journal article·2001-10

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

Anugrah Shaw, Eva Cohen, Torsten Hinz, Birgit Herzig

Textile Research Journal· Volume 71· Issue 10
Publisher page

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.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Insect and Pesticide Research · Pesticide Exposure and Toxicity · Insect Pest Control Strategies

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Princess Anne, Maryland 21853, U.S.A.

Centro Nacional de Medios de Protection, I.N.S.H.T., Sevilla, Spain

Federal Agricultural Research Center, Braunschweig, Germany

References (13)

Show source-provided references
1. 1. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials, vol. 11.03, Philadelphia, PA, 1997.
2. Batel, W. · 1986 · 584
3. 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. 10.1007/BF0160605410.1007/BF01606054 ↗
5. 5. Hinz, T., Testing Protective Suits against Pesticides, Acta Horticult., 372 (1994).10.17660/ActaHortic.1994.372.4 ↗
6. 10.1520/STP17310S10.1520/STP17310S ↗
7. 10.1007/978-1-4612-3770-9_310.1007/978-1-4612-3770-9_3 ↗
8. 10.1007/BF0106441510.1007/BF01064415 ↗
9. 10.1520/STP17313S10.1520/STP17313S ↗
10. Raheel, M. · J. Environ. Health · 1988 · 51 · 82
11. Raheel, M. · J. Environ. Health · 1987 · 49 · 214
12. 10.1007/BF0168825310.1007/BF01688253 ↗
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.