• Journal of agricultural medicine and community health
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• pp.219-236
• /
• 2006

Objectives: To develop a model of a official management system for agricultural disease, injury and accidents, We analyzed current Korean status and management system about occupational injury and accident of farmers. Methods: For national management systems of industry safety and health and current status of occupational injuries and accidents of farmers, related literature such as books, theses, articles, and web documents were collected and analyzed. Results and Conclusion: The regulations of protecting occupational injury and accidents of farmers are suggested as follows: (1)insurance and compensation act for occupational injury and accident of farmers, (2)setting standards of occupational injuries and accidents of farmers, (3)mandating the usage of safety devices for agricultural vehicles and equipments, (4)reporting occupational injuries and accidents that occur among farmers, (5)registering pesticides and assessing safety usage, (6)implementing safety training, (7)supporting personal protective equipments and agricultural safe facilities etc.

• The Korean Journal of Community Living Science
• /
• v.28 no.3
• /
• pp.391-401
• /
• 2017

This study was conducted to evaluate the relationships between exposure level to pyrethroid pesticide and wearing of protective equipment in 194 Chung-nam orchard male farmers. The urinary metabolites of pyrethroid pesticides, including Cis, Trans, DBCA, and 3-PBA, were analyzed by GC/MSD. As a result of this study, the detection rate and exposure level of 3-PBA was the highest among pyrethroid metabolites discovered by orchard farmers. As a result of analyzing the actual conditions of wearing protective equipment by the subjects of this study, the rate of agricultural farmers who wore four pieces of protective equipment compared to agricultural farmers wearing a single piece of protective clothing was as high as 35.1%. Pyrethroid exposure levels were low when farmers wore more personal protective equipment (PPE). In conclusion, training with regards to pesticide hazards and protective equipment for farmers who spray pesticides will help reduce pesticide exposure levels.

• The Korean Journal of Pesticide Science
• /
• v.15 no.4
• /
• pp.507-528
• /
• 2011

Agricultural workers who mix/loads and spray pesticide in fields expose to pesticide through dermal and inhalation routes. In such situation, exposed amount should be measured quantitatively for reasonable risk assessment. Patch, gloves, socks and mask will be good materials for monitoring for dermal exposure while personal air monitor equipped with solid adsorbent and air pump will be a tool for inhalation exposure. For extrapolation of absorbed amount in dermal exposure matrices and of trapped amount in solid sorbent to total deraml or inhalation exposure, Korean standard body surface area and respiration rate were proposed in substitution of EPA data. Important exposure factors such as clothing and skin penetration ratio of dermal and inhalation exposure were suggested based on Spraying time for exposure monitoring must be long enough that the amount of pesticide to get absorbed/trapped in exposure matrices results in reasonable analytical value. In domestic case for the both of speed sprayer and power spray machine, spraying time of 20~40 minutes (0.1~0.2 ha) will be reasonable per single replicate before extrapolating to 4 hours a day with triplicates experiment.

• Journal of Environmental Health Sciences
• /
• v.40 no.6
• /
• pp.454-468
• /
• 2014

Objectives: This study was conducted to investigate the actual condition of the farm work environment and personal protective equipment as part of the effort to improve livestock work for the safety and health of poultry farmers and provide basic data for establishing plans to improve and develop personal protective equipment. Methods: For this purpose, a questionnaire survey on general information about stables, the poultry work environment, accidents, the wearing of work clothes and personal protective equipment, and the level of awareness related to personal protective equipment was conducted among 148 poultry farmers. Results: As a result, it was found that poultry workplace environment was exposed to such risks as fine dusts; organic dusts; poisonous gases; odorous substances; chicken excrement; contact with chickens, bacteria or viruses; and accidents related to machine operation. Thirteen percent of respondents suffered severe respiratory diseases, and the most frequently injured sites due to accidents were the hands (25.7%), knees (23.8%), arms (17.3%), and head (10.9%). The most frequent type of accident was collisions between the body and obstacles or machinery during movement (36.4%), followed by erroneous machine operation such as feeders and electric shocks (8.5%). Regarding the wearing of work clothes and personal protective equipment, 51.7% of the respondents wore worn-out clothing or everyday clothes, whereas only 32.0% wore work clothes. The percentage of farmers who wore proper protective equipment for the work environment during poultry work was 48.4%. The most frequently used type of protective equipment was boots (38.9%), followed by mask (36.7%), gloves (36.3%), appropriate work clothes (22.6%), quarantine clothes (17.6%), helmets (13.4%), and goggles (12.6%). The rate of wearing goggles was low because they were considered inconvenient and lowered work efficiency. Furthermore, they purchased everyday products available on the market for their personal protective equipment which were not appropriate for maintaining safety in an actual harmful environment and its consequent risks. As a result of the survey of the awareness level related to personal protective equipment, their levels of awareness of accidents and attitude proved to be average or higher, but the practice of wearing protective equipment and the level of knowledge and management of personal protective equipment were lower. Conclusion: This survey found that the wearing status of personal protective equipment among poultry farmers was insufficient even though they were exposed to risks. Most respondents were aware of the necessity of wearing personal protective equipment and of the potential for accidents, but they did not wear proper protective equipment. Their wearing rate was low due to a lack of knowledge about protective equipment, as well as the inconvenience of wearing it. Therefore there is a need to improve and develop specialized personal protective equipment for respiration, hands, and eyes, as well as work clothes that can protect farmers from major harmful matter that is generated in the poultry workplace. Based on the results of this investigation, we will conduct further studies on the required performance and design directions of personal protective equipment while collecting more objective data through field-oriented assessments.

• Journal of agricultural medicine and community health
• /
• v.48 no.4
• /
• pp.239-250
• /
• 2023

Objective: This study was a preliminary study for the prevention programs for farmers' occupational diseases. It selected the priorities recognized by farmers, such as occupational diseases, and also identifies the effectiveness and feasibility of prevention programs among diseases recognized by farmers. Therefore, we plan to use it as basis data for future farmer safety and health programs. Method: The subjects of the study were farmers living in the region, selected through a snowball recruitment method, and a total of 671 people were targeted. The priority selection method was the Basic Priority Rating System (BPRS) method, and among the occupational diseases, programs to prevent musculoskeletal diseases, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, and pesticide poisoning were surveyed on the effectiveness and feasibility of farmers. Results: Among occupational diseases, the highest priority was musculo-skeletal disease, followed by respiratory disease and pesticide poisoning. Among the programs for musculoskeletal disease, 'use of agricultural work convenience equipment and auxiliary tools' had the highest perceived effectiveness and feasibility. Among the five programs for pesticide poisoning, 'equipment of protective equipment such as pesticide protective clothing/glove' had the highest effectiveness at 67.4%, and 'compliance with pesticide use instructions' had the highest level of feasibility at 64.3%. Among the four programs to prevent respiratory diseases, 'wearing a dust mask or gas mask' was the highest at 65.5% in terms of both effectiveness and feasibility. Conclusion: When carrying out safety and health programs for farmers, the priorities recognized by farmers should be taken into consideration, and the program contents should also be developed taking into account the size of effect and feasibility recognized by farmers.

• Journal of Food Hygiene and Safety
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.40-51
• /
• 2019

Ginseng has a unique production system that is different from those used for other crops. It is subject to the Ginseng Industry Act., requires a long-term cultivation period of 4-6 years, involves complicated cultivation characteristics whereby ginseng is not produced in a single location, and many ginseng farmers engage in mixed-farming. Therefore, to bring the production of Ginseng in line with GAP standards, it is necessary to better understand the on-site practices of Ginseng farmers according to established control points, and to provide a proper action plan for improving efficiency. Among ginseng farmers in Korea who applied for GAP certification, 77.6% obtained it, which is lower than the 94.1% of farmers who obtained certification for other products. 13.7% of the applicants were judged to be unsuitable during document review due to their use of unregistered pesticides and soil heavy metals. Another 8.7% of applicants failed to obtain certification due to inadequate management results. This is a considerably higher rate of failure than the 5.3% incompatibility of document inspection and 0.6% incompatibility of on-site inspection, which suggests that it is relatively more difficult to obtain GAP certification for ginseng farming than for other crops. Ginseng farmers were given an average of 2.65 points out of 10 essential control points and a total 72 control points, which was slightly lower than the 2.81 points obtained for other crops. In particular, ginseng farmers were given an average of 1.96 points in the evaluation of compliance with the safe use standards for pesticides, which was much lower than the average of 2.95 points for other crops. Therefore, it is necessary to train ginseng farmers to comply with the safe use of pesticides. In the other essential control points, the ginseng farmers were rated at an average of 2.33 points, lower than the 2.58 points given for other crops. Several other areas of compliance in which the ginseng farmers also rated low in comparison to other crops were found. These inclued record keeping over 1 year, record of pesticide use, pesticide storages, posts harvest storage management, hand washing before and after work, hygiene related to work clothing, training of workers safety and hygiene, and written plan of hazard management. Also, among the total 72 control points, there are 12 control points (10 required, 2 recommended) that do not apply to ginseng. Therefore, it is considered inappropriate to conduct an effective evaluation of the ginseng production process based on the existing certification standards. In conclusion, differentiated certification standards are needed to expand GAP certification for ginseng farmers, and it is also necessary to develop programs that can be implemented in a more systematic and field-oriented manner to provide the farmers with proper GAP management education.

• Journal of agricultural medicine and community health
• /
• v.30 no.3
• /
• pp.279-292
• /
• 2005

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to analyze agricultural accident and disease using statistical data and materials about National Survey for Health & Nutrition in 2001 and to provide fundamental materials for studies about farmers' health and safety, decision of priority about research and policy. Results: Diagnosed chronic disease prevalence is 72.4% in farmer/fisher group, 49.8% in non farmer/fisher group. The chronic disease prevalence of musculoskeletal disease, circulatory disease, and gastroenteric disease is 46.5%, 18.2%, and 17.9% in farmer/fisher group respectively. The prevalence of musculoskeletal disease in farmer/fisher is 2.4 times higher than non farmer/fisher. This result shows that it need to evaluation for risk factors of musculoskeletal disease preferentially. Lifetime accident/poisoning rate is 18.2% In farmer/fisher group and 13.3% in non farmer/fisher group. The types of accidents were fracture>sprain>contusion and the reasons of accidents were traffic accident>falling/sliding. Conclusions: "Bad or very bad" response of farmer/fisher is almost 2 times higher than non farmer/fisher group. The rate of smoking and no exercising in farmer/fisher group is higher than non farmer/fisher group.