Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.
We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.
Investigating on the Residue of Organophosphate Pesticides in the Rice, Soil and Water and Associated Health Risks for Human: A Case Study in Rasht, Iran
Written By
Fourud Gravand and Seyedeh Aghileh Hejazi
Submitted: 28 October 2023Reviewed: 12 December 2023Published: 31 July 2024
To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India:
CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
www.cbspd.com
|
customercare@cbspd.com
Organic phosphorus compounds are one of the most important groups of chemical pesticides. Organic phosphorus has been used by humans for many years because of its advantages in protecting agriculture and livestock. Pesticide contamination in surface water, particularly through the agricultural use of pesticides, is a worldwide problem. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the effects of this pesticide on the environment from an ecotoxicological point of view on humans and other organisms. The environment is mainly contaminated with pesticides through the their use in agricultural products, and surface water is usually contaminated through runoff, the release of water containing pesticides from agricultural lands. Therefore, when these waters are used for drinking and agriculture, it becomes a special issue. In this research, the rate of absorption of ten types of pesticides in rice fields of ten regions in the paddy fields of northern Iran was evaluated at three levels: soil, rice and water. In the environmental toxicology risk assessment, it was determined that diazinon and fenitrothion pose severe risks to the aquatic environment, but chlorpyrifos and malathion have moderate risks. Long-term use of organophosphate pesticides may be dangerous for aquatic environments. These risks should be re-evaluated periodically.
Department of Environment, Islamic Azad University, Lahijan Branch, Lahijan, Iran
Seyedeh Aghileh Hejazi
Department of Environment, Islamic Azad University, Lahijan Branch, Lahijan, Iran
*Address all correspondence to: gravand92@gmail.com
1. Introduction
Rice is a major and important cereal in the world [1]. The share of developing countries is more than 96% of the total production between 2014 and 2016 (equivalent to 477.7 million tons; [2]). The global rice cultivation area increased from 700 million hectares in 2009 to 770 million hectares in 2017 [3]. Due to the importance of rice crop at the global level, its cultivation is concentrated in developing countries and to a large extent in small farms.
Modern agricultural practices commonly use pesticides for health and to increase food yields [4] and rice is the third most used pesticide globally [5]. Rice farmers often use pesticides to control a wide range of common pests, to have high yield and high income [1, 6]. Usually, the pesticides used in rice fields are insecticides (39%), herbicides (16%), fungicides (31%) and others such as acaricides (14%) [7]. The proportion of pesticide use in developing countries is higher than in developed countries [8]. This is because rice cultivation programs in many Asian countries have usually been accompanied by excessive use of pesticides [9]. A further increase in the use of pesticides has been associated with an increase in adverse effects on the environment and human health [10]. The widespread use of pesticides may contaminate the environment as well as foods, which may create health problem [11, 12]. The main concern is the excessive use of pesticides in Iran. Therefore, the presence of pesticide residues in food is a serious concern [13]. Pesticides pose many risks to human health, from chronic effects such as headaches and nausea to acute effects such as cancer, reproductive harm, and endocrine disorders [14].
The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has reported that in 2012, about 3.8 million tons of pesticides were applied to agricultural land [15]. The use of pesticides creates biological problems because it destroys beneficial insects and natural enemies of pests. The occurrence of pests in pesticides and the reduction of biodiversity of pesticide residues in food products have an adverse effect on human health [16]. Although pesticides have benefits for improving crop performance, their excessive use increases soil and water pollution and creates serious environmental and health risks [17, 18]. The standard models introduced by international organizations to deal with the increase in the possibility of pesticides are based on the concentration of pesticides used, including hazard coefficient (HQ) and hazard index (HI), which are used to evaluate the health risks of pesticides [19, 20]. In many countries, the use of pesticides, such as organophosphate pesticides, has been banned due to their environmental sustainability and synergistic effect in the food chain, as well as their adverse effects on humans [21]. However, these pesticides are among the hazardous chemicals [16] because of their residues in agricultural products [22].
Pollution caused by pesticides, especially through agricultural use in surface water, has created a global problem [23]. Because environmental degradation to pesticides is mainly through their use in agricultural products [24], and as a result, surface water is mainly contaminated through rainfall runoff, agricultural land runoff, and irrigation runoff containing pesticides [25]. In areas with a lot of agricultural activity, there is a possibility of contamination of surface and underground water with pesticides, and this issue is important when water is used for agricultural activities or human consumption [26]. Organophosphorus compounds (OPs), which are formed by the reaction of alcohol with phosphoric acid, have been used for many years to protect agricultural products, livestock and human health [27], and because of their cost-effectiveness, they are often used as fungicides, herbicides and insecticides., OPs are very toxic [28]. This excessive use of OPs has caused damage to other creatures such as birds, fish and humans [29].
Pesticides include a wide range of effects on human health, which depends on the toxicity, route, frequency and duration of their exposure and the sensitivity of people [30]. Agriculture is the main economic backbone of Iran, and 80% of the people depend on agriculture for their livelihood [31]. Pesticides are widely used in Iran as in other developing countries to increase crop yield [14]. Due to the increase in demand for agricultural products, especially rice, the use of pesticides also increases. In this article, we investigate organ phosphorus pesticides in water soil and rice fields of Guilan province in Iran.
To conduct this study, 20 rice samples and 20 soil samples were taken from paddy fields in different areas of Guilan.
Chemicals and Reagents The mixture of 22 OCPs standards contains Rice and surface soil samples from Paddy fields Guilan province- Rasht city were collected simultaneously after harvesting during 2021–2022. In order to obtain a composite sample in each sampling location, five sub-samples of soil or rice including a center and four corners were merged and homogenized. Each ample site was taken randomly and covered approximately 20 m2. The samples were then packed in plastic bags and kept at 20°C in the laboratory until analysis. Before extracting the remaining rice and soil samples, they were dried at room temperature, ground and sieved through a sieve with a mesh number of 100 (0.149 mm of diameter).
2.2 Analytical methods
The extraction of target OPPs was slightly modified from the QuEChERS method [32]. Rice samples were extracted with 30 mL acetonitrile (ACN) thrice. The rice extracts were vortexed rapidly at 2500 rpm for 1 min and centrifuged for 10 min. The supernatant was passed through 5 g of NaCl for dehydration. Then it was concentrated to 1 mL through a vacuum evaporator. In order to extract the dispersed solid fraction (d-SPE), 500 mg of MgSO4, 100 mg of primary secondary amine (PSA) and 50 mg of graphite carbon black (GCB) were added to the centrifuged supernatant in a 10 mL tube.
Then, the supernatant (1 mL) was further purified by cartridge. Soil samples were extracted by ethyl acetate (EtOAc). The extract was vigorously shaken by vortex at 2500 rpm for 1 min and centrifuged at 2000 rpm for 10 min. For dispersive solid phase extraction (d-SPE), 4 g of MgSO4 and 1 g of NaCl were added to the supernatant in a 10 mL tube. The supernatant was cleaned with Florisil. The amounts of rice and soil were evaporated to 0.5 mL with mild nitrogen gas. The purified detergent was filtered through a 0.45 m PTFE filter before analysis.
Target OPPs were analyzed using a gas chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS) equipped with a quantum tripole mass spectrometer. Separation of the compounds was Separation of the compounds was carried out on a thermo scientific TG-5 ms GC column, that has been sourced from Thermo Fisher Scientific Co. Ltd., and mass spectrometer in the electron impact ionization mode (EI) at 70 eV. The oven temperature was programmed from the initial temperature of 40°C, increased to 200°C at a rate of 20°C min 1 and held for 2 min, finally ramped to 280°C at 8°C min 1 and held for 3 min. The injector temperature of 250°C in split less mode and 2 L of injection volume were set. Helium was used as a carrier gas at a constant flow rate (Table 1).
Statistical description of organo phosphorus pesticides in soil, water and rice as a whole:
The mean and standard deviation of each of the organo phosphorus pesticides in soil, water and rice were calculated in all studied stations. The highest concentrations of organo phosphorus pesticides in soil, water and rice were found to be ethyl paraoxan, diazinon and ethion respectively (Tables 2 and 3).
Soil
Water
Rice
Organophosphate pesticide
Standard deviation ± mean
Standard deviation ± mean
Standard deviation ± mean
Diazinon
3.34 ± 0.84
3.98 ± 0.88
1.86 ± 0.81
Methyl parathion
2.76 ± 0.68
0.96 ± 0.46
2.63 ± 0.54
Ethyl paraoxane
4.48 ± 0.98
0.88 ± 0.32
1.24 ± 0.001
Fenitrotion
1.30 ± 0.78
0.92 ± 0.26
5.12 ± 0.52
Malathion
0.65 ± 0.46
1.27 ± 0.01
0.922 ± 0.24
Fention
0.8 ± 0.69
0.68 ± 0.45
0.38 ± 0.12
Chloropryphos
1.45 ± 0.01
0.62 ± 0.24
0.75 ± 0.14
parathion
1.62 ± 0.02
0.86 ± 0.32
0.62 ± 0.24
Bromophos
0.73 ± 0.09
0.95 ± 0.13
0.42 ± 0.08
Ethion
3.99 ± 0.64
0.89 ± 0.09
6.33 ± 0.02
Table 2.
Statistical description of the concentration of organo phosphorus pesticides (ppb) in soil, water and rice.
MS
Df
Average of squares
F
Sig
Between groups
14.26
2
7.13
486.34
0.001
Within groups
2.01
70
0.020
Total
16.27
72
Table 3.
Variance analysis of the concentration of organophosphorus pesticides in the stations.
The results showed that there is a significant difference between the concentrations of organophosphorus pesticides in the studied stations (p < 0.05).
Changes in the concentration of organophosphates in water, soil and rice samples based on DMRS test in the study area (Figures 1–10).
Figure 1.
The average concentration of diazinon pesticide in soil, water and rice. Different letters indicate a significant difference in Duncan’s multiple range test at the 5% probability level between pesticide absorption in soil-water and rice. Each number in the chart is an average of three repetitions.
Figure 2.
The average concentration of methyl parathion pesticide in soil, water and rice. Different letters indicate a significant difference in Duncan’s multiple range test at the 5% probability level between pesticide absorption in soil-water and rice. Each number in the chart is an average of three repetitions.
Figure 3.
The average concentration of ethyl paraoxane pesticide in soil, water and rice. Different letters indicate a significant difference in Duncan’s multiple range test at the 5% probability level between pesticide absorption in soil-water and rice. Each number in the chart is an average of three repetitions.
Figure 4.
The average concentration of ethyl fenitrotion pesticide in soil, water and rice. Different letters indicate a significant difference in Duncan’s multiple range test at the 5% probability level between pesticide absorption in soil-water and rice. Each number in the chart is an average of three repetitions.
Figure 5.
The average concentration of ethyl malathion pesticide in soil, water and rice. Different letters indicate a significant difference in Duncan’s multiple range test at the 5% probability level between pesticide absorption in soil-water and rice. Each number in the chart is an average of three repetitions.
Figure 6.
The average concentration of ethyl fention pesticide in soil, water and rice. Different letters indicate a significant difference in Duncan’s multiple range test at the 5% probability level between pesticide absorption in soil-water and rice. Each number in the chart is an average of three repetitions.
Figure 7.
The average concentration of ethyl chloropryphos pesticide in soil, water and rice. Different letters indicate a significant difference in Duncan’s multiple range test at the 5% probability level between pesticide absorption in soil-water and rice. Each number in the chart is an average of three repetitions.
Figure 8.
The average concentration of ethyl parathion pesticide in soil, water and rice. Different letters indicate a significant difference in Duncan’s multiple range test at the 5% probability level between pesticide absorption in soil-water and rice. Each number in the chart is an average of three repetitions.
Figure 9.
The average concentration of ethyl bromophos pesticide in soil, water and rice. Different letters indicate a significant difference in Duncan’s multiple range test at the 5% probability level between pesticide absorption in soil-water and rice. Each number in the chart is an average of three repetitions.
Figure 10.
The average concentration of ethyl ethion pesticide in soil, water and rice. Different letters indicate a significant difference in Duncan’s multiple range test at the 5% probability level between pesticide absorption in soil-water and rice. Each number in the chart is an average of three repetitions.
According to Figures 1–10, which shows the average pesticide absorption in different levels of soil-water and rice based on Duncan’s multi-range test, it indicates a significant difference at the 5% probability level between pesticide absorption in soil-water and rice. In other words, this test shows that the absorption of pesticides in water, soil and rice surfaces is different.
3.1 Determining the important influencing variables by varimax analysis method
In order to determine the important influential variables and reduce their volume, the data was analyzed by principal component analysis (Varimax method) using correlation coefficient matrices. Based on this, among the 17 organ phosphorus pesticides, 6 effective pesticides were identified in each of the soil, water and rice samples.
The order of the most important organophosphate pesticides in soil samples including ethion, methyl parathion, malathion, fenitrothion, diazinon and bromophos; the most important organophosphate pesticides in water samples include parathion, malathion, methylparathion, fenitrothion, ethion and bromophos; and the most important organ phosphorus pesticides in rice samples include malathion, fenitrothion, diazinon, parathion, chloropyrifos and methylparathion (Tables 4–6).
Pesticides
The first component
The second component
The third component
Ethion
0.416
0.720
0.244
Ethyl paraoxan
0.845
−0.231
0.354
Fenitrotion
0.368
0.789
0.354
Diazinon
−0.236
0.954
0.246
Bromophos
−0.123
0.654
0.898
Table 4.
Determination of the most important soil pesticides (Varimax rotation method).
Pesticides
The first component
The second component
The third component
Diazenon
0.654
0.954
0.211
Malathion
0.746
0.453
0.954
Fenitrotion
0.854
0.746
0/623
Methyl parathion
0.354
−0.817
0.895
Bromophos
0.645
−0.114
0.956
Table 5.
Determination of the most important water pesticides (Varimax rotation method).
Pesticides
The first component
The second component
The third component
Malathion
0.895
0.944
−0.214
Fenitrotion
0.984
−0.345
0.670
Diazinon
0.960
0.358
0.245
Ethion
0.746
0.795
0.325
Ethyl paraoxane
−0.460
0.796
0.857
Table 6.
Determination of the most important water pesticides (Varimax rotation method).
The concentration of organ phosphorus pesticides in rice based on two-way analysis of variance. To investigate the effects of soil and water on the concentration of organ phosphorus pesticides in rice, two-way analysis of variance was used.
The results showed that the concentration of pesticides in rice is not the same in different soils and has significant effects (Sig = 0.008).
Also, the concentration of organ phosphorus pesticides in rice is not the same as the water sampled, and water has a significant effect on the concentration of organ phosphorus (Sig = 0.000). Also, soil and water simultaneously have a significant effect on the concentration of pesticides in rice. In other words, the concentration of rice organophosphate pesticides in the soil and water of different studied stations is not the same as water (Sig = 0.007) (Table 7).
Source
The third type of sum of squares
df
Average of squares
F
Sig
Modified model
2215.311
20
1107.6555
31.123
0.000
Intercept
203688.356
1
101844.178
2850.324
0.000
Soil
198.123
18
99.0615
1.023
0.008
Water
1733.215
18
866.6075
724.056
0.000
Soil & water
254.654
20
63.6635
387.411
0.007
Error
5287.542
16
146.876
Total
2416547.120
21
Modified total
5987.322
20
Table 7.
The effects of soil and water on the concentration of organ phosphorus pesticides in rice.
3.2 Linear regression test
Also, linear regression test was used to investigate the effects of soil and water on the concentration of organ phosphorus pesticides in rice. The results showed that these two variables have an effect of 87% on the concentration of organophosphate pesticides in rice R2 = (0.87) Also, in this test, it was found that the variable effect of water on the concentration of organophosphates in rice is more than that of soil (Tables 8 and 9).
Model
R
R square
Adjusted R square
Std. error of the estimate
1
0/926
0/87
0/87
11/345
Table 8.
Multiple correlation coefficient and coefficient of determination.
Model
Non-standard coefficients
Standard coefficients
t
Sig
(β)
Standard error
(β)
1 (constant)
4/111
0/604
8/234
0/000
Soil
0/186
0/009
0/324
23/132
0/001
Water
0/145
0/001
0.643
86/263
0/000
Table 9.
Standard and non-standard coefficients of beta (β) to determine the most influential variable.
3.3 Varimax rotation method
Varimax rotation method was used to determine the relationship between soil, water and rice variables and the concentration of organophosphates as well as the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the soil. Before performing this test, two issues should be checked: 1: Sampling adequacy (KMO coefficient is used to ensure the appropriateness of the data). 2: Strong relationship between variables (checked by Bartlett chi square test). In this research, the size of the KMO coefficient was 0.87 and 0.84 (more than 0.6), respectively, and the Bartlett value was significant at the 1% probability level. This shows that principal component analysis can be useful for reducing data and studied variables (Tables 10 and 11).
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)
0.87
(Barlett’s test)
Chi square
5.324
(df)
3
Sig
0.003
Table 10.
KMO and Bartlett test, for sampling adequacy of soil, water and rice variables.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)
0.84
(Barlett’s test)
Chi square
5.112
(df)
9
Sig
0.006
Table 11.
KMO and Bartlett test for sampling adequacy of physical, chemical and biological characteristics of soil.
Therefore, based on principal component analysis for soil, water and rice variables, one component had eigenvalues greater than one (Table 12). This component described 83.51% of the changes of organophosphates in soil, water and rice. Water and rice had the highest factor loadings (0.97 and 0.94, respectively).
Variable
Rotated factor matrix factor load
Water
0.971
Rice
0.946
Soil
0.643
Special amount
3.231
Percentage of variance
83.514
The cumulative percentage
83.514
Table 12.
The coefficients of the components resulting from the Varimax rotation method for soil, water and rice variables of the study area.
3.4 Pearson correlation test
In order to measure the degree of linear relationship between soil, water and rice variables with physical, chemical and biological properties of soil, Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used (Table 13). The results show that at a significance level of 1%, there is a positive and significant correlation between water and rice, phosphorus and rice, phosphorus and pH, nitrogen and soil, nitrogen and pH, nitrogen and phosphorus, organic carbon and soil, basic respiration and soil., there is basal respiration and organic carbon. Also, at a significant level of 5%, there is a positive and significant correlation between rice and soil, electrical conductivity and soil, phosphorus and soil, total nitrogen and rice, total nitrogen and water, potassium and soil, organic carbon and total nitrogen.
Linear correlation coefficient between soil, water and rice with the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the soil of the study area.
Correlation at significance level 0.05.
Correlation at significance level 0.01.
3.5 Comparison with FAO and WHO standard
In order to compare the concentration of residues of organ phosphorus toxins in the rice samples of the studied stations with the FAO and WHO standards, the one-sample t-test was used (Table 14). The results showed that there are significant differences in the concentration of organ phosphorus toxins in all stations (p < 0.05). In other words, in all stations, the concentration of organ phosphorus toxins in rice is lower than FAO and WHO standards.
Pesticides
Mean
Standard deviation
t
Sig (2-tailed)
Parathion
0.62
0.121
−2531.245
0.001
FAO and WHO standard for parathion = 100 ppb
Methyl parathion
2.63
0.569
−4321.214
0.001
FAO and WHO standard for methyl parathion = 500 ppb
Malathion
0.92
0.146
−2134.214
0.001
FAO and WHO standard for malathion = 2000 ppb
Fenitrotion
5.12
0.721
−2136.786
0.001
FAO and WHO standard for fenitrothion = 40,000 ppb
Diazinon
1.86
0.426
−3215.086
0.001
FAO and WHO standard for diazinon = 5000 ppb
Table 14.
The result of individual t-test in order to compare the concentration of organ phosphorus toxins in rice samples with FAO and WHO standard values.
3.6 Transfer factor of organophosphate pesticides from soil to rice
In order to determine the amount of absorption of organ phosphorus pesticides in rice, the transfer factor of pesticides was calculated according to the studied stations (Table 15). The results showed that the highest amount of transfer factor is related to Malathion Aptex, and the stations of Khokhbijar, Saravan, Saqlaksar and Pisikhan had the highest transfer factor with the values of 1.35, 1.32, 1.23 and 1.21, respectively. The lowest amount of transmission factor related to Fention pesticide, and Atashgah, Golsarak, and Handkhale stations had the lowest values with values of 0.12, 0.25, and 0.32, respectively. Also, in Figure 11, the average transfer factor for organ phosphorus pesticides is shown. Based on this, the highest amount of transfer factor is related to Malathion pesticide and the lowest amount is related to Fenthion pesticide. Figure 11 shows the changes in the concentration of organ phosphorus toxins in water, soil and rice samples of the study area.
Station
Pesticides
Pacikhan
Hendeh khaleh
Saravan
Golsarak
Shahrestan
Atash ghah
Saqalaksar
Khoshkebijar
Diazinon
0.83
0.81
0.341
0.68
0.85
0.90
0.97
0.74
Methyl parathion
0.93
0.63
0.36
0.82
0.35
0.94
0.67
0.35
Ethyl paraoxane
0.94
0.41
0.23
0.34
0.89
0.96
1.02
0.89
Fenitrotion
1.21
1.16
1.32
0.84
1.03
1.09
1.23
1.35
Malathion
1.09
0.98
0.85
0.83
0.99
0.92
0.98
0.99
Fention
0.521
0.324
0.596
0.25
0.36
0.12
0.93
0.78
Chloropryphos
0.562
0.72
0.46
0.64
0.32
0.34
0.92
0.95
parathion
0.532
0.465
0.235
0.123
0.214
0.61
0.36
0.49
Bromophos
0.421
0.483
0.61
0.78
0.89
0.41
0.63
0.87
Ethion
1.00
0.96
0.88
0.86
0.98
0.91
0.96
0.93
Table 15.
Pesticide transfer factor in the study area (transfer from soil to rice plant).
Figure 11.
Transfer factor of organophosphate pesticides from soil to rice.
3.7 Comparison of physicochemical and eco toxicological properties of organ phosphorus pesticides
In order to compare the average concentration of organ phosphorus pesticides in the study area with their physicochemical AND ECO TOXICOLOGICAL characteristics, National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC) and Pesticide Properties Database (PPDB) were used (Table 16). The results show that according to the amount of bio sorption factor, all organ phosphorus pesticides in the study area have low bio sorption. Also, all organ phosphorus pesticides have low solubility according to their concentration in the water samples of the study area. In terms of potential risk and toxicity for aquatic animals (fish), the concentration of the pesticide Melathion is very high, which has placed this pesticide in a state of high risk and toxicity for aquatic animals in the studied area. Also, other pesticides are in the threshold of danger and moderate toxicity for aquatic life.
Phosphorous pesticide
Soil half-life (days)
Sorption coefficient (Soil Koc)
Solubility in Water at 20°C (mgL−1)
Bio-concentration Factor (Lkg−1)
Fish-Acute 96 h LC50 (mgL−1)
Concentration in soil (current study)
Concentration in water (present study)
Amount
Danger
Amount
Risk potential
Amount
Danger
Diazinon
40
1000
60
Medium
500
Threshold of concern
3.1
Medium
3.71
4.01
Methyl parathion
5
5100
55
Medium
71
Low
2.7<
Medium
2.93
1.06
Ethyl paraoxane
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
5.33
1.32
Fenitrotion
4
2000
19
Low
29
Low
1.3
Medium
1.87
0.86
Malathion
1
1800
148
medium
103
Threshold of concern
0.008
Top
0.93
2.02
Ethion
150
10,000
2
Low
586
Threshold of concern
0.5
Medium
3.54
1.06
Table 16.
Comparison of the concentration of organ phosphorus pesticides in soil and water samples of the study area with different physical and chemical characteristics of pesticides [33].
The use of organ phosphorus pesticides is more among farmers than others because they have low price and a wide range of applications. Malathion and diazinon are used throughout Iran [34]. Due to the lack of training and knowledge in the use of pesticides farmers cause an increase in diseases related to pesticides in agricultural areas.
Due to inhibition of acetyl cholinesterase enzyme activity by organ phosphorus pesticides, they have adverse effects on the body. The carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenicity effects of this group of pesticides have been proven. Additionally, these disrupt sex hormones, reproductive problems, and stunted human growth [35]. The poisons used by farmers for their crops do not remain only in the cultivation area and are transferred to the soil through runoff and infiltration. Then they turn into new compounds and enter surface and underground waters, and their metabolites may remain for years [36]. The amount of pesticide residue in water sources depends on various factors such as pesticide application, proximity of agricultural land to the river, pesticide metabolism, absorption of pesticides to organic substances in water and soil, temperature and pH [37].
In recent study, it was found that the transfer factor of organ phosphorus toxins from soil to rice plant is close to one. Considering the above, it shows that organ phosphorus toxins have high mobility to accumulate in rice plants. And this can be dangerous for human health considering that rice is the main food of Iranians.
The accumulation of organophosphates in rice samples was sensitive, which may be due to their lipophilicity, bioavailability and mobility. Based on the transfer factor and bio concentration coefficient, the fat content in rice seeds can absorb pesticides from the contaminated soil by the rhizosphere. Based on the Duncan’s multi-range test, which shows the average pesticide absorption at different levels of soil-water and rice, there is a significant difference at the 5% probability level between pesticide absorption in soil-water and rice (Figures 1–10). In other words, this test shows that the absorption rate of pesticides in water, soil and rice levels is different.
Based on this test, the highest concentration of organ phosphorus toxins in the soil was related to ethyl paraoxan, ethion and diazenon respectively. It is also in water related to diazenon, malathion and methyl parathion respectively. And in the rice plant, it is related to Ethion-Fenitrotion and Ethyl paraoxane. Based on Duncan’s multi-range test, which shows the average pesticide absorption at different levels, there is a significant difference at the 5% probability level between pesticide absorption in soil-water and rice. This arrangement of organophosphates in soil-water and rice by Duncan’s multi-range test method is consistent with the determination of important influencing variables by Varimax analysis method for the arrangement of the most important organophosphate pesticides in soil-water and rice samples.
According to the investigation of physicochemical and eco toxicological properties of organophosphate pesticides, it was found that malathion pesticide has a high toxicity risk and other pesticides have a medium toxicity risk for aquatic animals, which can affect the human food chain in the long term due to the magnification of the pollutants.
The concentration of pesticides in water and soil samples in was higher than the standard. Since the maximum residual concentration of pesticides in water sources does not have a comprehensive national standard, the European Union (EC) standard was used [38].
There is a possibility of water and soil contamination by pesticides due to the mobility of chemicals, their characteristics and also the proximity of agricultural lands to water sources. The presence of toxins in water and soil sources is caused by manual spraying, improper management and unnecessary and inappropriate use of toxins. Therefore, in case of proper management, using poisons at the right time and preventing them from entering water and soil sources can reduce their concentration in these sources.
Although the overall mean residual organophosphate pesticides concentration in the rice samples in Rasht was exceeded the MRL for organophosphate pesticides set by the Institute of Standard and Industrial Research of Iran (ISIRI) in 2004, the HRI value was less than one. This result stated that rice consumption does not pose any significant potential risk to human health in the study area. Gilan Agriculture Organization has reported the per capita rice consumption of 32–48 kg per year (the average daily consumption of rice is about 0.115 kg), which is three times more than the amount determined for adults. The cause of some chronic diseases in the study area may be digestive diseases. Proper management of diet and creating public awareness about the potential health risks caused by the use of organophosphorus pesticides in rice paddies can play a key role in reducing the risk. However, more studies on the relationship between pesticide residues in agricultural products (rice) and the occurrence of chronic diseases should be done to determine the health risks of pesticide residues for rice consumers in the study area. Cooperation between farmers, NGOs, local authorities and the government should be strengthened to eliminate pesticide residues that may cause long-term health effects. Implementing integrated pesticide management can help reduce pesticide residues in paddy fields in the future.
References
1.Wang H, Deng XW. Development of the “third-generation” hybrid rice in China. Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics. 2018;16:393-396
2.FAO. Food Outlook: Biannual Report on Global Food Markets. 2018. Available from: http://www.fao.org/3/CA0239EN/ca0239en.pdf [Accessed: October 13, 2019]
3.FAO. FAO Rice Market Monitor (RMM). Volume XXI – Issue No. 2018. Available from: http://www.fao.org/economic/est/publications/rice-publications/rice-market-monitor-rmm/en/ [Accessed: October 13, 2019]
4.Sruthi SN, Shyleschandran MS, Mathew SP, Ramasamy EV. Contamination from organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) in agricultural soils of Kuttanad agroecosystem in India and related potential health risk. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2017;24:969-978
5.Anyusheva M, Lamers M, La N, Nguyen VV, Streck T. Persistence and leaching of two pesticides in a paddy soil in Northern Vietnam. Clean – Soil, Air, Water. 2016;44(7):858-866
6.Mohamed Z, Terano R, Shamsudin MN, Abd Latif I. Paddy farmers’ sustainability practices in granary areas in Malaysia. Resources. 2016;5:17
7.Sattler C, Schrader J, Farkas VM, Settele J, Franzen M. Pesticide diversity in rice growing areas of northern Vietnam. Paddy and Water Environment. 2018;16:339-352
8.European Commission. EU Reference Laboratories for Residues of Pesticides: Pesticides Authorise for Use on Rice. National Food Institute (Denmark); 2011. Available from: https://www.eurl-pesticides.eu/docs/public/tmplt_article.asp?LabID=400&CntID=806&Theme_ID=1&Pdf=Fals &Lang=EN [Accessed: November 14, 2019]
9.Heong KL, Escalada MM, Sengsoulivong V, Schiller J. Insect management beliefs and practices of rice farmers in Laos. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 2002;92:137-145
10.Qiao F, Huang J, Zhang L, Rozelle S. Pesticide use and farmers’ health in China’s rice production. China Agricultural Economic Review. 2012;4(4):468-484
11.Islam S, Afrin N, Hossain MS, Nahar N, Mosihuzzaman M, Mamun MIR. Analysis of some pesticide residues in cauliflower by high performance liquid chromatography. American Journal of Environmental Sciences. 2009;5(3):325-329
12.Rahman S, Chima CD. Determinants of pesticide use in food crop production in Southeastern Nigeria. Agriculture. 2018;8:35
13.Osman KA, Al-Humaid AI, Al-Rehiayani SM, Al-Redhaiman KN. Estimated daily intake of pesticide residues exposure by vegetables grown in greenhouses in Al-Qassim region, Saudi Arabia. Food Control. 2011;22:947-953
14.Chowdhury MAZ, Banik S, Uddin B, Moniruzzaman M, Karim N, Gan SH. Organophosphorus and carbamate pesticide residues detected in water samples collected from paddy and vegetable fields of the Savar and Dhamrai Upazilas in Bangladesh. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2012a;9:3318-3329
15.Cassou E. Pesticides [Internet]. 2018 [Updated 2018 March 22]. Available from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curat-ed/en/689281521218090562/Pesticides
16.Abdi S, Sobhanardakani S. Determination of benomyl and diazinon residues in strawberry and its related health implications (Persian). Razi Journal of Medical Science. 2019;25(11):42-51. Available from: https://www.sid.ir/fa/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=468975
17.Bhandari G, Atreya K, Scheepers PTJ, Geissen V. Concentration and distribution of pesticide residues in soil: Non-dietary human health risk assessment. Chemosphere. 2020;253:126594. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126594
18.Mekonen S, Argaw R, Simanesew A, Houbraken M, Senaeve D, Ambelu A, et al. Pesticide residues in drinking water and associated risk to consumers in Ethiopia. Chemosphere. 2016;162:252-260. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.07.096
19.Pan L, Sun J, Li Z, Zhan Y, Xu S, Zhu L. Organophosphate pesticide in agricultural soils from the Yangtze River Delta of China: Concentration, distribution, and risk assessment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International. 2018;25(1):4-11. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-016-7664-3
20.Sun J, Pan L, Zhan Y, Lu H, Tsang DCW, Liu W, et al. Contamination of phthalate esters, organochlorine pesticides and polybrominated diphenyl ethers in agricultural soils from the Yangtze River Delta of China. Science Total Environment. 2016;544:670-676. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.012
21.Dar MA, Kaushik G, Chiu JFV. Pollution status and bio-degradation of organophosphate pesticides in the environment. In: Singh P, Kumar A, Borthakur A, editors. Abatement of Environmental Pollutants: Trends and Strategies. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2020. pp. 25-66. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-818095-2.00002-3
22.Nicolopoulou-Stamati P, Maipas S, Kotampasi C, Stam-atis P, Hens L. Chemical pesticides and human health: The urgent need for a new concept in agriculture. Frontier in Public Health. 2016;4:148. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00148
23.Tsuda T, Kojima M, Harada H, Nakajima A, Aoki S. Acute toxicity, accumulation and excretion of organophosphorous insecticides and their oxidation products in killifish. Chemosphere. 1997;35(5):939-949
24.Abdullah AR, Bajet CM, Matin MA, Nhan DD, Sulaiman AH. Ecotoxicology of pesticides in the tropical paddy field ecosystem. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: An International Journal. 1997;16(1):59-70
25.Vryzas Z, Alexoudis C, Vassiliou G, Galanis K, Papadopoulou-Mourkidou E. Determination and aquatic risk assessment of pesticide residues in riparian drainage canals in northeastern Greece. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2011;74(2):174-181
26.Herrero-Hernández E, Andrades MS, Álvarez-Martín A, Pose-Juan E, Rodríguez-Cruz MS, Sánchez-Martín MJ. Occurrence of pesticides and some of their degradation products in waters in a Spanish wine region. Journal of Hydrology. 2013;486:234-245
27.Ghorab MA, Khalil MS. Toxicological effects of organophosphates pesticides. International Journal of Environmental Monitoring and Analysis. 2015;3(4):218-220
28.Costa LG. Current issues in organophosphate toxicology. Clinica Chimica Acta. 2006;366(1–2):1-13
29.Jokanović M, Kosanović M, Brkić D, Vukomanović P. Organophosphate induced delayed polyneuropathy in man: An overview. Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery. 2011;113(1):7-10
30.WHO (2018) Generic Risk Assessment Model for Indoor and Outdoor Space Spraying of Insecticides, 2nd ed. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/276564 [Accessed: December 22, 2019]
31.Chowdhury MTI, Razzaque MA, Khan MSI. Chlorinated pesticides residue status in tomato, potato and carrot. Journal of Experimental Science. 2011;2(1):1-5
32.Michelangelo A, Steven JL. Fast and easy multiresidue method employing acetonitrile extraction/partitioning and dispersive solid–phase extraction for the determination of pesticide residue in produce. Journal of AOAC International. 2003;86:412-431
33.Roberts JR, Reigart JR. Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings. 2013
34.Vatandoost H, Zaim M, Hanafi-Bojd AM, Mousavi B, Nickpour F. Supply of chemical pesticides in agricultural in Iran (2015–2016). Institute for Environmental Research, Tehran University of Medical Sciences. 2016;2:10-22
35.Sparling D, Fellers G. Comparative toxicity of chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion and their oxon derivatives to larval Rana boylii. Environmental Pollution. 2007;147(3):535-539
36.Fosu-Mensah BY, Okoffo ED, Mensah M. Synthetic pyrethroids pesticide residues in soils and drinking water sources from cocoa farms in Ghana. Environmental Pollution. 2016;5(1):60-72
37.Abedi-Koupai J, Nasri Z, Talebi K, Mamanpoush A, Mousavi S. Investigation of Zayandehrud water pollution by diazinon and its assimilative capacity. Journal of Science and Technology Agricultural and Natural Resources. 2011;15(56):1-20
38.Shayeghi M, Khoobdel M, Bagheri F, Abtahi M. The residues of azin-phosmethyl and diazinon in Garaso and Gorganrood rivers in Golestan Province. Journal of School of Public Health and Institute of Public Health Re-search. 2008;6(1):75-85
Written By
Fourud Gravand and Seyedeh Aghileh Hejazi
Submitted: 28 October 2023Reviewed: 12 December 2023Published: 31 July 2024
Open access peer-reviewed chapter
