Search results

Farmworkers are at high risk of acute occupational pesticide-related illness (AOPI) and AOPI surveillance is vital to preventing these illnesses. Data on such illnesses are collected and analyzed to identify high-risk groups, high-risk pesticides, and root causes. Interventions to address these risks and root causes include farmworker outreach, education, and regulation. Unfortunately, it is well known that AOPI is underreported, meaning that the true burden of this condition remains unknown. This article reviews the barriers to reporting of farmworker AOPI to public health authorities and provides some practical solutions. Information is presented using the social-ecological model spheres of influence. Factors that contribute to farmworker AOPI underreporting include fear of job loss or deportation, limited English proficiency (LEP), limited access to health care, lack of clinician recognition of AOPI, farmworker ineligibility for workers' compensation (WC) benefits in many states, insufficient resources to conduct AOPI surveillance, and constraints in coordinating AOPI investigations across state agencies. Solutions to address these barriers include: emphasizing that employers encourage farmworkers to report safety concerns; raising farmworker awareness of federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and increasing the availability of these clinics; improving environmental toxicology training to health-care students and professionals; encouraging government agencies to investigate pesticide complaints and provide easy-to-read reports of investigation findings; fostering public health reporting from electronic medical records, poison control centers (PCCs), and WC; expanding and strengthening AOPI state-based surveillance programs; and developing interagency agreements to outline the roles and responsibilities of each state agency involved with pesticide safety.

Abstract
Pesticide spray drift represents an important exposure pathway that may cause illness among orchard workers. To strike a balance between improving spray coverage and reducing drift, new sprayer technologies are being marketed for use in modern tree canopies to replace conventional axial fan airblast (AFA) sprayers that have been used widely since the 1950s. We designed a series of spray trials that used mixed-effects modeling to compare tracer-based drift volume levels for old and new sprayer technologies in an orchard work environment. Building on a smaller study of 6 trials (168 tree rows) that collected polyester line drift samples (n = 270 measurements) suspended on 15 vertical masts downwind of an AFA sprayer application, this study included 9 additional comparison trials (252 tree rows; n = 405 measurements) for 2 airblast tower sprayers: the directed air tower (DAT) and the multi-headed fan tower (MFT). Field-based measurements at mid (26 m) and far (52 m) distances showed that the DAT and MFT sprayers had 4–15 and 35–37% less drift than the AFA. After controlling for downwind distance, sampling height, and wind speed, model results indicated that the MFT [−35%; 95% confidence interval (CI): −22 and −49%; P < 0.001] significantly reduced drift levels compared to the AFA, but the DAT did not (−7%; 95% CI: −19 and 6%; P = 0.29). Tower sprayers appear to be a promising means by which to decrease drift levels through shorter nozzle-to-tree canopy distances and more horizontally directed aerosols that escape the tree canopy to a lesser extent. Substitution of these new technologies for AFA sprayers is likely to reduce the frequency and magnitude of pesticide drift exposures and associated illnesses. These findings, especially for the MFT, may fit United States Environmental Protection Agency's Drift Reduction Technology (DRT) one-star rating of 25–50% reduction. An 'AFA buyback' incentive program could be developed to stimulate wider adoption of new drift-reducing spray technologies. However, improved sprayer technologies alone do not eliminate drift. Applicator training, including proper sprayer calibration and maintenance, and application exclusion zones (AEZs) can also contribute to minimizing the risks of drift exposure. With regard to testing DRTs and establishing AEZs, our study findings demonstrate the need to define the impact of airblast sprayer type, orchard architecture, sampling height, and wind speed.

AbstractPesticide spray drift represents an important cause of crop damage and farmworker illness, especially among orchard workers. We drew upon exposure characteristics from known human illness cases to design a series of six spray trials that measured drift from a conventional axial fan airblast sprayer operating in a modern orchard work environment. Polyester line drift samples (n = 270; 45 per trial) were suspended on 15 vertical masts downwind of foliar applications of zinc, molybdenum, and copper micronutrient tracers. Samples were analyzed using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry and resulting masses were normalized by sprayer tank mix concentration to create tracer-based drift volume levels. Mixed-effects modeling described these levels in the context of spatial variability and buffers designed to protect workers from drift exposure. Field-based measurements showed evidence of drift up to 52 m downwind, which is approximately 1.7 times greater than the 30 m (100 ft) 'Application Exclusion Zone' defined for airblast sprayers by the United States Environmental Protection Agency Worker Protection Standard. When stratified by near (5 m), mid (26 m), and far (52 m) distances, geometric means and standard deviations for drift levels were 257 (1.8), 52 (2.0), and 20 (2.3) µl, respectively. Fixed effect model coefficients showed that higher wind speed [0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.35, 0.70] and sampling height (0.16; 95% CI: 0.11, 0.20) were positively associated with drift; increasing downwind distance (−0.05; 95% CI: −0.06, −0.04) was negatively associated with drift. Random effects showed large within-location variability, but relatively few systematic changes for individual locations across spray trials after accounting for wind speed, height, and distance. Our study findings demonstrate that buffers may offer drift exposure protection to orchard workers from airblast spraying. Variables such as orchard architecture, sampling height, and wind speed should be included in the evaluation and mitigation of risks from drift exposure. Data from our study may prove useful for estimating potential exposure and validating orchard-based bystander exposure models.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Increasing wildfire size and severity across the western United States has created an environmental and social crisis that must be approached from a transdisciplinary perspective. Climate change and more than a century of fire exclusion and wildfire suppression have led to contemporary wildfires with more severe environmental impacts and human smoke exposure. Wildfires increase smoke exposure for broad swaths of the US population, though outdoor workers and socially disadvantaged groups with limited adaptive capacity can be disproportionally exposed. Exposure to wildfire smoke is associated with a range of health impacts in children and adults, including exacerbation of existing respiratory diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, worse birth outcomes, and cardiovascular events. Seasonally dry forests in Washington, Oregon, and California can benefit from ecological restoration as a way to adapt forests to climate change and reduce smoke impacts on affected communities. RECENT FINDINGS: Each wildfire season, large smoke events, and their adverse impacts on human health receive considerable attention from both the public and policymakers. The severity of recent wildfire seasons has state and federal governments outlining budgets and prioritizing policies to combat the worsening crisis. This surging attention provides an opportunity to outline the actions needed now to advance research and practice on conservation, economic, environmental justice, and public health interests, as well as the trade-offs that must be considered. SUMMARY: Scientists, planners, foresters and fire managers, fire safety, air quality, and public health practitioners must collaboratively work together. This article is the result of a series of transdisciplinary conversations to find common ground and subsequently provide a holistic view of how forest and fire management intersect with human health through the impacts of smoke and articulate the need for an integrated approach to both planning ...

Increasing wildfire size and severity across the western United States has created an environmental and social crisis that must be approached from a transdisciplinary perspective. Climate change and more than a century of fire exclusion and wildfire suppression have led to contemporary wildfires with more severe environmental impacts and human smoke exposure. Wildfires increase smoke exposure for broad swaths of the US population, though outdoor workers and socially disadvantaged groups with limited adaptive capacity can be disproportionally exposed. Exposure to wildfire smoke is associated with a range of health impacts in children and adults, including exacerbation of existing respiratory diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, worse birth outcomes, and cardiovascular events. Seasonally dry forests in Washington, Oregon, and California can benefit from ecological restoration as a way to adapt forests to climate change and reduce smoke impacts on affected communities. Each wildfire season, large smoke events, and their adverse impacts on human health receive considerable attention from both the public and policymakers. The severity of recent wildfire seasons has state and federal governments outlining budgets and prioritizing policies to combat the worsening crisis. This surging attention provides an opportunity to outline the actions needed now to advance research and practice on conservation, economic, environmental justice, and public health interests, as well as the trade-offs that must be considered. Scientists, planners, foresters and fire managers, fire safety, air quality, and public health practitioners must collaboratively work together. This article is the result of a series of transdisciplinary conversations to find common ground and subsequently provide a holistic view of how forest and fire management intersect with human health through the impacts of smoke and articulate the need for an integrated approach to both planning and practice.