Laboratory Test Methods to Measure Repellency,Retention,and Penetration of Liquid Pesticides Through Protective Clothing. Part I: Comparison of Three Test Methods

Abstract

In the last three decades, different test methods have been used to assess the level of protection provided by various textile materials against liquid pesticide penetration. Of these, the ISO 6350/EN368 gutter test is currently used to screen garment materials for certification of type 6 personal protective equipment (PPE) in Europe. The atomizer test method developed in Germany is used to evaluate the performance of PPE marketed there. In addition, a pipette method is being proposed as an American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) test method in the United States. This study compares the three test methods and determines the suitability of these methods for screening protective clothing materials against liquid pesticides. Six fabrics selected to represent the woven and nonwoven fabrics used while handling and spraying pesticides are contaminated with dilute pesticide formulations following the three test methods. Repellency, pesticide retention, and penetration characteristics of the test materials are measured. The results indicate that the evaluation of fabric performance is affected by the test method.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials, vol. 11.03, Philadelphia, PA, 1997.

2. Batel, W. , and Hinz, T. , Exposure Measurements Concerning Protective Clothing in Agriculture, in “Performance of Protective Clothing,” ASTM-STP 900, S. Z. Mansdorf , R. Sager , and A. P. Nielsen , Eds., American Society for Testing Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1986, pp. 584–596.

3. Council Directive 89/686/EEC of December 21, 1989 on the Approximation of the Laws of the Member States Relating to Personal Protective Equipment, modified by 93/68/EEC, 93/95/EEC, 96/58/EC, 1989.

4. Easter, E. P. , Leonas, K. K. , and DeJonge, J. O. , A Reproductive Method for the Extraction of Pesticide Residues from Fabrics, Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 31, 738–744 (1983).

5. Hinz, T., Testing Protective Suits against Pesticides, Acta Horticult., 372 (1994).

6. Laughlin, J. M. , Easley, C. B. , Gold, R. E. , and Hill, R. M. , Fabric Parameters and Pesticide Characteristics that Impact Dermal Exposure of Applicators, in “Performance of Protective Clothing,” ASTM STP 900, R. L. Barker and C. L. Coletta , Eds., American Society of Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1986, pp. 136–150.

7. Laughlin, J. , and Gold, R. E. , Cleaning Protective Apparel to Reduce Pesticide Exposure, Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 101, 93 (1988).

8. Leonas, K. , The Mechanism of Pesticide Transmission through Apparel Fabrics: A Comparison of Drop and Spray Exposure Methodologies, Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 20, 427–431 (1991).

9. Leonas, K. , and DeJonge, J. , Effect of Functional Finish Barriers on Pesticide Penetration, in “Performance of Protective Clothing,” ASTM STP 900, R. L. Barker and C. L. Coletta , Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1986, pp. 177–186.

10.

10. Raheel, M. , Dermal Exposure to Pesticides, The Barrier Effectiveness of Protective Clothing, J. Environ. Health 51(2), 82–84 (1988).

11.

11. Raheel, M. , Resistance of Selected Textiles to Pesticide Penetration and Degradation, J. Environ. Health 49, 214–219 (1987).

12.

12. Shaw, A. , and Hill, K. R. , Effect of Exposure Time on the Sorption of Pesticide Emulsifiable Concentrates through Microporous Fabrics, Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 46, 45–52 (1991).

13.

13. Wadsworth, L. C., Easter, E. P., and Lin, Y. Q., A Study of Nonwoven Fabrics in Providing Repellency and Barrier Performance, in “Symposium Proceedings—The First International Symposium on the Impact of Pesticides, Industrial and Consumer Chemicals on the Near Environment,” Orlando, FL, 1988, pp. 137-153.