The Impact of Pesticides - Academy Publish

More documents

Recommendations

Info

water in comparison with the duration of the recreational event, considering howthis is carried out (Peluso et al., 2011b).0.725 0.425ESA ( H * BW *0.007184) * BP(11)WhereESA: Exposed Skin Area (cm 2 )H: Body Height (cm)BW: Body Weight (kg)BP: Bath Pattern (dimensionless)Table 4. Probability Distribution Model parameters and descriptive statistics of theexposure dose for the Human Health Effects estimation (based on Peluso et al.,2011b).Param. Fitted Dist. Min Max Mean SD Otherstevent a Min.Ext. 0 300 188.16 25.38EF b Gamma 0 54 19.91 14.34BW c Normal 23.5 44.5 33.56 5H d Normal 125 149 136 0.5BSA e Normal 9178.74 13341.96 11256.18 725.90BP f Triangular 0.072 1 0.49 0.19ESA g Beta 838.35 12014.88 5526.35 2216.89a Duration of the bath event (minutes)b Annual frequency of bathing days (days)c Body weight (Kg)d Body height (cm)e Body surface Area (cm 2 )f Bath pattern (dimensionless)g Exposed skin area (cm 2 )h ModeLike.218.15Loc.-0.11Mo h0.401α2.36Sc.62.24Sc.34.58β3.95The Absorbed dose per event (DAevent from Eq. 3) was estimated based on a steadystate approach from USEPA, which is a model that calculates the absorbed dosethrough the skin, relating the substance concentration, the permeability of thestratum corneum to the same event, and the duration of the recreational event(USEPA, 2007).The ADDI and ADDS calculations were made with Crystal Ball 7.1 software(Decisioneering 2007a), applying Monte Carlo for simple random sampling forAcademyPublish.org - The Impact of Pesticides252
5,000 trials based on the probabilities distribution of each variable. As previouslystated, based on accidental ingestion dose and dermal contact dose, the simultaneousrisk was calculated in both contact ways for each substance (aggregate risk) for theNon Cancer effects and for the Cancer ones. The process of addition is conductediteration by iteration, so the results are a new distribution of values, for whichdescriptive statistics are obtained for later analysis.Biota Health Risk EstimationIt was previously stated that the risk to biota is estimated based on the ratioPEC/PNEC for selected ecosystem organisms. The PEC value used is thedistribution of probability of the concentrations of each pesticide, as performed forthe calculation of Human Health Risk. The Health Risk Biota result is a distributionof values obtained by adding the PEC/PNEC ratios for the two obtained biologicalgroups, iteration by iteration, by the application of Monte Carlo. From these, it wasalso obtained descriptive statistics to conduct analysis of the results.Interpretation of the Results of the DelAzulPestRisk ModelThe results offered by the model cannot be considered a formal measurement of riskbut an indication of it, since the model includes variables that are risk measures(human and biological) with others that are not (the half-life and thebioaccumulation potential). The risk values are dimensionless while neither life northe bioaccumulation potential are, so the integration of these terms ignoring theunits of the latter is a methodological decision that makes the model not a " risk"model but a "risk-based" one.Statistical AnalysisThe statistical analysis (obtaining descriptive statistics of the probabilitydistributions following the Monte Carlo application or determining the best fitmodel of probability distribution) was performed using Crystal Ball(Decisioneering, 2007), as well as the sensitivity analysis. This calculates sensitivitybased on the rank correlation coefficients between every parameter of the model andthe model results while the simulation is running (Decisioneering, 2007).RESULTSThe risk to human health analysis results show that no substance by itself is capableof producing health effects to the population, not even considering the carcinogeniceffects or the non carcinogenic ones, which had already been evidenced by Peluso etal. (2011b). However, in the DelAzulPestRisk model, the risks for carcinogeniceffects are finally estimated as a proportion of the value used as reference (10E -05 ),so the risk threshold value for each substance is 1 for each type of effect. If thesubstance has both types of effects (as it happens with the isomers of HCH, Aldrin,Chlordane and Heptachlor), the risk threshold value to health in theDelAzulPestRisk model is all the same 1. From the results presented in Table 5, itcan be seen that the substance that creates the greatest risk to human health isAcademyPublish.org - The Impact of Pesticides253
Page 1 and 2:
The Impactof PesticidesEdited by:Pr
Page 3 and 4:
Other access free resources from Ac
Page 5 and 6:
The Impact of PesticidesPrepared an
Page 7 and 8:
Table of Contentsp.203-p.224 Behavi
Page 9 and 10:
About authorspublished by Elsevier.
Page 11 and 12:
About authorsof medical researchers
Page 13:
About authorsdifferent spatial scal
Page 16 and 17:
About authorsEducation:Bachelor’s
Page 18 and 19:
About authorsSensors - A Nanotechno
Page 20 and 21:
Section 1HUMAN EXPOSURE TO PESTICID
Page 22 and 23:
ecently explored on preliminary stu
Page 24:
individuals within 1 day (Jokanovic
Page 27 and 28:
occupational environmental health r
Page 30 and 31:
must be considered, since effective
Page 34 and 35:
Jensen BH, Petersen A, and Christen
Page 36 and 37:
Ragas AMJ, and Huijbregts MAJ (1998
Page 38 and 39:
Weichenthal S, Moase C, and Chan P
Page 40 and 41:
human poisoning, general acute symp
Page 42 and 43:
Management of the cholinergic syndr
Page 44 and 45:
1982; Lotti, 1992; Jokanović et al
Page 46 and 47:
exposed populations, revealed high
Page 48 and 49:
DiazepamBenzodiazepines are CNS dep
Page 50 and 51:
Among the many classes of oximes in
Page 52 and 53:
inhibited by dichlorvos (a dimethox
Page 54 and 55:
Dawson, 1995). It appears that the
Page 56 and 57:
Eddleston M, Eyer P, Worek F, Moham
Page 58 and 59:
Jokanović M, Kosanović M (2010b).
Page 60 and 61:
Ray DE (1998). Chronic effects of l
Page 62 and 63:
Worek F, Eyer P, Kiderlen D, Thierm
Page 64 and 65:
developing countries is due to suic
Page 66 and 67:
count and morphology, as well as se
Page 68 and 69:
PON1 modulation of genetic damageFe
Page 70 and 71:
elationship between OP exposure and
Page 72 and 73:
Blatter-Garin MC, James RW, Dussoix
Page 74 and 75:
Hung RJ, Hall J, Brennan P, Boffett
Page 76 and 77:
Rojas-García AE., Solís-Heredia M
Page 78 and 79:
Occupational Exposure to Pesticides
Page 80 and 81:
considered as conditions typical of
Page 82 and 83:
observed adverse health outcome. Su
Page 84 and 85:
within cells can oxidize biomolecul
Page 86 and 87:
of the study. A face-to-face questi
Page 88 and 89:
PesticidesFungicideInsecticide-Nema
Page 90 and 91:
Table 4. Mixtures of pesticides use
Page 92 and 93:
In pesticide applicators, Table 7 s
Page 94 and 95:
DISCUSSIONThe agricultural workers
Page 96 and 97:
changes in the antioxidant enzyme C
Page 98 and 99:
Bajpayee, M.; Pandey, A. K.; Parmar
Page 100 and 101:
Environmental health criteria 155.
Page 102 and 103:
Palus, J.; Rydzynski, K.; Dziubalto
Page 104 and 105:
Singh, N.P.; McCoy, M.T.; Tice, R.R
Page 106 and 107:
INTRODUCTIONPopulations may be occu
Page 108 and 109:
exposure scenarios on the basis of
Page 110 and 111:
not present adverse health effects
Page 112 and 113:
greenhouse workers exposed to malat
Page 114 and 115:
Paraoxon is then either metabolized
Page 116 and 117:
cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboximide, CAS
Page 118 and 119:
metabolite of phthalates, such that
Page 120 and 121:
scenarios were simulated, assuming
Page 122 and 123:
Table 2. Biological reference value
Page 124 and 125:
References N a urinarybiomarkeStudi
Page 126 and 127:
Figure 2. Representation of a BRV d
Page 128 and 129:
Figure 4. Conceptual representation
Page 130 and 131:
Figure 6 Conceptual representation
Page 132 and 133:
REFERENCESACGIH, 2011. Documentatio
Page 134 and 135:
Bradway, D.E., Shafik, T.M., 1977.
Page 136 and 137:
EPA, 1999b. Registration Eligibilit
Page 138 and 139:
Hines, C.J., Deddens, J.A., Jaycox,
Page 140 and 141:
McCollister, S.B., Kociba, R.J., Hu
Page 142 and 143:
Verberk, M.M., Brouwer, D.H., Brouw
Page 144 and 145:
important IGFBP for binding IGF-1 i
Page 146 and 147:
secretion of IGF-1 (Tannheimer et a
Page 148 and 149:
FIGURESFig. 1. An “hormetic” ef
Page 150 and 151:
Landi F, Capoluongo E, Russo A, Ond
Page 152 and 153:
Smith WJ, Underwood LE, Clemmons DR
Page 154 and 155:
Section 2PESTICIDES IN THEENVIRONME
Page 156 and 157:
vicinity of subsoil waters and ther
Page 158 and 159:
Hieracium pilosella, southernwood -
Page 160 and 161:
formed clusters (Figure 3). Ultrast
Page 162 and 163:
Fig. 5. Fragment of hepatocyte of t
Page 164 and 165:
Szarek, J, Skibniewska, K, Wojtacka
Page 166 and 167:
negative effects (ZALUCKI et al., 2
Page 168 and 169:
Figure 2. Appropriated sampling pro
Page 170 and 171:
Figure 4. Illustration of the conse
Page 172 and 173:
(HAILE et al., 1998). Earlier resul
Page 174 and 175:
Table 1. Distribution of the applic
Page 176 and 177:
Means followed by the same letter i
Page 178 and 179:
(involving pests and natural enemie
Page 180 and 181:
efore the pest emergence and their
Page 182 and 183:
Table 3 (continuation)…AcademyPub
Page 184 and 185:
Table 5. Effect of different fungic
Page 186 and 187:
Table 6. Magament used including do
Page 188 and 189:
adopted by Brazilian soybean grower
Page 190 and 191:
Pickle, C.S.; Caviness, C.E. Yield
Page 192 and 193:
This chapter reports on Dutch surfa
Page 194 and 195:
several different occasions at any
Page 196 and 197:
The greatest number of pesticides a
Page 198 and 199:
Accumulated ExceedanceIt is useful
Page 200 and 201:
For the years 2003-2009 the calcula
Page 202 and 203: Bonzini S, Verro R, Otto S, Lazzaro
Page 204 and 205: atios of the pesticide amounts in t
Page 206 and 207: Table 1. (Cont.) Runoff ratios of p
Page 208 and 209: mefenacet and simetrin were observe
Page 210 and 211: Table 2. (Cont.)Pesticide concentra
Page 212 and 213: Table 2. (Cont.)Pesticide concentra
Page 214 and 215: Fig. 3. Typical weekly variation of
Page 216 and 217: (BAM) in water (Pukkila et al. 2009
Page 218 and 219: Table 5. Concentrations of pesticid
Page 220 and 221: Table 6. Maximum concentrations of
Page 222 and 223: Iwafune, T, Inao, K, Horio, T, Iwas
Page 224 and 225: Suzuki, M, Takemine, S, Yoshida, M,
Page 226 and 227: factor, etc. Levels of pesticides i
Page 228 and 229: factor of 10 above ambient sea wate
Page 230 and 231: weight sample. Minimum were shown f
Page 232 and 233: Figure 3. DDTs in mussel samples fo
Page 234 and 235: Figure 5. HCB in mussel samples for
Page 236 and 237: Figure 8. Methoxychlor in mussel sa
Page 238 and 239: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTAuthors thank UNEP/M
Page 240 and 241: Pesticide Risk Index of Del Azul Wa
Page 242 and 243: on that presented in Swanson et al.
Page 244 and 245: eference value for that substance.
Page 246 and 247: predict the aquatic toxicity of a s
Page 248 and 249: Calculation Model of Aggravating Fa
Page 250 and 251: To estimate the values of Human Hea
Page 254 and 255: Cypermethrin (95 th percentile (P 9
Page 256 and 257: Table 8 shows the results of the De
Page 258 and 259: are many ranking systems of dangero
Page 260 and 261: REFERENCESAres J. (2004). “Estima
Page 262 and 263: Mackay D. and Paterson S. (1991).
Page 264 and 265: Long-term Monitoring of Pesticides
Page 266 and 267: Sampling sites of the survey in 200
Page 268 and 269: than those in Lake Biwa and Seta Ri
Page 270 and 271: Fig. 7 Detection of fungicides in R
Page 272 and 273: Fig. 11 Detection of herbicides in
Page 274 and 275: Monitoring of pesticides in Yanamun
Page 276 and 277: A measured volume (1000 mL) of the
Page 278 and 279: SimetrynePretilachlorConcentration
Page 280 and 281: Fig. 18 Maximum concentrations of t
Page 282 and 283: Ecological risk assessmentFig. 20 Y
Page 284 and 285: REFERENCESAgradi E, Baga R, Cillo F
Page 286 and 287: Time Trend Variation of Selected Pe
Page 288 and 289: Table 1. Physical and chemical prop
Page 290 and 291: marketed under variety of trade nam
Page 292 and 293: Figure 3. Long-term trends of globa
Page 294 and 295: laboratory animals fed or injected
Page 296 and 297: fed for a lifespan at 5-1,600 mg/kg
Page 298 and 299: Soil samplingSoil sampling was foll
Page 300 and 301: Figure 5. Map showing sampling area
Page 302 and 303:
concentration (MAC) in surface soil
Page 304 and 305:
Table 7. Concentrations of HCH isom
Page 306 and 307:
Shanghai and Guanting Reservoir (Ch
Page 308 and 309:
Contrary to the results of ΣDDT, t
Page 310 and 311:
DDT metabolites, the ratio of (p,p
Page 312 and 313:
2001). Therefore, the predominance
Page 314 and 315:
Mean concentration (ng g -1 dw)3002
Page 316 and 317:
CONCLUSIONSAn evaluation of selecte
Page 318 and 319:
Hung, D.Q., Thiemann, W., (2002),
Page 320 and 321:
Viet, P.H., Hoai, P.M., Minh, N.H.,
Page 322 and 323:
found in tissues or fluids samples
Page 324 and 325:
Study area and SamplingThis study w
Page 326 and 327:
the liver, mainly to p,p'-DDE and p
Page 328 and 329:
33,370 ha, whilst that of woody cro
Page 330 and 331:
Increase in crops area (x1000)Ha)25
Page 332 and 333:
Table 1. Blood concentrations of or
Page 334 and 335:
Council Directive 90/533/EEC of 15
Page 336 and 337:
Konstantinou, IK, Goutner, V, Alban
Page 338 and 339:
Smith, AG (2004). “Toxicology of
Page 340 and 341:
Pesticides are used in order to pro
Page 342 and 343:
EXPERIMENTALMaterialsIsoproturon wa
Page 344 and 345:
RESULTS AND DISCUSIONEquilibrium is
Page 346 and 347:
As seen in Table 4, as the concentr
Page 348 and 349:
Fig.4. Breakthrough curves of isopr
Page 350 and 351:
Fig.6. Breakthrough curves of isopr
Page 352 and 353:
Fig.8. Experimental and theoretical
Page 354 and 355:
Section 3PESTICIDE ANALYSISAcademyP
Page 356 and 357:
scandal’ are familiar to the gene
Page 358 and 359:
ecoveries (>70%) for certain pH-dep
Page 360 and 361:
Due the versatility of the QuEChERS
Page 362 and 363:
of application, with some still sca
Page 364 and 365:
The main supercritical solvent used
Page 366 and 367:
extracting the pesticides from the
Page 368 and 369:
would be appropriate for the routin
Page 370 and 371:
chromatography with negative-ion el
Page 372 and 373:
GPC was applied as a nondestructive
Page 374 and 375:
Charlton A.J.A., Stuckey, V. (2009)
Page 376 and 377:
Lehotay, S.J., Mastvoska, K. & Yun,
Page 378 and 379:
Rodrigues, F. M., Mesquita, P. R. R
Page 380 and 381:
Analytical methods to assess the im
Page 382 and 383:
acetylcholine, a neurotransmitter t
Page 384 and 385:
1.3 to 22.3% for all pesticides. Li
Page 386 and 387:
Malathion, parathion, fenitrothion,
Page 388 and 389:
Fuller, BH and Berger, GMB (1990).
Page 390 and 391:
Table 1. Largest exporters of coffe
Page 392 and 393:
Fig. 1: Structures of (a) Phosphate
Page 394 and 395:
ELECTROCHEMICAL BIOSENSORBiosensors
Page 396 and 397:
inorganic and organic species a lar
Page 398 and 399:
surface area and be easily modified
Page 400 and 401:
Acetylcholine + H 2 O AChE Choline
Page 402 and 403:
Wang, 2010) and tetracyanoquinodime
Page 404 and 405:
PDDA/AChE/PDDA/CNT/GCAChE-Au-PPy/GC
Page 406 and 407:
ng/mL and good precision (RSD ) 5.3
Page 408 and 409:
FUTURE PERSPECTIVESThe detection of
Page 410 and 411:
Du, D; Wang, M; Cai, J; Qin, Y; Zha
Page 412 and 413:
Martorell, D; Cespedes, F; Fabreaga
Page 414 and 415:
The Pesticide Action Network (PAN).
Page 416 and 417:
About EditorMilan JokanovićProfess
Page 418:
THE IMPACT OF PESTICIDESPesticides
show all

The Impact of Pesticides - Academy Publish

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?