Citation

Stone JF, Hanna M, Guo C, Imerman P. J. Environ. Health 2001; 63(7): 13-9, 21.

Affiliation

Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-1120, USA.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2001, National Environmental Health Association)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

11381467

Abstract

Baseball caps are popular with farm workers, but have been criticized because they do not sufficiently shade the face, neck, and ears. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards require workers to wear chemical-resistant hoods or chemical-resistant hats with wide brims during the application of pesticides whose labels call for head protection. In this study, four farm workers wore baseball caps and two alternative types of headgear with wide brims for 20 to 36 hours during planting of corn and soybeans to compare performance features and practicality. Afterwards, researchers analyzed the headgear fabrics by gas chromatography or high-performance liquid chromatography to determine the levels at which five herbicides were deposited on the headgear: 2,4-D, metolachlor, acetochlor, ethalfluralin, and glyphosate. Chemical analysis revealed that 12 percent of specimens had detectable residue: levels of glyphosate in the nanograms-per-square-centimeter (ng/cm2) range and levels of 2,4-D in the micrograms-per-square-centimeter (microgram/cm2) range. Workers, however, preferred the baseball caps because of problems with the wind and feelings of embarrassment about wearing other types of headgear. An acceptable, protective substitute for the baseball cap has yet to be designed.