(2.) National Farm Medicine Center (1992), Farmers' Caps and Hats: Skin Cancer Prevention Project, 2nd ed., Marshfield Wisc.: Marshfield Clinic and Wisconsin Governor's Cancer Initiative.

(3.) American Cancer Society (1997), Cancer Facts & Figures--1997, Atlanta, Georgia: American Cancer Society, Inc.

(4.) The Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides: How to Comply (1993), EPA 735-B-93-001, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

(5.) Fenske, R.A. (1988), "Comparative Assessment of Protective Clothing Performance by Measurement of Dermal Exposure During Pesticide Applications," Applied Industrial Hygiene, 3(7):207-213.

(6.) Popendorf, W. (1988), "Mechanisms of Clothing Exposure and Dermal Dosing During Spray Application," In Performance of Protective Clothing: Second Symposium, ASTM STP 989, S.Z. Mansdorf, A.P. Nielsen, and R. Sager, eds., Philadelphia, Pa.: American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 611-624.

(7.) Keeble, V.B., WJ. Doucette, R,R. Dupont, and M. Norton (1988), "Guthion Penetration of Clothing Materials During Mixing and Spraying in Orchards," In Performance of Protective Clothing: Second Symposium ASTM 989, S.Z. Mansdorf, A.P. Nielsen, and R. Sager, eds., Philadelphia, Pa.: American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 573-583.

(8.) Fenske, R.A. (1990), "Nonuniform Dermal Deposition Patterns During Occupational Exposure to Pesticides," Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 19:332-337.

(9.) Obendorf, S.K., C.W Coffman, R.C. Derksen, Y.-K. Koh, V. Ravichandran, J.P. Sanderson, H.M. Stahr, and J.F. Stone (1996), "Clothing Contamination Resulting from Greenhouse Spraying of Pesticides," In Performance of Protective Clothing: Fifth Volume, ASTM STP 1237, J. Johnson and S.Z. Mansdorf, eds., Philadelphia, Pa.: American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 235-246.

(10.) "Solar-Weave Booney Hat" [advertisement] (1998), Gempler's 1998 Master Catalog, p. 72, [less than]http://wwwgemplers.com[greater than].

(11.) Stone, J., S. Padgitt, and W. Wintersteen (1997), "Stimulating Interest in Sun Safety with Extension Audiences," In Proceedings: Third International Symposium on Consumer Environmental issues, Manhattan, Kans.: Kansas State University pp. 112-118.

(12.) Stahr, H.M. (1992), Analytical Methods in Toxicology, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

(13.) Miles, C.J., H.A. Moye, and L.R. Wallace (1986), "Determination of Glyphosate Herbicide and (Aminomethyl) Phosphoric Acid in Natural Waters by Liquid Chromatography Using Pre-Column Fluorogenic Labeling with 9-Fluorenylmethyl Chloroformate," Journal of Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 69(3):458.

                      Herbicides Chosen for Analysis
Chemical      Brand                     Label Class Toxicity
2,4-D         *                         varies      varies
Acetochlor    Harness [R], Surpass [R], caution     III
              and lop Notch [R]
Ethalfluralin Sonalan [R]               warning     II
Glyphosate    Roundup [R]               warning     II
Metolachlor   Dual [R]                  warning     II
Chemical      Headgear Required by Label
2,4-D         no; protective eyewear
Acetochlor    with overhead exposure [**]
Ethalfluralin no
Glyphosate    no; protective eyewear
Metolachlor   no
(*.)Unspecified.
(**.)Chemical-resistant headgear required.
              Time Headgear Was Worn, Chemicals Applied, [*]
                            and Problems Noted
Headgear                          Worker I-J
Baseball Cap
Total hours worn                  36
Dates worn [**]                   5/11-6/26
Chemicals used                    Accent [R], Atrazine [R],
                                  Buctril [R], Harness [R],
                                  Permit [R], Roundup [R],
                                  Sencor [R]
Problems noted                    none
Booney
Total hours worn                  28
Dates worn [**]                   5/11-6/24
Chemicals used                    Pinnacle [R],
                                  Poast Plus [R]
Problems noted                    none
Baseball Cap with Tyvek [R] cover
Total hours worn                  24
Dates worn [**]                   5/18-5/23
Chemicals used                    2,4-D, Buctril Permit,
                                  Roundup, Sencor,
                                  Top Notch [R]
Problems noted                    hot
Headgear                          Worker 2-D           Worker 3-R
Baseball Cap
Total hours worn                  20                   24
Dates worn [**]                   5/11-6/28            5/11-7/1
Chemicals used                    none                 Permit, Roundup
Problems noted                    none                 hot
Booney
Total hours worn                  20                   24
Dates worn [**]                   5/11-6/22            5/11-6/23
Chemicals used                    First Rate [R],      Roundup
                                  Poast Plus, Roundup
Problems noted                    none                 none
Baseball Cap with Tyvek [R] cover
Total hours worn                  28                   24
Dates worn [**]                   5/11-6/22            5/13-6/23
Chemicals used                    Dual II [R], Harness none
Problems noted                    wind                 hot
Headgear                          Worker 4-P
Baseball Cap
Total hours worn                  32
Dates worn [**]                   5/11-6/26
Chemicals used                    none
Problems noted                    none
Booney
Total hours worn                  36
Dates worn [**]                   5/13-6/23
Chemicals used                    none
Problems noted                    none
Baseball Cap with Tyvek [R] cover
Total hours worn                  28
Dates worn [**]                   5/13-6/23
Chemicals used                    none
Problems noted                    hot
(*.)Sonalan (ethalfluralin) was applied before, but not during the wear study.
(**.)See Table 3 for weather conditions.
                Weather Conditions During Wear Study, 1998
Date    Temperature (F) Other Observations
May 11         65       warm, sunny, breezy
May 13         75       warm, sunny, calm-breezy
May 18         80       hot, sunny, windy
May 19         85       hot, sunny/overcast, humid
May 21         75       warm, partly sunny/overcast, humid
May 22         75       cool, overcast, wet/humid
May 26         75       warm/hot, partly sunny, humid
May 27         80       hot, sunny, humid
May 28       80-90      hot, sunny, windy
June 20        70       sunny, breezy
June 22        *        hot, sunny, calm, humid
June 23        *        sunny, partly cloudy, breezy, humid
June 26        *        hot, sunny
July 1         *        sunny, calm
(*.)Temperature not recorded.
                 Farm Worker's Opinions of Headgear After
                                  Wearing
Features [*]      Baseball                 Booney
                    Best   Next Best Worst  Best  Next Best Worst
Appearance           4                                4
Color                3         1             1        3
Practical use        3         1             1        3
Fabric blocks sun    1         2       1     1        3
Fits well            4                                4
Is comfortable       4                                4
Easy to put on       4                                4
Easy to keep on      4                                2       2
Repels dirt/dust               2       2     1        2       1
Sun protection                         4     4
Repels rain/spray                      4              4
Features [*]      Baseball/Tyvek
                       Best      Next Best Worst
Appearance                                   4
Color                                        4
Practical use                                4
Fabric blocks sun                    1       3
Fits well               1                    3
Is comfortable                               4
Easy to put on                               4
Easy t keep on                               4
Repels dirt/dust        1            1       2
Sun protection                       2       2
Repels rain/spray       4
(*.)Features considered independently by each worker for each headgear style.
                        Headgear Contamination [*]
Headgear      Inside Headband           Front Birm       Crown
              Glyphosate [**] 2,4-D [+] Glyphosate 2,4-D Glyphosate 2,4-D
Baseball Cap
  Worker 1-J  750 ng                    500 ng
  Worker 2-D                            125 ng
Tyvek cover
  Worker 2-D                            5,250 ng
Baseball cap/
Tyvek cover
  Worker 1-J  250 ng
Booney
  Worker 3-R
  Worker 4-P                                             2.4 [micro]g
Headgear      Monitor Patch
              Glyphosate 2,4-D
Baseball Cap
  Worker 1-J
  Worker 2-D
Tyvek cover
  Worker 2-D
Baseball cap/
Tyvek cover
  Worker 1-J
Booney
  Worker 3-R  5.8 [micro]g
  Worker 4-P
(*.)Per square centimeter of cloth specimen cut from the headgear.
(**.)The detection limit for glyphosate was set at 100 ng/[cm.sup.2].
(+.)2,4-D results are reported in [micro] because "no detectable
amount" was set at 2 [micro]g/[cm.sup.2]