Advances and Applications of Chemical Protective Clothing System in Agriculture

Advances and Applications of Chemical Protective Clothing System in Agriculture

Jyoti V. Vastrad^1* , Vidya Sangannavar¹ , Rajashri Kotur¹

¹Department of Textile and Apparel Designing, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad – 580005, Karnataka, India

Corresponding Author Email: jyotivastrad@gmail.com

DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.53709/CHE.2020.v01i01.001

Abstract

Keywords

Download this article as:

INTRODUCTION

India is an agricultural economy constituted by both male and female farmworkers. It has the world’s most significant number of agriculture workers as 58 percent of the rural households depend on agriculture as their principal means of livelihood [1]. Agriculture, along with fisheries and forestry, is one of the most significant contributors to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). As per estimates by the Central Statistics Office (CSO), the share of agriculture and allied sectors was 15.35 percent of the Gross Value Added (GVA) during 2015-16 at 2011-12 prices [2].

Clothing plays a prime role in protecting the human body from exposure to any potential hazards [3]. Dress directly comes in contact with the human body, between the human body and external environment, helping the human body to adjust or modify its physiological functions according to the environment. Clothing also balances the heat exchange between humans and the environment. Ultimately, apparel enhances the physical, physiological, and psychological comfort and broadens the activity area of humans [4]. The physical need to protect the body from weather, animals, and insects seems essential to man’s survival in a harsh and hostile environment. While modernization and technological advancements significantly contribute to the overall productivity, they have also created hazards to the workforce necessitating various functional, innovative protective clothing to protect them from multiple risks [5].

There are numerous problems faced by the workers of agricultural activities, particularly during the application of pesticides. The US Environmental Protection Agency defines a pesticide as ‘Any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling or lessening the damage of any pest.’ Pesticides include insecticides, bird repellents, fungicides, herbicides, rodenticides, miticides, and acaricides. Pesticide application is one of the significant hazardous farm activity which leads to several health problems. The World Health Organization estimates that there are three million severe acute poisonings worldwide each year. Out of this, approximately 2,20,000 deaths are attributable to pesticides, out of which 1% of these deaths occur in industrialized countries [6]. The same workers have further reported that the human immune system may also be damaged as well as over-stimulated by the variety of pesticides. The pattern of pesticide usage in India is different from that of the world in general. In India, 76% of the pesticides are used as an insecticide, as against 44% globally. The use of herbicides and fungicides is correspondingly less. The primary benefit of pesticides in India is for cotton crops (45%), followed by paddy fields and wheat farming [7]. Labor-intensive crops, such as fruits and vegetables, are treated comprehensively with pesticides. More than 50 percent of farmworkers are hired for harvesting operations during which they might be exposed to different chemical compounds while handling the foliage [8]. The fieldworkers who engage in cultivating and harvesting of crops are also exposed to residues of pesticides, primarily on leafy surfaces (dislodgeable residues), but also on the crop itself or in the soil or duff [9].

The vapors of pesticides or aerosol droplets smaller than 5 μm in diameter are absorbed through the lungs. Inhalation can occur from breathing vapors while spraying to a field. Skin absorption occurs from skin contact with pesticides, for example, by handling sprayers or pesticide containers. Absorption resulting from skin exposure is the most critical route of uptake for exposed workers [10], and it is considered to be the most frequent means of pesticide exposure [11]. Minimizing exposure is an essential step towards reducing the risk of pesticide poisoning. The use of protective clothing provides benefits to the applicator and is a visual expression of appropriate and legal pesticide use. Due to failure, the person himself, his family, and the environment may have to face a greater risk of exposure [12]. To reduce the risk of pesticide poisoning, protective clothing was planned to develop for the pesticide applicators. It is expected that the use of protective clothing will reduce their exposure to pesticides. The present study focuses on protective clothing for pesticide sprayers.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

1. Designing of the Functional Clothing Kit for Pesticide Application

Considering the occupational health problems of farmworkers faced during pesticide application, it was felt necessary to design the appropriate functional clothing for them.

Criteria for selection of fabrics

1. An unbleached fabric is known for UV protection
2. Synthetics are known to absorb the less water vapor permeability
3. Starched fabric can also be used because of  its water repellent property

 Hence, the two functional clothing kits were designed and developed to apply pesticides (Fig. 1). The kit comprised of apron, headgear, hand gloves, and mask.

    Design I                                                Design II

Fig. 1. Designed and developed functional clothing kit

The details of the fabric used for the construction of the available clothing kit (Design I and Design II) for pesticide application is given below:

Fabric details of the functional clothing kit (Design I) for pesticide application.

Fabric details of the functional clothing kit (Design II) for pesticide application

1. Physical parameters of the fabrics

The fabrics used for the development of functional clothing kit were subjected to physical properties such as yarn count, cloth thickness, cloth count, cloth crease recovery, and cloth bending length, and functional properties such as cloth air permeability, water absorbency, and water vapour permeability.

1. Yarn count (s)

The count of yarn is a numerical expression that defines its fineness. A number indicating the mass per unit length or the length unit mass of string. Yarn count was determined by using the Beasley balance.

2. Cloth thickness (mm)

The thickness of a compressible material is measured by setting the gauge to zero and any required weight added to the presser foot column. Where possible, the material is tested in a standard atmosphere after conditioning for 24 hours. At least 10 determinations should be made, either at different places in the piece or on different samples.

3. Cloth count (Numerical expression)

Cloth count in woven textile material is the number of ends and picks per unit area, while the fabric is free from wrinkles and is affected by the yarn count and compactness of the weave. The number of warp and weft yarns in one sq. inches of the fabric is counted at ten randomly selected places across the width and along the length of the test specimens. Further, mean values of ends and picks per inch were calculated. Cloth count is influenced by the respective yarn density and fabric set [13].

4. Cloth crease recovery (degree)

The creasing of a fabric during wear is not a change in appearance that is generally desired. The ability of a material to resist creasing is, in the first instance, dependent on the type of fiber content. The test samples were folded in two and are placed under a 10N load for 10 min. They are then immediately transferred to the holder of the measuring instrument, and one leg of the specimen is inserted as far as the backstop. The instrument is adjusted continuously to keep the free limb of the representative vertical. The crease recovery angle is measured by reading the scale when the free stem is vertical, 5 min after removing the load [14].

5. Cloth bending length (cm)

Bending length is the length of the fabric that bends under its weight to a definite extent. It equals half the size of a rectangular strip of cloth that bends under its weight to an angle of 41.5º. It is equal to the length of a rectangular strip of material that bends under its own weight to an angle of 7.1º.

6.  Cloth air permeability (cm³ / cm² / sec)

Air permeability is the main factor that determines the ventilation property of clothing. Clothing should have a functionality of air permeability that properly transfers heat and water vapor in the human body-clothing environment system [15]. Air permeability is defined as the volume of air measured in cubic centimeters passed per second through 1 cm² of the fabric at a pressure of 1 cm of water. All the samples were tested as directed by ASTM D 737. Air at standard atmosphere is drawn from the laboratory through the test specimen by means of a suction pump, the rate of flow is controlled by means of the bypass valve and the series valve at the definite pressure. The rate of flow is adjusted until the required pressure drop across the fabric and is indicated on a drought gauge. Rotameters from the instrument then record the rate of flow of air.

7. Water vapor permeability (g/m²/day)

The water vapor permeability of the samples has been measured using the cup method, according to ASTM 1995 standard test method. In this method, the loss in the weight of water contained in a cup over a period of 24 hours is measured. The specimen of the fabric undergoing the test is placed in an airtight manner over the top of a cup. Another cup contains the reference fabric secured in the same airtight way, and the experiment is performed in triplicate so that three cups with sample fabric and three with reference fabric are tested. 10 mm air gap between the surface of the water and the underside of the specimen was kept at the start of the test. The technique compares the rate of water mass transfer through the fabric from six cups, three of which are covered with a reference fabric and the other three with test samples. The weight of the cups was measured firstly at the starting of the test and periodically after a certain time interval by the balance with a resolution of 0.01g to determine how much water has been lost from each one. The difference in water loss between a cup covered with the standard fabric and one with test fabric enables to study of the relative rates of moisture movement through the test fabrics so that the moisture vapor permeability of the test specimen can be calculated using the formula as shown below [16].

WVP = 24 X M / A X T g/m²/day

Where M is the loss in mass (g); T, the time interval (h); A, the internal area of the cup (m2)

A was calculated using the following relationship:

 A = πd²/4 X 10^-6

Where d is the internal diameter of the cup (mm)

8. Water absorbency (seconds)                     

            The initial weight of the sample needs to record and the sample placed on the flat surface. A measured drop of water is placed on the fabric 1 cm from the surface. Time is recorded until the water drop absorbs entirely on the sample. The final weight of the sample is observed and calculated the percentage of add-on weight. Similarly, the test procedure is repeated for a drop of concentrated pesticide and 0.1% of pesticide [17].

• Wear trials of the developed functional clothing kit

Mahale et al., 2011 [18] carried research on Protective clothing for pesticide applicators and other agricultural activities of farm families to design protective clothing for pesticide applicators and other agricultural workers. Six protective clothes viz., beak mask, cap with mask, hood mask, hand gloves, jacket, and pajama of 100 percent cotton fabric lining were designed for farm men and women based on the agricultural activities. Totally sixty respondents, six respondents each (30 farm men and 30 farm women) from five adopted villages, were asked to wear the garment for eight hours, except for jacket and pant (three hours) during their working period. Then garments were washed by the workers and used for two more days to assess the suitability and acceptability of the designed protective clothing. The results revealed that the designed protective clothing was found to be highly suitable, comfortable and these clothing did not have any adverse effect on their work and can be maintained easily.

            A protective clothing kit developed for pesticide application (Design I and Design II) were given for wear trials to Hebballi and UAS Dharwad farms for assessment of suitability and acceptability. Five-pointrating self-structured questionnaire was used to elicit the information on comfortability and acceptability of Design I and II among the pesticide applicators. Weighted mean scores statistically analyzed the data.

             Five points rating were given as follows

Highly suitable/comfortable/functional/acceptable	5
Fairly suitable/comfortable/functional/acceptable	4
Moderately suitable/comfortable/functional/acceptable	3
Less suitable/comfortable/functional/acceptable	2
Not  suitable/comfortable/functional/acceptable	1

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

1. Physical and functional parameters

Physical and functional parameters of the fabrics for Apron

Table 1 depicts the physical parameters of the fabrics selected for the apron. The warp yarn count was found to be higher in casement fabric (18), followed by unbleached fabric (16) and blended fabric (16). Whereas, weft yarn count was higher in blended and casement fabric (16).  The numbers of ends per inch were found to be higher in composite (60) and casement fabric (60) than unbleached fabric (59). Blended fabric possessed more number of picks (50), followed by unbleached (42) and casement fabric (43). Concerning thickness, casement fabric resulted from thicker fabric (0.44) due to greater warp yarn count, followed by blended fabric (0.36) and unbleached fabric (0.33).

Unbleached fabric resulted from higher bending length both in warp way (1.86) and weft way (1.60) because of less number of ends and picks, followed by casement fabric (warp-1.80 and weft-1.57) and blended fabric (warp-1.66 and weft-1.55). Blended material was found because of more number of ends and picks that make the fabric. [19] reported that, the increase in weft count decreases the fabric tightness, which interns reduce fabric stiffness.

Greater cloth crease recovery was observed in blended fabric with respect to warp (120.40) and weft way (120.00) followed by casement fabric (warp-80.00 and weft-82.20) and unbleached fabric (warp-68.50 and weft-76.00), respectively. Blended material exhibited greater cloth recovery due to more number of ends and picks. [19] stated that crease recovery angle and bending length are inversely proportionate to each other, and weft count significantly affects fabric crease recovery.

The unbleached fabric has higher air permeability (20.83) due to more warp and weft yarns, followed by casement (17.50) and blended fabric (17.32). [20] reported that a higher number of ends and picks per inch decreases the air permeability of the woven fabrics. [21] stated that the more openness of the weave, the more significant the air permeability.

The blended and unbleached fabrics got more excellent water vapor permeability (1446.65) than casement fabric (1377.77); due to the presence of polyester content in the blend, the transmission of the water vapor through fibers occurs to a less extent, as the polyester is more hydrophobic and less wettable [16]. At the same time, the unbleached fabric has starch content which transmits less water vapor compared to casement fabric.

            In the absorption of water, the unbleached fabric attained a maximum percentage of weight (28.57) followed by blended (25.00) and casement (7.69). In the absorption of concentrated pesticide by the fabric, blended fabric (14.29) gained more weight, followed by blended fabric (10.00) and casement (7.69). In the case of 0.1% of pesticide diluted in 100 ml of water absorption, the unbleached fabric attained the least weight gain percentage (7.14). Blended material took more time to spread water droplet (9653) and concentrated pesticide (06) on the fabric due to the hydrophobic nature of polyester present in the blended fabric. Whereas, in 0.1% of pesticide drop, the unbleached took more time (4586) to spread the decline, followed by blended (1526) and casement (1149).

Table 1. Physical properties of the fabrics for apron

Fig. 2 depicts the microscopic images of the fabric taken under 40X enlargement. Greater area of interstices spaces were seen in the unbleached fabric due to its less cloth count, followed by casement and blended fabric. Air permeability and porosity are strongly related to each other. Higher the porosity, greater the rate of air permeability [20]. Blended fabric viewed less interstices spaces and presence of polyester content in the blend avoids water absorption.

Fig. 2. Microscopic images of pores of the fabric for apron taken under 40X enlargement

Physical and functional parameters of the fabrics for Headgear

The physical properties of fabrics for headgear are represented in Table 4. Unbleached fabric resulted from coarser yarn in warp way (16) than poplin fabric (15). Whereas poplin fabric possessed a higher yarn count in a weft way (15) than unbleached fabric (10). The number of ends and picks was found to be high in poplin fabric (79 X 53) than unbleached fabric (59 X 42). The unbleached fabric was thicker (0.33) than the poplin fabric (0.29) due to the coarser yarn count of the unbleached fabric. Unbleached fabric showed higher bending length in warp way (1.86) and weft way (1.60) compared to poplin fabric (warp-1.52 and weft-1.20). Vice versa, the unbleached fabric possessed lesser crease recovery both in warp way (68.50) and weft way (76.00) than poplin fabric (warp-78.20 and weft-78.60). Greater air permeability was seen in the unbleached fabric (20.83) compared to poplin fabric (18.89), and the unbleached fabric was more permeable to water vapor (2428.34) than poplin fabric (2143.65) due to more number of interstices spaces in the unbleached fabric.

In the absorption of water, the unbleached fabric gained a maximum percentage of weight (28.57) compared to poplin (11.11). In the absorption of concentrated pesticide by the textile, blended fabric (25.00) gained more weight than unbleached fabric (10.00). In the case of 0.1% of pesticide diluted in 100 ml of water absorption, the poplin fabric attained a greater percentage of weight gain (37.50). The unbleached fabric took more time to spread water droplet (9353) and 0.1% pesticide (4586). At the same time, unbleached fabric took fewer seconds to spread the concentrated pesticide on fabric.

Table 2. Physical properties of the fabrics for headgear

Table 3. Comfortability and acceptability of Apron, hand gloves and head gear of Design I and II for pesticides application N=10

Fig 3 depicts the microscopic images of the fabric taken under 40X enlargement. Greater area of interstices spaces were seen in the unbleached fabric due to its less cloth count (59X42) than poplin fabric (79X53). More openness of the weave the greater the air permeability [21].

Fig. 3. Microscopic images of pores of the fabric for headgear taken under 40X enlargement

1. Wear trials of functional clothing kit (Design I and Design II) for application of  pesticides

             Table 3 represents the comfortability and acceptability of apron, hand gloves and head gear for pesticide application. In apron, Design II was more comfortable because of its easy donning and doffing (3.70), comfortable for 2-3 hours (1.40), and adequate aeration (4.10) than Design I and existing practice. Overall, the Design II was found to be more acceptable (4.40), followed by design I (3.80) and existing practice (1.50).

            Comfortability and acceptability of hand gloves for pesticide application, Design II was more acceptable (3.60) followed by design I (3.30) and existing (2.20) due to its easy donning and doffing (3.90), comfortable for 2-3 hours (1.20), adequate aeration (4.00) and comfortable for finger movement (4.40) than design I and existing practice.

            In the comfortability and acceptability of Headgear for pesticides application, Design II was observed to be more comfortable because of its easy donning and doffing (4.20), comfortable for 2-3 hours (1.40) and adequate aeration (3.90) than Design I and existing practice. Design II was found to be more acceptable (4.10), followed by design I (3.80) and existing practice (1.00) due to its overall consideration.

Fig. 4 Wear trials of the Design I while spraying of pesticides

Fig. 5 Wear trials of Design II while spraying of pesticides

CONCLUSION

With respect to pesticide applications, the design II protective clothing kit for pesticide applicators was found to be highly comfortable and acceptable by the maximum number of respondents, and some of them revealed the problems while wearing and applying the pesticides in design II. Hence the Design II will be modified for further usage as protective clothing for pesticide applicators which safeguards the pesticide sprayers from exposure to pesticides and increases the work efficiency.

Consent for publication

This is not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

 All data can be available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that no conflict of interest.

References

1. Yadav, S., and Gaba, G., 2016, Protective masks for farm workers engaged in harvesting/threshing of wheat/ barley. International Journal of Applied and Pure Science and Agriculture, 2 (9): 19 -23.
2. Annual report 2016-17, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, 1-194.
3. Kale, S., Naik, S. and Gaikwad, R., 2013, On-field clothes and their care adopted by pesticide applicators. Asian Journal of Home Science. 8 (2): 526-529.
4. Kim, R. H., 2013, Virtual assessment of pesticide-barrier protection properties using the artificial skin of developed high-tech material safety clothing for agricultural workers, Proceedings of The 1^st International 2013 Ambient Intelligence and Ergonomics Conference, paper ID 23, Taijung, July, Taiwan.
5. Geetha, R. and Jacob, M., 2001, Protective clothing. Textile Industries and Trade Journal, 39 (3 & 4): 38-42.
6. Sataka, M. Y., Mido, M. S., Sethi, S. A., Iqbal, H. Y. and Taguchi, S., 1997, Environmental toxicology. Discovery Publishing House, New Delhi, India. pp. 185-197.
7. Relyea, R, W. and Diecks, N., 2008, An unforeseen chain of events: lethal effects of pesticides on frogs at sublethal concentrations. Ecological Applications, 18 (7):1728-1742.
8. Mobed, K, Gold, E. B. and Schenker, M. B., 1992, Occupational health problems among migrant and seasonal farm workers, In Cross-cultural Medicine – A Decade Later [Special Issue]. The Western Journal of Medicine, 157 (3):367-373.
9. Moses, M., 1989, Pesticide-related health problems and farm workers. MD, American Association of Occupational Health Nurses, 37 (3): 115-130.
10. Anwar, W, A., 1997, Biomarkers of human exposure to pesticides. Environmental Health Perspectives,105 (4): 801-806.
11. Perry, M. J., Marbella, A., Layde, P. M., 2002, Compliance with required pesticide-specific protective equipment use. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 41(1): 70-73.
12. Tarafder, N. and Manna, S., 2005, Applications, applicators and care of personal protective clothing. Man-made Textiles of India, 58 (6): 236-238.
13. Keinabati, A., Naik, S, D. and Kulloli, S. D., 2012, Effect of laundering on physical parameters of sized materials, Asian Journal of Home Science, 7 (2): 526-535.
14. Saville, B. P., 2004, Physical testing of textiles. Woodhead Publishing Ltd., Cambridge, England.
15. Kim, R. H., Kwon, Y, G., Lee, H, Y., and Lim, J, Y., 2015, Safety evaluation of pesticide-proof materials for agricultural clothing using in-vivo test, 6^th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics and the Affiliated Conferences, 1888 – 1895.
16. Das, S., 2016, Study on comfort properties of different woven fabric. International Journal of Management and Applied Science, 2 (8): 57-61.
17. Prusty, A., Gogoi, N., Jassal, M., and Agrawal, A. K., 2010, Synthesis and characterisation of non-fluorinated copolymer emulsions for hydrophobic finishing of cotton textiles. Indian Journal of  Fibre and Textile Research, 35 (3): 264-271.
18. Mahale, G., Byadgi, S. and Kotur, R., 2011, Protective clothing for pesticide applicators and other agricultural activities of farm families. Asian Journal of Home Science, 6 (2): 112-120.
19. Akter, S., 2017, An investigation on different physical properties of cotton woven fabrics. International Journal of Engineering Research and Application, 7(1):  05-10.
20. Ogulata, R. T., 2006, Air permeability of woven fabrics. Journal of Textile and Apparel, Technology and Management, 5 (2): 1-10.
21. Booth, J. E., 1996, Principles of textile testing. CBS publishers and distributors Pvt. Ltd.,New Delhi, India.