Estudo comparativo de dois métodos de avaliação da exposição potencial a agrotóxicos

• Ano de defesa: 2011
• Autor(a) principal: Egito, Jose Lourenço do
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal da Paraí­ba; BR; Engenharia de Produção; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia de Produção; UFPB
• Palavras-chave em Português: Simulação da atividade; Método amostral; Método censitário; Agrotóxicos; Activity simulation; Sampling method; Census method; Pesticides; ENGENHARIAS::ENGENHARIA DE PRODUCAO
• Link de acesso: https://repositorio.ufpb.br/jspui/handle/tede/5193

Exposure assessment is an important phase to investigate toxicological risk and it is also relevant for planning surveillance action on farmer s health. This research has the objective of comparing sampling and census methods in order to evaluate chemical exposure. The studies were done in Petrolina PE in São Francisco River Valley in three different work conditions: on weeds, grape and on acerola crops using backpack spraying on August and November, 2010. It is an exploratory and descriptive study. It is also an experimental and quali-quantitative research. The instruments used to measure dermal exposure were: sampling method in which patches are fixed on farmer s outfit and census method in which farmers wear overalls for easy absorption. A questionnaire was applied in order to check the user profile and their functional situation at companies. To data analysis, it was used descriptive statistical parameters and test t - Student to compare sampling averages. The methods evaluated just one operation in activity simulation: hand spraying use. Experiments allowed result comparison among operators, body area, treatment types and farmer safety condition. The main results of activity simulation report that different operational performances happened among users. The biggest amounts were found on weed spraying: inferior limps at 225,4 mg/day (sampling) and 134,1 mg/day (sampling) and chest at 137,2 mg/day (sampling) and 13,5 mg/day (census); grape crops at 271,7 mg/day (sampling) and 136,5 mg/day (census) and chest at 400,3 mg/day (sampling) and 34,2 mg/day (census); acerola crops at 339,8 mg/day (sampling) and 158,7 mg/day (census) and chest at 126,5 (sampling) and 13,32 mg/day (census). The greatest skin exposure happened on grape crops at an average of 1057 mg/day (sampling) and 307,7 mg/day (census) in 7 hours per day. In order to classify safety working conditions, contamination risks were measured by simulated dermal exposure (EDS) and chronicle contamination by safety margin (MS). They were considered safe (MS > 1) treatment on weeds and grape crops in both methods. On acerola treatment, working conditions were classified as unsafe (MS < 1) for Folisuper 600 insecticide at exposure control need of 51, 7% sampling method and safe working condition (MS > 1) using census method. Before the results, we can conclude that there were high discrepancies among exposure assessment in all treatments, as sampling method presented overestimated values superior to 200% and census method showing more reliable and precise results presenting higher efficiency.