Cited by 89Pesticide Exposure and ToxicityAgriculture and Farm SafetyOccupational Health and Safety in Workplaces

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Practice article. Implementation of EPA's worker protection standard training for agricultural laborers: an evaluation using North Carolina data

Open access
Arcury, T. A.·1999·Public Health Reports

Abstract

The US Environmental Protection Agency has promulgated a Worker Protection Standard which requires that farmworkers receive pesticide safety training. The implementation of these regulations has not been evaluated. Using data collected through personal interviews with 270 Hispanic farmworkers recruited from 35 labor sites in an eight-county area, the authors analyzed the extent to which farmworkers received pesticide safety training, characteristics of the training, and variations in knowledge and safety behavior. Approximately a third of the farmworkers reported having ever received information or training on pesticide safety, and 25.6% reported having received training in the year in which they were interviewed. Workers with H2A visas were significantly more likely to have received training than workers without these visas. The training received varied in location, duration, and language. Most included the use of a video, as well as verbal presentation, and most included printed materials. However, few workers knew the ways in which they could be exposed to pesticides or reported using any method to protect themselves from pesticide exposure.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/phr/114.5.459

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Arcury, T. A.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Arcury, T. A.
Venue
Public Health Reports
Published
1999-09-01
Volume
114
Issue
5
Pages
459-468
ISSN
  • 0033-3549 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2877
OpenAlex
W2211045443
Cited by
89
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
7.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Public Health Reports (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Labor
  • University of California, Irvine
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (R21ES008739, R21-ES08739)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pesticide Exposure and Toxicity
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Agriculture and Farm Safety
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
Keywords
Worker Protection Standard, pesticide safety training, agricultural laborers, farm workers, pesticide exposure, Hispanic farmworkers, pesticide safety knowledge, safety behavior, training implementation, North Carolina
MeSH terms
Adult, Agricultural Workers' Diseases, Emigration and Immigration, Female, Health Education, Humans, Male, Mexico, Middle Aged, North Carolina, Pesticides, Surveys and Questionnaires, United States, United States Environmental Protection Agency

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review