A Comparison of the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (PHED) and the European Predictive Operator Exposure Model (EUROPOEM) Database

  • Paul Y. Hamey
Part of the NATO · Challenges of Modern Society book series (NATS, volume 19)


Within Europe and North America there have been several independent initiatives that have established generic databases or models for predicting exposure to pesticides of workers engaged in pesticide applications. The North American Pesticides Handlers Exposure Database1 (PHED) was the first multinational and perhaps the best sponsored attempt. Less ambitious databases or models have been assembled in the UK2, Germany3 and The Netherlands4, and have been incorporated into their respective national regulatory schemes. These models have also been employed, to some extent, in other European States. The harmonisation of the regulation of plant protection pesticides within the European Community5 requires corresponding harmonisation of the various predictive models used within Europe. Work has therefore begun using the existing PHED software to combine the individual databases, supporting the current European models, and capture further data. This venture is known as the European Predictive Operator Exposure Model (EUROPOEM) project.


Environmental Protection Agency European Model Spray Volume German Model Single Regression Duration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    PHED Reference Manual, Versar Inc, Springfield VA 22151, USA, (1991).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Martin, A.D. in: “Proceedings of Prediction of Percutaneous Penetration”, R.C. Scott, R. Guy, and J. Hadgraft, ed., IBC Technical Services, London (1990).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lunden, J–R., Westphal, D., Kieczka, H. et al. Uniform principles for safeguarding the health of applicators of plant protection products. Biologische Bundesanstalt fur Land–und Fortwirtshaft, Budesgesundheitsamt, and Industrieverband Agrar e. V. ISBN 3–489–27700–7 (1992).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Hemmen, J.J., Agricultural pesticide exposure databases for risk assessment, Rev. Environ. Contant Toxicol. 126: 1–85 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Council Directive 91/414EEC, Official Journal of the European Communities, number L 327 3. 12. 1980.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Hemmen, J.J., Predictive exposure modelling for pesticide registration, Ann. Occup. Hyg. 37 (5): 447–586.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ramaswamy, G.N., and Boyd, C.R., Fluorescent dye and pesticide penetration tested in a computerized spray chamber. Part 1. Non-woven fabrics as barriers, Bull. Environ. Contant Toxicol. 51: 341–348 (1993).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guidance for PHED Reporting, Versar Inc, Springfield VA 22151, USA (1993).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (PHED) Operating Guidance, Versar Inc, Springfield VA 22151, USA (1993).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Y. Hamey
    • 1
  1. 1.Pesticides Safety DirectorateYorkUK

Personalised recommendations