## 2 Materials and Methods
### Field Phase
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **ML-1** & **AP-1** & **ML-2** & **AP-2** & **ML-3** & **AP-3** & **ML-4** & **AP-4** & **ML-5** & **AP-5** & **ML-6** & **AP-6** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Location} & Tympaki GH-1 & Tympaki GH-2 & Tympaki GH-3 & Tympaki GH-1 & Tympaki GH-2 & Tympaki GH-3 \\ \multirow{2}{*}{GH area (ha)} & 0.13 & 0.13 & 0.13 & 0.13 & 0.13 & 0.13 & 0.13 & 0.13 \\  & Crop & tomato & tomato & tomato & tomato & tomato & tomato & tomato & tomato \\ Duration of task (min) & n/a & 36 & n/a & 43 & n/a & 47 & n/a & 36 & n/a & 47 & n/a & 39 \\ \multirow{2}{*}{Row distance (m)} & 1.90 & 1.90 & 1.60 & 1.90 & 1.90 & 1.90 & 1.60 & 1.60 \\  & Plant distance (m) & 0.60 & 0.60 & 0.60 & 0.60 & 0.60 & 0.60 & 0.60 \\ \multirow{2}{*}{Crop height (m)} & 1.95 & 1.95 & 1.95 & 1.95 & 1.95 & 1.95 & 1.95 \\ \multirow{2}{*}{Dilution of formulation (mL/L s.l.)} & 1.625 & 1.625 & 1.625 & 0.525 & 0.525 & 0.525 & 0.525 \\ \multirow{2}{*}{Amount of s.l. mixed (L)} & 200 & n/a & 200 & n/a & 200 & n/a & 200 & n/a & 200 & n/a \\ \multirow{2}{*}{Amount of spray liquid left in tank (L)} & n/a & 32 & n/a & 15 & n/a & 0 & n/a & 30 & n/a & 2 & n/a & 32 \\ \multirow{2}{*}{Amount of spray liquid applied (L)} & n/a & 168 & n/a & 185 & n/a & 200 & n/a & 170 & n/a & 198 & n/a & 168 \\ \multirow{2}{*}{Application rate (L/min)} & n/a & 4.02 & n/a & 4.14 & n/a & 4.02 & n/a & 4.14 & n/a & 4.14 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} n/a: not applicable. s.l.: spray liquid.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Field trial parameters and data. outer exposure dosimeter. Inner dosimeters (100% cotton shirts and long pants) were used for the monitoring of actual exposure. Head and hand exposure were measured in accordance with the sampling method already used in a previous study [10] using cotton caps and gloves (inner cotton, outer nitrile) as dosimeters, respectively. Quality control samples of all dosimeters used were fortified in the field at two fortification rates (plus blanks) as a measure of the active substance (a.s.) stability and recovery according to the previously described procedure [10; 21]. The nitrile gloves extraction, both for field- and spiked samples, was conducted in the field immediately after sampling, as this matrix is known to retain analytes, impacting recovery efficiency if stored for any length of time [22]. All samples were stored in freezers (\(-18\)\({}^{\circ}\)C) shortly after the trial. Exposure term definitions (potential, actual, etc.) and clarifications regarding the various dosimeters considered for the respective exposure calculations are provided in Section 2.4. Two different pesticides (authorized and normally used either as a tank mix or in sequential application on the same day) were applied. Mixing and loading (M/L) and application procedures were in accordance with local practices and the principles of Good Agricultural Practice (GAP). The experimental work followed the design and sampling scheme described in the respective section above and depicted in Table 1. The pesticide A was an emulsifiable concentrate (EC) fungicide formulation containing the a.s. bupirimate at 25% \(w/v\). Since pesticide A was the first one applied, it also served as the pesticide tested for the study of the potential transfer of residues from the equipment and the treated crop to the operator. Pesticle B was a suspension concentrate (SC) fungicide formulation containing the a.s. tebufenozide at 24% \(w/v\). Both pesticides were purchased from a local distributor and the respective containers were checked for expiry dates and intact packaging by the field scientists, and found to comply with the quality requirements and foreseen label. During the application of the first pesticide (pesticide A), in the morning, the potential dermal exposure (PDE) and the actual dermal exposure (ADE) for the M/L and for the applicators were measured using standard whole-body techniques (see Section 2.4 below) following published procedures [11].