This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Rucker, M. Articles by Stone, J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Farm Families' Attitudes and Practices Regarding Pesticide Application and Protective Clothing: A Five- State Comparison

Part 1: Applicator Data

Division of Textiles and Clothing, University of California, Davis, CA 95616

Donna Branson

Department of Clothing, Textiles and Merchandising, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078

Cherilyn Nelson

Department of Clothing and Textiles, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105

Wanda Olson

Department of Design, Housing and Apparel, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108

Ann Slocum

Department of Human Environment and Design, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48823

Janis Stone

Textiles and Clothing Department, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011

A survey offarm families in five states was conducted to determine attitudes and practices regarding pesticide application and protective clothing. Specific objectives included determining relationships among actual risk factors, perceived risk, and precautionary activities as well as identifying practices that needed modification in order to reduce risks associated with use ofpesticides. Some analyses suggested a positive relationship between actual and perceived risk measures whereas others did not. For example, the two states reporting the highest use ofmore toxic chemicals and greatest incidence of healthproblems related to pesticide application also accounted for the highest average ratings on the overall perceived health risk scale. On the other hand, the majority of growers in each state assumed that common work clothingprotected them from dermal exposure regardless ofthe formulation or application method they were using. Although most growers reported following recommended practices such as wearing gloves during pesticide application and storing pesticide-soiled clothing separatefrom other laundry, enough deviation occurred to indicate the need for continuing education on pesticide hazards.

Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 6, No. 4, 37-46 (1988)
DOI: 10.1177/0887302X8800600406


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. Shen, S. Lennon, M. A. Dickson, C. Montalto, and L. Zhang Chinese Consumers' Attitudes Toward U.S.- and PRC-Made Clothing: From a Cultural Perspective Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, September 1, 2002; 31(1): 19 - 49. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Munson and J. Huck Pesticide Use and Applicator Practices of Commercial Cattle Feeders Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, September 1, 1993; 12(1): 66 - 72. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. M. Perkins, E. M. Crown, K. B. Rigakis, and B. S. Eggertson Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions of Agricultural Workers Toward Disposable Protective Coveralls Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, September 1, 1992; 11(1): 67 - 73. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. J. Radeloff Psychological Types, Color Attributes, and Color Preferences of Clothing, Textiles, and Design Students Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, March 1, 1991; 9(3): 59 - 67. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. Nelson, M. Rucker, W. Olson, D. Branson, A. Slocum, and J. Stone Farm Families' Attitudes and Practices Regarding Pesticide Application and Protective Clothing: A Five-State Comparison: Part 2: Launderer Data Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, September 1, 1988; 7(1): 36 - 45. [Abstract] [PDF]