### 382 VOLUME 112 | NUMBER 3 | March 2004 • Environmental Health Perspectives 

# Children’s Health **Article**

The potential health effects of pesticide exposure for children are highlighted in several recent publications (Eskenazi et al. 1999; National Research Council 1993; Zahm and Ward 1998). Pesticides pose a greater health
risk for children than for adults because of their small body size and rapid development. Recent research has demonstrated that multiple types of pesticides are present in many dwellings in the United States, particularly in low-income, urban neighborhoods (Berkowitz et al. 2003; Pang et al. 2002; Whyatt et al. 2002). Children in agricultural communities may be exposed to pesticides in the home because of pathways common to all children(diet, drinking water, residential pest control), as well as parental take-home pesticides and factors related to farm proximity (drift, playing in pesticide-treated fields; Camann et al. 1995; Fenske 1997; Fenske et al. 1999).
Pesticides can remain stable indoors forextended periods of time, creating a significant exposure for children, especially those young enough to play on floors or to place toys and household objects in the mouth (Lewis et al. 2001). Simcox et al. (1995) have shown that pesticide concentrations of organophosphate (OP) insecticides in housedust and soil samples were greater for agricultural homes than for nonagricultural homes in the same communities. McCauley et al. (2001) found that OP residues in farmworker housing were associated with distance from fields and with number of farmworkers in the
home. These exposure routes are particularly relevant to children of migrant and seasonal
farmworkers. Adults in their households often apply chemicals and perform hand labor in fields treated with pesticides. In addition, these children often live in close proximity to the fields. Farmworker housing is frequentlyin poor repair and therefore subject to considerable pesticide application for pest control (Harrison 1995; National Advisory Council on Migrant Health 1995). The research reported here focuses on exposure of farmworker children to a broad range of pesticides. Although previous studies have examined pesticide residues in the homes of such children, they have concentrated on agricultural chemicals and primarily on OPs (e.g., Simcox et al. 1995). The present study is part of a project designed to develop and evaluate a culturally appropriate pesticide education intervention for farmworker families. During formative research, we used dust wipes to collect samples that were analyzed for a variety of pesticides.We present results of these analyses, describing the types and amounts of pesticides found in farmworker dwellings and their distribution on floor, toy, and hand surfaces in the home.We also examine possible predictors of pesticide presence in these homes to identify the probable pathways of exposure. 

### Materials and Methods

Recruitment. Data were collected between June and December 2001 from 41 households
located in four western North Carolina counties and two southern Virginia counties. To be eligible for the study, the household had to contain a family consisting of at least two related persons, one of whom was a seasonal, migrant, or year-round farmworker employed in agriculture by someone outside of his or her family. At least one adult in the family had to have a child between 12 and 84 months of age residing in the house. The primary interviewee
in all households was the mother. The lack of a census and the dispersed
nature of farmworker residences in the mountains precluded the use of a random sample ora block cluster design. Therefore, we developed a strategy to obtain a sample representative of the variability in the local farmworkerpopulation. Potential participants were initially identified using a site-based sampling approach (Arcury and Quandt 1999). This approach first identified sites or locations
where members of farmworker families were likely to be found. These locations included women’s groups sponsored by Cooperative Extension agents and Partnerships forChildren, classes for English as a second language and high school equivalency (GED), and social and health services organizations, such as migrant health programs, county health departments, churches, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children offices. Project researchstaff visited these sites during the months preceding data collection to introduce themselves and the project, and to determine when and how many eligible families were expected to be in residence during the agricultural season.

Address correspondence to S.A. Quandt, Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical Center Blvd., Piedmont Plaza II, Suite 512, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157- 1063 USA. Telephone: (336) 716-6015. Fax: (336) 713-4157. E-mail: squandt@wfubmc.edu

We acknowledge the laboratory assistance of M.M. Zuniga, J.M. Clothier, and B. Walker.

This work was supported by a grant from the
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (R01 ES08739).

The authors declare they have no competing
financial interests.

Received 30 June 2003; accepted 12 November

2003. 

## Agricultural and Residential Pesticides in Wipe Samples from Farmworker Family Residences in North Carolina and Virginia

Sara A. Quandt, 1 Thomas A. Arcury,2 Pamela Rao,2 Beverly M. Snively, 1 David E. Camann,3 Alicia M. Doran,2
Alice Y. Yau,3 Jane A. Hoppin,4 and David S. Jackson 2

**1 Department of Public Health Sciences and**  **2 Department of Family and Community Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine,**  **Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA; 3**  **Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas, USA; 4**  **National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina**  **, USA**

Children of farmworkers can be exposed to pesticides through multiple pathways, including agricultural take-home and drift as well as residential applications. Because farmworker families often live in poor-quality housing, the exposure from residential pesticide use may be substantial. We measured eight locally reported agricultural pesticides and 13 pesticides commonly found inU.S. houses in residences of 41 farmworker families with at least one child < 7 years of age in western North Carolina and Virginia. Wipe samples were taken from floor surfaces, toys, and children’shands. We also collected interview data on possible predictors of pesticide presence, including characteristics of the household residents, cleaning practices, and characteristics of the home. All families were Spanish-speaking, primarily from Mexico. Results indicate that six agricultural and 11 residential pesticides were found in the homes, with agricultural, residential, or both present in 95% of homes sampled. In general, residential pesticides were more commonly found. Presence of both types of pesticides on the floor was positively associated with detection on toys or hands. Agricultural pesticide detection was associated with housing adjacent to agricultural fields. Residential pesticide detection was associated with houses judged difficult to clean. Although the likelihood of agricultural pesticide exposure has been considered high for farmworker families, these results indicate that residential pesticide use and exposure in this population merit further study. Key words: agriculture, children, exposure, house dust, Latino. Environ Health Perspect 112:382–387 (2004). doi:10.1289/ehp.6554 available via http://dx.doi.org/ [Online 12 November 2003]The researchers returned to the sites at the appropriate time and were introduced to the group or to individual families by agency staff.Being introduced to the researchers by someone the family member already knew and trusted helped allay concerns about the risks of participating in the study. As the project progressed, observation in the community demonstrated that some families were quite
isolated and not accessible in the recruitment sites. Therefore, additional participants were located using snowball sampling from the already enrolled families.
Data collection. Data collection took place in the participant’s home. It consisted of aninterviewer-administered questionnaire, collection of wipe samples, and observations of theresidence and neighborhood. The questionnaires and interviews were conducted in the participant’s preferred language, which was Spanish in all cases. Interviewers were bilingual
females. Informed consent was obtained in accordance with procedures approved by the Wake Forest University School of Medicine
Institutional Review Board. Wipe samples from three types of surfaces (floors, toys, and children’s hands) were collected in each home, following protocols described elsewhere (Geno et al. 1996;Harding et al. 1993). Floor samples were collected from two to four 18-inch-square sections (0.42–0.84 m2) of uncarpeted flooring in living areas of the house. The number ofsquares depended upon the amount of suitable floor space available. Most of the homes had a high percentage of carpeted flooring, somost of the samples were taken from uncarpeted kitchens and hallways. The sections were measured and marked using masking tape. Toy samples were taken from two or three suitable toys identified by the mother or child as most frequently handled favorites. Suitable toys were nonplush and made of materials that would not be damaged by the alcohol. Wipe samples were taken from the child’s hands by wiping all surfaces of both hands, including between the fingers, with two sponges. Older children wiped their own hands. The child was instructed to pick up and unfold the sponge, and then to wipe all
surfaces of both hands. In cases where the child was too young or needed assistance, the mother took the samples while wearing a pair of nitrile gloves. In 11 households, field blanks were also collected. Two sponges were wetted with 15 mL of isopropanol and placed directly into the jar with tweezers. An additional 50 mL of isopropanol was added, and the jar was sealed with Teflon tape and placed in the cooler. Duplicates of the floor samples were collected in six homes. The area directly adjacent to the original sample was measured and marked, and the sample was collected using the complete floor wipe protocol. The floor dust samples were quite repeatable. Of the34 pairs of collocated duplicate-floor measurements with detectable loadings, 59% of the pairs had differences < 20%, and 94% had differences < 50%. In addition to the physical samples and direct interview data, observations were made regarding the general environment of the dwelling. A map was drawn of the yard and immediate neighborhood, including
estimated distances to cultivated fields and neighboring houses. These data were used to classify dwellings as adjacent or nonadjacentto agricultural fields. The difficulty of cleaning the house was also rated on a scale of

1 (most difficult to clean) to 10 (easiest to clean), based on age and type of dwelling, general state of repair, and crowding due tonumber of occupants and amount of furniture and other material possessions. Laboratory analysis. Samples were analyzed for two groups of pesticides. Eight werepesticides [atrazine, disulfoton (total), esfenvalerate, lindane, metolachlor, oxyfluorfen, pendimethalin, simazine] used frequently in agriculture in the study area and detectable by a single analytic method. Thirteen pesticides [carbaryl, α-chlordane, γ-chlordane, chlorpyrifos, 4,4 ́-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE), 4,4 ́-dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), diazinon, heptachlor, methoxychlor,

cis-permethrin, trans-permethrin, ortho

phenylphenol, propoxur] are commonly detected in house dust throughout the United States (Camann et al. 2000). The two groups are labeled “agricultural” and “residential,” acknowledging that the composition of the agricultural list reflects local farming practices. Once each month, wipe samples were shipped on dry ice to the laboratory (Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX), where they were stored at –12°C. Within 10 days after arrival, each wipe sample was shake-extracted as previously described (Geno et al. 1996). Each wipe sample was spiked with chlorfenvinphos as an extraction surrogate and then shake-extracted, first with isopropanol, and then twice with 1:1 diethyl ether:hexanes.
The combined extract was concentrated with an N-Evap evaporator (Organomation Associates, Berlin, MA) to 5 mL (hand wipe and blank samples) or 20 mL (floor and toywipes). One milliliter was passed through a carbograph cartridge to remove interferences from coeluting compounds and concentrated to a final volume of 1.0 mL in 10% diethyl ether in hexanes. Amounts of the target pesticides in samples were determined using an Agilent6890/5973 gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer (Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, CA) as previously described (Geno et al. 1995). Quantification was performed using a mixture of deuterated polyaromatic hydrocarbons, deuterated pesticides, and 13C-labeled pesticides
as internal standards. The nominal analytedetection limit was the analyte level in the lowest standard of the initial five-point calibration curve. Detection limits ranged from 0.05 to 0.3 μg for individual pesticides and 0.8 μg for total disulfoton in hand wipes and from 0.25 to 1.5 μg for individual pesticides and 4 μg for total disulfoton in floor and toy wipes. No target analytes were detected in the
matrix blanks run with each batch of about10 samples, indicating that there was no laboratory-introduced contamination. Recovery of chlorfenvinphos generally ranged from 75 to 150%, suggesting that each wipe sample was extracted well. A matrix blank wipe was fortified with all target analytes at a low level (1–6 μg), allowed to equilibrate for 30 min,and extracted and analyzed as a regular sample with each batch of samples. All pesticides except carbaryl were extracted efficiently, with the spike recovery mean ± SD ranging from 77 ± 11% for lindane to 137 ± 42% for 4,4 ́-DDT. Reported wipe amounts are notadjusted for spike recoveries. Carbaryl recovery declined over laboratory batches, suggesting degradation of the laboratory spiking solution or declining extraction efficiency. The use of new spiking solution in the final batch of samples resulted in a 62% recovery from the matrix spike. Although somewhat lower than the other chemicals, this suggests that the low spike recoveries were caused by degrading laboratory spiking solution and that the results presented here are reliable. Two agricultural pesticide analytes (atrazine and metolachlor) and one residential pesticide analyte (4,4 ́-DDE) were not detected in any household. One residential pesticide analyte ( ortho-phenylphenol) was detected in allsamples and in field blanks, but not in laboratory blanks, and is excluded from all analyses reported here. Data analysis. Several measures werecreated from the questionnaire and observation data collected. A nuclear family household was defined as a respondent (with or without a spouse) and biologic offspring.
Nonrelatives in the household were defined as individuals not related to the respondent.
Individuals ≥ 18 years of age were defined as adults. Hand surface area was estimated usingthe child’s age, based on results of a simple linear regression model to predict estimated hand surface area from age in seven children with an age range similar to that of the focal children. Houses were rated as adjacent to agricultural fields if they were next to, across the road from, or within a short walk from fields. Those rated as nonadjacent were located in areas with no fields (e.g., in town or across the valley from the nearest agricultural field). All samples were successfully analyzed for pesticides. Pesticide amounts removed Children’s Health 

## | Pesticides in farmworker homes

Environmental Health Perspectives • VOLUME 112 | NUMBER 3 | March 2004 

### 383(micrograms) were measured separately on the three surfaces: hand, floor, and toy. Pesticide loadings (micrograms per square meter) werecalculated by dividing amounts by corresponding surface areas. Means and SDs of pesticide amounts and loadings were calculated from samples having detected pesticide only. The four primary outcome measures defined a prioriwere the presence of at least one agricultural pesticide detected in wipes from floor, toys, hands, and any surface sampled. Secondary outcome
measures were defined after data collection to divide households into groups according tonumber of residential pesticides detected on surfaces sampled (low, 0–2 pesticides; medium, 3–5 pesticides; high, 6–8 pesticides). Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidenceintervals (CIs) were calculated to evaluate associations between categorical variables—for example, the presence of agricultural pesticides on floors and toys. Multiple logistic regression models were used to predict binary outcome measures; proportional odds models were used to predict ordinal outcome measures. Potential predictors were observed sample characteristicsand were included in multiple regression models if p < 0.2 in corresponding simple regression analyses. If two predictors in a model were highly related, then only the one judged to have greater predictive value was included. No
interaction terms were included. ORs and 95% CIs from the multiple regression analyses
were used to evaluate associations between outcome measures and potential predictors, adjusting for other predictors in the model. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05 (two-sided). SAS software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) was used for all statistical analyses.



### Results
Table 1 presents descriptive analysis of the households and their residents. The agricultural and residential pesticides detected in floor, toy, and hand wipes are presented in Table 2. The most commonly detected agricultural pesticides were oxyfluorfen and simazine, and the most commonly detected residential pesticide was

trans-permethrin. At least one agricultural pesticide was detected in 18 floor samples (44%), 12 toy samples (29%), and nine hand samples (22%). Twenty households (49%) had at least one agricultural pesticide detected in any location. At least one residential pesticide was detected in 39 households (95%), 39 floor samples (95%), 24 toy samples (58%), and 19 hand samples (46%). Eight homes had a low (0–2) number of pesticides detected, 21 a medium (3–5) number, and 12 a high (6–8)number. No home had more than 8 of a possible 13 residential pesticides detected. When agricultural pesticide detection was compared among sources within households, there was a strong positive association between detecting agricultural pesticides in toy wipes and detecting them in floor wipes (OR = 13; 95% CI, 2.3–74). There was a similar strong positive association between floor wipe and hand detections (OR = 6.7; 95% CI, 1.2–38).This association was even greater between agricultural pesticides found on floors and in toy or hand wipes combined (OR = 17; 95% CI, 2.9–93). In each case, this estimated OR was > 1 ( p < 0.05), which indicates elevated risk, given presence of agricultural pesticide(s) on
the floor. When household pesticide detection was compared among the three sources withinhouseholds, there was a strong positive association between detecting > 0 household pesticide in toy wipes and detecting > 3 pesticides in floor wipes (OR = 7.0; 95% CI, 1.7–28). There was a similar strong positive association between > 3 pesticides in floor wipes and ≥ 1 pesticides in hand wipes (OR = 7.7; 95% CI, 1.7–34). The association was even greater between residential pesticides found on floors and in toy or hand wipes combined (OR = 12;CI, 2.5–59). Similarly, in each case, the estimated OR was > 1 ( p < 0.05), which indicates greater likelihood of pesticides on toys orhands, given presence of > 3 residential pesticides on the floor. A summary of pesticide loadings is given in Table 2, with values for floors and hands expressed as loadings (micrograms per square meter), and toy wipes expressed as weights(micrograms). There is considerable variability in the loadings or weights of pesticides
found on the same surface between different
chemicals and within the same chemical. Among possible predictors of at least one agricultural pesticide detected on any surfacesampled (Table 3), two reached statistical significance. An elevated risk of agricultural pesticides was observed given agricultural fields adjacent to the house (unadjusted OR = 18; 95% CI, 3.7–88). The association persisted for location adjacent to agricultural fields, after adjusting for other possible predictors (adjusted OR = 20; 95% CI, 3.2–126.2). No other predictors were statistically significant in the multiple logistic regression model. Two of the possible predictors of level of residential pesticides detected on any surface Children’s Health 

## | Quandt et al.



### 384 VOLUME 112 | NUMBER 3 | March 2004 • Environmental Health Perspectives Table 1. Description of 41 farmworker households, North Carolina and Virginia, 2002.

Characteristics No. (%) Characteristics No. (%)

Respondent characteristics
Sex

Female 41 (100) Male 0 (0) Age (years)

< 25 11 (27) 25–29 15 (37) 30–34 8 (20)

≥ 35 7 (17)
Work

Agricultural 16 (39) Nonemployed/houseworker 21 (51) Other 4 (10)
Focal child characteristics
Sex

Female 25 (61) Male 16 (39) Age (months)

12–24 11 (27) 25–48 13 (32)

≥ 49 17 (42) Qualifying farmworker characteristics

Sex

Female 5 (12) Male 36 (88) Age (years)

< 25 7 (17) 25–29 14 (34) 30–34 7 (17)

≥ 35 13 (32) Relationship to respondent Self 4 (10) Spouse 32 (78) Other 5 (12) Proportion of year in agricultural work (%) < 50 6 (15) 50–75 8 (20)

≥ 76 27 (66) Household characteristics
Household structure

Nuclear family 23 (56) Nuclear family + other relatives 12 (29) Nuclear family + others 6 (15) (including relatives) Household size (no. of persons)
3 4(10)

4 12 (29)

5 10 (24)

≥ 6 15 (20)
No. of adults in household ≥ 18 years of age
2 20 (49)
3 10 (24)

≥ 4 11 (27) No. of children in household < 18 years of age

1 12 (29)

2 16 (39) 3 or 4 13 (32)
No. of farmworkers in household

1 18 (44)

2 14 (34)

≥ 3 9(22) Housing characteristics Housing type Mobile home or trailer 22 (54) One-family house or other 14 (34) Building with ≥ 2 units 5 (12) Ease of cleaning Easy 21 (51) Difficult 20 (49) Air conditioning

Does not have 34 (83) Has and uses 4 (10) Has and does not use 3 (7)
Owns a vacuum cleaner Yes 28 (68) No 13 (32) Housing adjacent to fields Yes 18 (44) No 23 (56)sampled (Table 4) were statistically significant ( p < 0.05). Increased odds of a higher number of residential pesticides was associated with houses judged difficult to clean (unadjusted OR = 4.2; 95% CI, 1.2–14.9) and rented housing (unadjusted OR = 4.6; 95% CI, 1.0–21). These two predictors, plus pesticide application work, non-nuclear family, and mobile home were tested in the multiple regression model based on p < 0.2 in the simple regression. An increased likelihood of residential pesticides was observed, given that houses were judged difficult to clean (adjusted OR = 5.1; 95% CI, 1.2–22.4).



### Discussion
This study of North Carolina and Virginiafarmworker residences demonstrates that pesticide residues can be detected in wipe samplesfor both agricultural chemicals and those commonly found in dwellings. As the first study to screen for a large number of both agricultural and residential pesticides in farmworker dwellings, this extends previous research on exposure of this population. Unlike previous studies that have focused on OP pesticides (e.g., Curl et al. 2002; Fenske et al. 2002; Simcox et al. 1995), this study includes OPs, pyrethroids, organochlorines, carbamate, andherbicides. Our findings indicate that all categories of pesticides examined, not just OPs, are present in farmworker homes with young
children in residence.The presence of common residential pesticides detected in this study is similar to that obtained from house dust samples in seven areas across the United States (Camann et al. 2000). As in the present study, Camann et al.(2000) found that organochlorines, OPs, carbamates, and pyrethroids were present in most
homes. The data in the present study suggest that housing quality predicts household pesticide levels. Houses that are harder to clean may provide better habitats for pests (resulting in greater use of pesticides) as well as prevent the removal of pesticide-containing dust. Others have found that pesticides remain embedded in carpets and that carpets have a higher number of pesticides and higher
concentrations than indoor air or outdoor soil (Lewis et al. 1994). Because of the wide variety of residential pesticides detected and differences in their concentrations, the composite measure used here of low, medium, and high numbers of pesticides may be too crude to identify the strongest predictors of pesticide presence. The findings from this study confirm that the floor may be a reservoir of pesticide
residues in the home. The greatest number of
detections was in floor wipe samples. For only one pesticide was the number of detections on the floor less than that on hands or toys. Children’s Health 

## | Pesticides in farmworker homes

Environmental Health Perspectives • VOLUME 112 | NUMBER 3 | March 2004 

### 385 Table 2. Measured chemical loadings on floors (μg/m 2 ), toys (μg), a and children’s hands (μg/m 2 ), 41 farmworker homes, North Carolina and Virginia, 2002.

Floor Toys Hands Pesticide Category No. (%) b Mean ± SD Min–Max No. (%) b Mean ± SD Min–Max No. (%) b Mean ± SD Min–Max

Agricultural

Disulfoton OP 3 (7) 6.5 ± 2.3 4.3–8.9 0 — — 0 — — Esfenvalerate PY 5 (12) 29.9 ± 37.9 4.8–94.0 2 (5) 3.7 ± 4.0 0.9–6.5 2 (5) 49.8 ± 15.8 38.6–60.9 Lindane OC 2 (5) 2.2 ± 0.2 2.0–2.3 1 (2) 0.4 — 1 (2) 11.0 — Oxyfluorfen HE 10 (24) 15.7 ± 21.7 1.9–71.0 3 (7) 0.6 ± 0.1 0.5–0.7 2 (5) 31.0 ± 39.0 3.4–58.6 Pendimethalin HE 3 (7) 20.2 ± 34.3 0.4–59.8 2 (5) 1.9 ± 1.0 1.2–2.5 1 (2) 17.9 — Simazine HE 9 (22) 20.4 ± 22.5 1.2–70.0 6 (15) 5.9 ± 10.9 0.4–27.9 5 (12) 22.5 ± 34.0 2.7–82.1
Residential Carbaryl CA 8 (20) 6.2 ± 6.1 1.2–18.5 0 — — 0 — —

α-Chlordane OC 14 (34) 1.9 ± 2.4 0.2–8.8 3 (7) 0.5 ± 0.1 0.3–0.6 1 (2) 2.2 —

γ -Chlordane OC 17 (41) 2.8 ± 3.5 0.3–12.5 6 (15) 0.6 ± 0.4 0.2–1.2 1 (2) 4.4 — Chlorpyrifos OP 32 (78) 8.9 ± 18.4 0.2–87.9 11 (27) 2.1 ± 3.9 0.2–13.6 6 (15) 6.1 ± 6.1 1.9–18.0 4,4 ́-DDT OC 2 (5) 10.0 ± 0.5 9.6–10.3 1 (2) 0.5 — 0 — — Diazinon OP 14 (34) 2.6 ± 3.1 0.4–9.4 2 (5) 0.5 ± 0.3 0.3–0.7 0 — — Heptachlor OC 4 (10) 2.0 ± 0.8 1.0–2.9 0 — — 0 — — Methoxychlor OC 1 (2) 19.4 — 0 — — 2 (5) 8.0 ± 5.3 4.3–11.7
cis

-Permethrin PY 27 (66) 30.6 ± 66.4 1.4–317.4 7 (17) 2.6 ± 1.3 1.5–5.1 4 (10) 13.5 ± 7.5 8.7–24.7

trans -Permethrin PY 38 (93) 33.5 ± 85.7 0.8–488.1 21 (51) 1.8 ± 1.6 0.3–4.9 16 (39) 10.0 ± 8.3 3.4–33.6 Propoxur CA 15 (37) 4.0 ± 7.8 0.5–30.5 1 (2) 0.5 — 0 — —

Abbreviations: CA, carbamate; HE, herbicide; Max, maximum; Min, minimum; OC, organochlorine; PY, pyrethroid. In some cases, the re was only one (mean only) or no (—) observation.

a Pesticide weights are presented because toy surface area could not be measured. bNumber of samples above detection limit (percentage of total samples) ( n = 41). Table 3. Analysis of associations between presence of any agricultural pesticide and potential risk factors, using logistic regression modeling, farmworker homes, North Carolina and Virginia, 2002.

Potential risk factor Unadjusted Adjusted a (reference group) No. OR (95% CI) p -Value OR (95% CI) p -Value

House next to agriculture 41 18.0 (3.7–88.0) < 0.0001 20.0 (3.2–126.2) 0.03 (not next to) Non-nuclear family 41 2.4 (0.7–8.6) 0.16 4.9 (0.8–30.6) 0.09 (nuclear family)

≥ 3 agricultural workers in 41 2.6 (0.5–12.1) 0.23 — —

household (vs. ≤ 2) October–December interview 41 1.1 (0.3–3.7) 0.69 — — (vs. June–September) Pesticide application 41 4.2 (0.9–19.1) 0.05 2.5 (0.4–17.0) 0.34 work (no such work) Multifamily building 19 0.7 (0.1–5.3) 0.70 — — (single-family home) Mobile home 36 1.0 (0.3–3.8) 1.0 — — (single-family home) House difficult to clean 41 1.6 (0.5–5.6) 0.43 — — (not difficult) Rent house 41 2.3 (0.5–10.7) 0.29 — — (own house) Windows always closed 41 1.7 (0.2–11.3) 0.59 — —

(sometimes open) Vacuum < once/week 41 1.3 (0.4–4.6) 0.65 — —

(at least once) Age of farmworker in 41 0.9 (0.4–2.2) 0.82 — —

units of 10 years Age of respondent in 41 0.6 (0.2–1.6) 0.28 — —

units of 10 years

—, Other variables were not included in multiple regression model.

a Adjusted ORs and corresponding 95% CIs and p-values are calculated using a multiple regression model with “house next to agriculture,” “non-nuclear family,” and “pesticide application work” as independent variables.For both agricultural and residential pesticides, presence of pesticides on the floor predicted pesticides on hands or toys. This isconsistent with the ideas that pesticides are frequently tracked into the home on feet and that, once inside the home, they are resuspendedinto the air and redeposited as they fall on surfaces (Lewis et al. 2001; U.S. EPA 1999). Relatively fewer homes had detectableagricultural pesticides than residential pesticides, perhaps because specific agricultural pesticides are used on an as-needed basis in most of the common crops (e.g., Christmas trees, ornamental plants, and tobacco). Furthermore, the data collection period spanned 7 months, so exposure peaks may have been missed.Dwellings adjacent to fields can be contaminated by drift during application and by subsequent wind circulation of dust from fields. Previous studies (Lewis et al. 2001) have demonstrated that pesticides applied outside dwellings are redeposited inside the dwelling within hours. Fenske et al. (2002)showed a gradient in indoor detection of agricultural pesticides based on proximity to orchards where such pesticides are sprayed. Koch et al. (2002) used analysis of biomarkers in children’s urine to demonstrate temporal associations of spraying and exposure. Thissupports the possibility of drift from agricultural fields being a source of agriculturalpesticides in the present study. Repeated measurements across the agricultural cycle could better substantiate drift as the mechanism of
household contamination. The presence of agricultural pesticides may be due to safety and hygiene practices of the workers (not measured here). Those applying pesticides can bring residues into dwellings on clothing and skin, as well as track it in onboots. Further investigation is needed of farmworker behaviors such as hand washing before entering the dwelling, storage of soiled work clothes, and showering practices after work.
Work environment characteristics such as availability of personal protective equipmentand washing facilities should also be investigated. Prior research in eastern North Carolina found that < 40% of workers had access to wash water in the fields (Arcury et al. 2001). A large number reported never having received the pesticide safety training mandated by the U.S. EPA Worker Protection Standard (Arcury et al. 1999). Health beliefs of many migrant workers lead them to delay showering after work (Arcury et al. 2001). Because they believe
that their bodies must cool down before washing after work or risk rheumatism or other health effects, they may fail to follow pesticide safety measures that would remove pesticide
residues from the skin and decrease transfer tochildren and household surfaces. Similar practices and training deficiencies have been reported in Oregon (McCauley et al. 2001) and Washington (Thompson et al. 2003). If these same health beliefs and practices characterize the western North Carolina and Virginia study area, they may account for some of the indoor contamination with agricultural pesticides. We presume that hygiene practices that would reduce the introduction of agriculturalpesticides into the home are deficient, resulting in agricultural pesticides in households. However, the greater recoveries of residential than agricultural pesticides may indicate that, in fact, work-related hygiene practices are
more effective than those related to the useof residential pesticides. Qualitative data collected from worker families at the same time wipe samples were collected (data not reported here) showed a high degree of misinformation about the safety of residential pesticides. Further analyses of these data may reveal the particular practices introducing such pesticides
into the home.It is difficult to interpret the health significance of the amounts of pesticides measured in the wipe samples. The ranges are large, even for floor samples standardized for area. Other studies measuring indoor pesticides have used a variety of different sampling methods—air concentrations, foundation soil samples, and carpet vacuuming, as well as the surface, toy, and hand wipes used here (Gordon et al. 1999; Lewis et al. 2001; Simcox et al. 1995; Whyatt et al. 2002). However, there is no standard for presenting such data, making it impossible to compare one study with another. The wide ranges suggest that examination of behavioral predictors in a larger sample is warranted. The findings of this study need to be considered in light of several limitations. The sample size is small, particularly given the wide variability of pesticide loadings detected. Because a random sample was not possible,there could be bias introduced by the sampling method. These findings are also limited by the lack of data on several important predictors of concentrations in the home—number of days since last application of residential pesticides and since last application in adjacent fields. Farmworkers rarely have access to such data. They generally reside in rented or grower-supplied housing for which they have no records of pesticide application. They do not have records of when or what pesticides were last applied in adjacent fields. These fields may or may not belong to their employer. North Carolina and Virginia, like many states, have no statewide system for reporting pesticide application. This study extends previous research thathas detected dislodgeable residues of OP pesticides in rural dwellings occupied by migrant and seasonal farmworkers (Lu et al. 2000; Simcox et al. 1995; Thompson et al. 2003). We demonstrate that pesticides used in thehome as well as those brought from agricultural settings into the indoor environment contribute to the overall exposure of residents Children’s Health 

## | Quandt et al.



### 386 VOLUME 112 | NUMBER 3 | March 2004 • Environmental Health Perspectives Table 4. Analysis of associations between high, medium, and low residential pesticides and potential risk factors using the proportional odds model, farmworker homes, North Carolina and Virginia, 2002.

Potential risk factor Unadjusted Adjusted a (reference group) No. OR (95% CI) p -Value OR (95% CI) p -Value

House next to agriculture 41 0.6 (0.2–2.0) 0.42 — — (not next to) Non-nuclear family 41 2.5 (0.7–8.3) 0.14 1.4 (0.4–5.6) 0.60 (nuclear family)

≥ 3 agricultural workers in 41 0.7 (0.2–2.9) 0.63 — —

household (vs. ≤ 2) October–December interview 41 1.1 (0.3–3.5) 0.88 — — (vs. June–September) Pesticide application 41 0.3 (0.1–1.0) 0.06 0.3 (0.1–1.1) 0.07 work (no such work) Multifamily building 19 1.2 (0.2–8.7) 0.84 2.9 (0.3–29.2) 0.38 (single-family home) Mobile home 36 0.3 (0.1–1.3) 0.11 0.4 (0.1–1.6) 0.18 (single-family home) House difficult to clean 41 4.2 (1.2–14.9) 0.03 5.1 (1.2–22.4) 0.03 (not difficult) Rent house 41 4.6 (1.0–21.0) 0.05 2.3 (0.4–13.6) 0.34 (own house) Windows always closed 41 2.4 (0.4–14.3) 0.35 — —

(sometimes open) Vacuum < once/week 41 1.8 (0.6–5.9) 0.32 — —

(at least once) Age of farmworker in 41 0.9 (0.4–2.1) 0.85 — —

units of 10 years Age of respondent in 41 1.0 (0.4–2.4) 0.93 — —

units of 10 years

—, Other variables were not included in multiple regression model.

a Adjusted ORs and corresponding CIs and p-values are calculated using a multiple regression model with “non-nuclear family,” “pesticide application work,” “multifamily” and “mobile home,” “house difficult to clean,” and “rent house” as independent variables.Children’s Health 

## | Pesticides in farmworker homes

Environmental Health Perspectives • VOLUME 112 | NUMBER 3 | March 2004 

### 387 to pesticides. In this study, residents includedyoung children, whose susceptibility to pesticide-related health problems is, in general, greater than that of adults. This study also extends research on farmworker pesticide exposure to the eastern United States. Furtherinvestigation of pesticide exposure of farmworkers and their families is needed in otherareas to document the extent of the risk experienced by farmworker families and possible health effects of such exposure.

R EFERENCES

Arcury TA, Quandt SA. 1999. Participant recruitment for qualitative research: a site-based approach to community research in complex societies. Hum Organ 58:128–133. Arcury TA, Quandt SA, Austin CK, Preisser J, Cabrera L. 1999. Implementation of U.S. EPA’s Worker Protection Standard training for agricultural laborers: an evaluation using North Carolina data. Public Health Rep 114:459–468. Arcury TA, Quandt SA, Cravey AJ, Elmore RC, Russell GB. 2001. Farmworker reports of pesticide safety and sanitation in the work environment. Am J Ind Med 39(5):487–498. Berkowitz GS, Obel J, Deych E, Lapinski R, Godbold J, Liu Z, et al. 2003. Exposure to indoor pesticides during pregnancy in a multiethnic urban cohort. Environ Health Perspect 111:79–84. Camann DE, Colt JS, Teitelbaum SL, Rudel RA, Hart RM,

Gammon MD. 2000. Pesticide and PAH distributions in house dust from seven areas of USA. Paper 570. Nashville, TN:Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Camann DE, Harding HJ, Clothier JM, Kuchibhatla RV, Bond AE. 1995. Dermal and in-home exposure of the farm family to agricultural pesticides. In: Proceedings of Measurement of Toxic and Related Air Pollutants Symposium, 16–18 May 1995, Research Triangle Park, NC. A&WMA Publication VIP-50. Pittsburgh, PA:Air and Waste Management Association, 548–554. Curl CL, Fenske RA, Kissel JC, Shirai JH, Moate TF, Griffith W, et al. 2002. Evaluation of take-home organophosphorus pesticide exposure among agricultural workers and their children. Eviron Health Perspect 110(suppl 12):A787–A792. Eskenazi B, Bradman A, Castorina R. 1999. Exposures of children to organophasphate pesticides and their potential adverse health effects. Environ Health Perspect 107(suppl 3):409–419. Fenske RA. 1997. Pesticide exposure assessment of workers and their families. Occup Med 12(2):221–237. Fenske R, Lu C, Barr D, Needham L. 2002. Children’s exposure to chlorpyrifos and parathion in an agricultural community in central Washington State. Environ Health Perspect

110:549–553. Fenske R, Lu C, Simcox NJ, Loewenherz C, Touchstone J, Moate TF, et al. 1999. Strategies for assessing children’s organophosphorus pesticide exposures in agricultural communities. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 10:662–671. Geno PW, Camann DE, Harding HJ, Villalobos K, Lewis RG. 1996. Handwipe sampling and analysis procedure for the measurement of dermal contact with pesticides. Arch

Environ Contam Toxicol 30:132–138.Geno PW, Majumda TK, Camann DE, Bond AE. 1995. A multiresidue GC/MS method for the determination of pesticides in environmental media. In: Proceedings of Measurement of Toxic and Related Air Pollutants Symposium, 16–18 May 1995, Research Triangle Park, NC. A&WMA Publication VIP-50. Pittsburgh, PA:Air and Waste Management Association, 531–541. Gordon SD, Callahan PJ, Nishioka MG, Brinkman M, O’Rourke
MK, Lebowitz MD, et al. 1999. Residential environmental measurements in the national human exposure assessment survey (NHEXAS) pilot study in Arizona: preliminary results for pesticides and VOCs. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol

9:456–470. Harding HJ, Merritt PM, Clothier JM, Camann DE, Bond AE, Lewis RG. 1993. Sample collection methods to assess environmental exposure to agricultural pesticides. In: Proceedings of Measurement of Toxic and Related Air Pollutants Symposium, 3–7 May 1993, Durham, NC. A&WMA Publication VIP-34. Pittsburgh, PA:Air and Waste Management Association, 842–847.Harrison P. 1995. Safe, clean, and affordable: California farmworker housing needs. J Archit Plan Res 12:19–34. Koch D, Lu C, Fisker-Anderson J, Jolley L, Fenske RA. 2002. Temporal association of children’s pesticide exposure and agricultural spraying: report of a longitudinal biological monitoring study. Environ Health Perspect 110:829–833. Lewis RG, Fortmann RC, Camann DE. 1994. Evaluation of methods for monitoring the potential exposure of small children to pesticides in the residential environment. Arch Environ
Contam Toxicol 26:37–46. Lewis RG, Fortune CR, Blanchard FT, Camann DE. 2001.Movement and deposition of two organophosphorus pesticides within a residence after interior and exterior applications. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 51:339–351. Lu C, Fenske RA, Simcox NJ, Kalman D. 2000. Pesticide exposure of children in an agricultural community: evidence of household proximity to farmland and take home exposure pathways. Environ Res 84:290–302. McCauley LA, Lasarev MR, Higgins G, Rothlein J, Muniz J, Ebbert C, et al. 2001. Work characteristics and pesticideexposures among migrant agricultural families: a community-based research approach. Environ Health Perspect

109:533–538. National Advisory Council on Migrant Health. 1995. Losing

Ground: The Condition of Farmworkers in America. Bethesda, MD:U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration.

National Research Council. 1993. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. Washington, DC:National Academy

Press. Pang YH, MacIntosh DL, Camann DE, Ryan B. 2002. Analysis of aggregate exposure to chlorpyrifos in the NHEXAS-Maryland investigation. Environ Health Perspect 110:235–240. Simcox NJ, Fenske RA, Wolz SA, Lee IC, Kalman DA. 1995. Pesticides in household dust and soil: exposure pathways for children of agricultural families. Environ Health Perspect

103:1126–1134. Thompson B, Coronado GD, Grossman JE, Puschel K, Solomon CC, Islas I, et al. 2003. Pesticide take-home pathway among children of agricultural workers: study design, methods, and baseline findings. J Occup Environ Med 45:42–53. U.S. EPA. 1999. Transport of Lawn-Applied 2,4-D from Turf to Home: Assessing the Relative Importance of Transport Mechanisms and Exposure Pathways. EPA-600/R-99/040. Research Triangle Park, NC:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Whyatt RM, Camann DE, Kinney PL, Reyes A, Ramirez J, Dietrich J, et al. 2002. Residential pesticide use during pregnancy among a cohort of urban minority women. Environ Health Perspect 110:507–514. Zahm SH, Ward MH. 1998. Pesticides and childhood cancer. Environ Health Perspect 106(suppl 3):893–908.