You are using an outdated browser. For a faster, safer browsing experience, upgrade for free today.


Vavrinevych O. P.


Bogomolets National Medical University, Kiev

Full article (PDF), UKR

Background. Combined, sequential or complex action of several active ingredients on workers may occur in application of mixed fungicides; so there is a need to assess a risk of possible hazardous simultaneous effect on the worker’s body.

Purpose of the study. The aim of the work was hygienic assessment of work conditions and potential combined risk of mixed fungicide harmful effects by different ways of its application.

Materials and methods. Full-scaled field studies of work conditions were carried out in treatment of crops with mixed fungicides such as Valis M, Kabrio Top, Nativo, Svitch, Signum, Skor Top, Fantik, Flint Star by airblast spraying, Kvadris Top, Kabrio Top, Nativo, Fantik, Valis M by boom spraying, and a preparation Switch, using back-pack sprayer. Determination of active ingredients in the working zone air, atmospheric air, in wash samples from the exposed skin and rubber gloves, in stripes on protective clothing was made by gas-liquid, high-performance liquid chromatography and vapor phase gas chromatography. The potential risk of the possible harmful effects of the tested compounds on workers in their complicated action via the respiratory tract and skin was assessed in accordance with the Guidelines «Studying, assessing and decreasing the risk…» (approved by MH of Ukraine № 324, 13.05.2009); the combined risk was calculated by a simple summation of action under the simultaneous effect of several active ingredients.

Results. It is established that in real conditions of fan, boom and back-pack spraying treatments with mixed fungicides, when following agrotechnical and hygienic regulations of their safe application, no exceeding of hygienic standards in the working zone air is recorded. When applying mixed fungicides the combined risk of hazardous effects on workers via different routes of exposure amounted, on the average, to (0,3100 ± 0,0800 standard units (SU) for fan spraying, (0,6200 ± 0,2100) SU – for boom-spraying, (0,0035 ± 0,0010) SU – for back-pack spraying treatments. The percutaneous (dermal) risk plays a major role in formation of occupational combined risk, and the differences are significant by the Student t-test, p < 0,05. The share of percutaneous risk in the total combined risk is (83,48 ± 4,97) % for fan spraying treatment, (90,1 ± 4,05) % – for boomspraying treatment, and (91,90 ± 3,60) % – for back-pack spraying treatment.

The comparative analysis of the combined risk values for different routes of exposure showed that the combined risk of possible harmful effects of mixed fungicides in fan and boom spraying was significantly higher than in back-pack spraying (p < 0,05; t = 3,92; tcr. = 2,13) and (p < 0,05; t = 2,87; tcr. = 2,26), respectively. The values of the combined total risk during fan and boom spraying treatments were not significantly different (p > 0,05).

Conclusion. It is established that the values of the combined risk of harmful effects for several active ingredients on workers via combined route of exposure (inhalation and dermal) are not always within permissible limits (> 1); so, the use of personal protective equipment (respirators, rubber gloves and protective clothing) for mixed fungicide applications to protect crops is obligatory.
Key words: mixed fungicides, combined exposure, dermal exposure, inhalation, occupational risk


  1. List of pesticides and agrochemicals, allowed for application in Ukraine (Official edition), 1999, Kyiv: Univest Marketing, 221 p. (in Ukrainian).
  2. List of pesticides and agrochemicals, allowed for application in Ukraine (Official edition). 2003, Kyiv: Univest Marketing, 349 p. (in Ukrainian).
  3. List of pesticides and agrochemicals, allowed for application in Ukraine (Оfficial edition). 2006, Dnipropetroovsk: Аrt-Press, 311 p. (in Ukrainian).
  4. List of pesticides and agrochemicals, allowed for application in Ukraine (Official edition. 2012, Kyiv: Univest Marketing, 831 p. (in Ukrainian).
  5. Avramenko, V. G. 2005, Assessment of dangerous combined effects of pesticides. Actual problems of toxicology. Safety in human vital activity. Summaries, VI Int. Conf. конференції, Kyiv: Institute of Ecohygiene and Toxicology after Leo Medved; Society of toxicologists of Ukraine, p. 78 (in Ukrainian).
  6. Kirsenko, V. V., Yastrub, T. A., Karpenko, V. N. 2002, «Assessment of risk of unfavourable effect of pesticides on workers in their application in «zero» values of exposure levels», Environment and health, no. 2, pp. 58–61 (in Russian).
  7. Rakhmanin, Y. A., Novikov, C. M., Shanina, T. A. 2007, «Modern trends in methodology of risk assessment», Gigiyena i sanitaria, no. 3, pp. 3–8 (in Russian).
  8. General sanitary and hygienic requirements to the working zone air: GOST (Standard) [12.1.005-88 of 01.01.89] 1991. Moscow: Edition of standards, 47 p. (in Russian).
  9. Methodical recommendations «Studying, assessing and risk reducing in inhalation and percutaneous action of pesticides on individuals, working with pesticides or could be exposed to them in and after chemical protection of crops and other subjects», Approved by MH of Ukraine[№ 324 of 13.05.2009.], 2009, Kyiv, 29 p. (in Ukrainian).