安雪花¹,
王星¹,
张文萍¹,
关文碧¹,
吕露¹,
吴声敢¹,
柳新菊¹,
赵学平¹,
陶传江²,
蔡磊明¹
1. 浙江省植物有害生物防控重点实验室——省部共建国家重点实验室培育基地, 浙江省农业科学院 农产品质量标准研究所, 杭州 310021;
2. 农业部农药检定所, 北京 100125

作者简介: 安雪花(1976-),女,博士,副研究员,研究方向为农药环境与毒理,E-mail:axh5791@gmail.com.

基金项目: 浙江省自然科学基金资助项目(LY16B070007)


中图分类号: X171.5

Risk Assessment of Applicator Dermal Exposures to Chlorpyrifos by Applying Different Monitoring Methodology in Maize Cultivation

An Xuehua¹,
Wang Xing¹,
Zhang Wenping¹,
Guan Wenbi¹,
Lv Lu¹,
Wu Shenggan¹,
Liu Xinju¹,
Zhao Xueping¹,
Tao Chuanjiang²,
Cai Leiming¹
1. State Key Laboratory Breeding Base for Zhejiang Sustainable Pest and Disease Control/Key Laboratory for Pesticide Residue Detection of Ministry of Agriculture, Institute of Quality and Standard for Agro-products, Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hangzhou 310021, China;
2. Institute for the Control of Agrochemicals, Ministry of Agriculture, Beijing 100125, China

CLC number: X171.5

-->

摘要
HTML全文
图(0)表(0)
参考文献(0)
相关文章
施引文献
资源附件(0)
访问统计

摘要:本研究选取3种不同暴露环境，分别为玉米株高达到施药者膝盖左右(暴露环境1)、达到施药者腰部左右(暴露环境2)和高于施药者身高(暴露环境3)，采用手动背负式喷雾器，在这3种暴露环境中施喷48%毒死蜱乳油(EC，稀释500倍)，通过贴片法和全身整体测试法(whole body dosimetry, WBD)分析了施药者农药皮肤暴露量(dermal exposure, DE)。依据试验结果，发现在暴露环境1和2中，2种测试方法的农药潜在皮肤暴露量(potential dermal exposure, PDE)无显著性差异，但在暴露环境3中，2种测试方法的PDE之间存在显著性差异(LSD_0.05=57.9)；对施药者的主要暴露部位进行分析，发现在暴露环境1和暴露环境2中2种测试方法的暴露部位类似，但在暴露环境3中显示，贴片法为手部，全身测试法为上半身(头、颈、前胸、后背及手臂)。使用全身测试法测定PDE同时测定直接皮肤暴露量(actual dermal exposure, ADE)，并利用ADE和PDE计算外穿防护服(运动服)渗透率的结果，3种暴露环境分别为4.69%、5.19%和5.54%，比通常假设的防护服或工作服的10%渗透率小。
关键词: 毒死蜱/
施药者/
皮肤暴露/
贴片法/
全身测试法

Abstract:Dermal exposure (DE) assessments for applicators were performed with 48% chlorpyrifos EC that was applied with the lever-operated knapsacks under three spraying environments, namely, plant height of maize around the knee (condition 1), plant height of maize around the waist (condition 2) and above height of applicators (condition 3). The patches and the whole body dosimetry (WBD) were applied to collect dermal exposure samples. The results showed that there were no significant differences between the patches and WBD in potential dermal exposure (PDE) values obtained from condition 1 and condition 2. However significant differences were found between the patches and WBD in condition 3 (LSD_0.05=57.9). In respect of major exposure parts of applicators, the results of the patches and WBD were similar in condition 1 and condition 2, but the results in condition 3 showed that the major exposure part by the patches was the hands, while the major exposure part by WBD was the upper body (head, neck chest, back and arms). PDE and actual dermal exposure (ADE) were measured using the whole body test method. The penetration rate of the outer protective clothing (sportswear) was calculated by ADE and PDE. The penetration of the three exposure environments were 4.69%, 5.19% and 5.54%, respectively, which was less than the 10% penetration of the normally assumed protective clothing or working wear.
Key words:chlorpyrifos/
applicator/
dermal exposure/
patches/
whole body dosimeter.