It turns out that wearing silicone wristbands is a great way to measure a person's exposure to pesticides that are inhaled or absorbed in the skin - whether you are farmer, living near pesticide treated farm fields, a pet owner, or a member of the general population (consumer). Another source of pesticides is food and water, but the silicone wristbands don't measure that.
A recent European study, using the silicone wristbands, found that conventional (non-organic) farmers are exposed to the greatest number and concentration of pesticides, followed by organic farmers and farm neighbors, and the fewest in ordinary consumers (the general population). The wristbands revealed that pesticide use, whether as a farmer or in the home, and having pets predicted greater pesticide exposure.
The researchers looked for the presence of 193 pesticides and found 172 of them. People are typically exposed to mixtures of pesticides. Keep in mind that many pesticides banned in the European Union are not banned in the US, and are routinely used in the US.
Pesticide use, whether as a conventional farmer or in the home, and having pets predicted a greater pesticide exposure. Organic farmers had lower levels of pesticides, and were exposed to fewer pesticides than conventional (non-organic) farmers. This is because organic farmers are not allowed to use the many pesticides that are routinely used by conventional (non-organic) farmers.
A nice summary of the research from Beyond Pesticides: Lower Pesticide Exposure Documented For Organic Farmers, Elevated For Others
Published in Environment International, a study utilizing silicone wristbands provides a snapshot of chemical exposure in over 600 participants across 10 European countries. Using the wristbands as passive and noninvasive samplers, the researchers find that organic farmers’ wristbands contain lower pesticide levels than other groups, offering insight into the benefits of organic and disproportionate risks to farmers using chemical-intensive methods. The results further reveal prevalent environmental pesticide mixtures, in addition to highlighting exposure to current-use pesticides (CUPs) and legacy (banned) pesticides that occurs through multiple exposure routes to workers, residents, and consumers.
“Our study offers a comprehensive analysis of non-dietary pesticide exposure patterns among various populations across the EU [European Union], underscoring its widespread prevalence and identifying significant occupational and residential predictors,” the authors explain. As pesticide exposure occurs through both dietary and nondietary routes, such as through dermal (skin) contact and inhalation of contaminated air, there “is a growing need for aggregated [total; combined] exposure estimates across occupationally and nonoccupationally exposed populations.”
The study includes testing for 193 pesticides, both legacy pesticides and CUPs, captured in silicone wristbands worn by farmers, residents living close to treated fields (neighbors), and the general population (consumers) in a total of 641 participants. Through liquid and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, the researchers detect 173 out of the 193 pesticides (89%) across all samples. “Per wristband 9 – 74 (median of 36) pesticides were detected in conventional farmers (FC), 8 – 66 (median of 20) in organic farmers, 3 – 66 (median of 20) in neighbors and 2 – 54 (median of 17) in consumers,” the authors report.
Notably, insecticides, such as permethrin and chlorpyrifos, are the most commonly detected across all groups (>85%). The analysis of pesticide mixtures also finds that one combination of three insecticides occurs frequently, in 72 % of all samples, of permethrin, chlorpyrifos, and dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE), a breakdown product of the legacy pesticide dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). DDE is still found among the most common food residues in the United States. (See Daily News coverage here and here.)
“Given the co-occurrence in the environment of both legacy pesticides and several CUPs, concerns have been raised regarding possible health risks from these mixtures,” the researchers note. (See here.) The connection of single pesticide exposure to a myriad of adverse health effects is widely documented, while research on pesticide mixtures is showing not only cumulative effects, but synergistic effects that magnify the toxicity of individual chemical exposure. (See Beyond Pesticides’ coverage on synergy here and the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database for more information.)
Based on previous research, in the EU, there are over 500 active substances authorized for professional use. The EU, however, relies more on the precautionary principle than the approach of the U.S. for risk-based regulation to establish mitigation measures. One study, titled “The USA lags behind other agricultural nations in banning harmful pesticides,” highlights how many pesticides still widely used in the U.S., with upwards of tens to hundreds of millions of pounds applied annually, are banned in other countries, including those in the EU.
The various exposure routes to pesticides leave all individuals at risk. While research indicates diet as a main contributor to pesticide exposure for nonoccupationally exposed populations, “some recent studies suggest an additional contribution from other routes of exposure, such as inhalation and dermal exposure, as equally or possibly more important than dietary exposure for certain CUPs.” (See here, here, here, and here.) Understanding all exposure routes, as well as cumulative and aggregate exposure, to pesticides allows for a more accurate representation of body burden and the subsequent health risks.
Study Methodology and Results
With an objective of assessing exposure to multiple pesticides and their environmental transformation products in different populations across 10 European countries, this study uses silicone wristbands as passive samplers to trap pesticide residues encountered by individuals. Silicone wristbands offer an approach to pesticide monitoring that is non-invasive, lower cost, and minimally disruptive to participants, while also demonstrating efficacy in capturing exposures to different pollutants, including pesticides. (See scientific literature here, here, and here.)
These wristbands are “a good proxy for inhalation and dermal exposure routes, since [they] capture volatile and semi-volatile compounds that are in the air and also compounds that adhere to the skin or are dermally excreted, offering a valuable alternative to understand the contribution of environmental pollution to personal exposure levels,” the researchers state.
As part of the SPRINT project, funded by the EU Horizon 2020 program, this study pertains to the 2021 spraying season. Participants were recruited in each country (Slovenia, Portugal, Switzerland, Spain, the Netherlands, Italy, France, Denmark, the Czech Republic, and Croatia) in areas that cover the different crops throughout the European climate zones.
The 641 participants are defined as farmers, neighbors (i.e., people living in the vicinity of agricultural fields and without being involved professionally in farming), or the general population (i.e., people living at greater distances from the fields than neighbors and having no professional involvement in farming), and wore the silicone wristbands continuously for one week during the 2021 growing season. Participants also answered a questionnaire with information regarding their lifestyle, including questions about dietary habits, time spent indoors, number and type of pets, and professional and home use of pesticides.
The results show that all samples contained a mixture of substances, with different populations having higher numbers of certain types of pesticides. “From the 60 analyzed fungicides, 57 showed significant differences in detection frequency between the wristbands of at least two different groups,” the authors write. Of the 54 herbicides analyzed, 43 show significant differences. “Farmers in conventional fields had higher detection frequencies for several fungicides and herbicides compared to other groups,” the researchers report. For insecticides, 44 of the 59 analyzed compounds show significant differences between groups; however, the higher detection frequency in farmers was less pronounced.
In performing statistical analyses, the data reveals that four predictors are shown to be related to higher pesticide detection, including being responsible for pesticide spraying application, use of pesticides at home, working in the agricultural sector, and having pets in the last 12 months. In summary, the authors say, “Our study revealed substantial variation in the occurrence of pesticides across different population groups, with a higher detection among farmers from conventional fields.”