-
Environmental Science and Pollution... Jun 2021Farm worker and consumers are vulnerable to the potentially toxic pesticides accumulated in the environment and food. Nonetheless, few studies have investigated the...
Farm worker and consumers are vulnerable to the potentially toxic pesticides accumulated in the environment and food. Nonetheless, few studies have investigated the pesticide pollution and risk in the medlar planting site at a large scale. Hereupon, this study focused on the pesticide contamination distribution, their potential risk assessment of contaminated sites and dietary. The 11 pesticide pollution sources were collected from the five systems of fruit, leaf, soil, groundwater, and honey based on a systematic review in medlar planting site. Seventy-six samples were analyzed by chromatography technique. Residues of 4 (36.7%) compounds were found in the samples. The most distributed pesticides were imidacloprid for all samples, followed by avermectin for leaf, soil, groundwater, and honey, and carbendazim for leaf, glyphosate for soil, and those with the highest average concentrations were carbendazim (3.8-8.4 mg/kg of leaf) and glyphosate (0.21-1.3 mg/kg of soil). The vertical migration characteristic of imidacloprid was relatively stable, and the residual concentration gradually declined with the increase of burial depth. However, glyphosate tended to accumulate gradually or was close to the surface concentration with the increase of burial depth. The distribution of abamectin had no obvious regularity. Imidacloprid was lower than the MRL in fruit and honey. Imidacloprid, avermectin, and glyphosate no MRL in soil and groundwater are set. Using the monitoring data, potential health risk come from fruit, soil, and groundwater was evaluated. The HI and HQ could be considered safe for pesticide residues in fruit, soil, and groundwater. Even if these results are in general safe to eat, the effects of insecticide on human health, especially on genetic toxicity, have gradually aroused more attention. To minimize the increasing human health risk, this study suggests that authorities must regulate the usage of agrochemicals, to strengthen the controls for effective implementation of the pesticide bans.
Topics: Environmental Monitoring; Groundwater; Humans; Pesticide Residues; Pesticides; Risk Assessment; Soil
PubMed: 33483934
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-12403-0 -
Plant Disease Sep 2017Triazole and benzimidazole fungicides have been used for controlling Fusarium head blight (FHB) in wheat for over two decades. In Brazil, it was only during the last...
Triazole and benzimidazole fungicides have been used for controlling Fusarium head blight (FHB) in wheat for over two decades. In Brazil, it was only during the last five years that uniform fungicide trials for FHB control have been established yearly, thus contributing to a new large body of fungicide efficacy data for this country. A systematic review of both peer- and non-peer-reviewed studies on chemical control conducted since 2000 in Brazil was performed. Fungicides of interest were the triazoles tebuconazole (TEBU and TEBU) and propiconazole (PROP), and the benzimidazole carbendazim (CARB). Most fungicides were applied twice, the first at early to mid-flowering and the second 7 to 10 days later. Only TEBU was tested as one or two applications, and thus four treatments were evaluated. For these fungicides, there were 35 trials reporting FHB index and 48 reporting mean yield. Network meta-analytic models were fitted to the data of the log of the means of FHB index for each fungicide and for the nontreated check. The meta-analytic estimates were used to obtain control efficacy ( ), or percent disease reduction relative to the nontreated check. The absolute mean difference ( ) in yield (kg/ha) between the fungicide-treated and the nontreated check plots was also estimated. Yield response relative to the nontreated check ( ) was also calculated based on the difference in the logs of the means of yield between fungicide-treated and nontreated check. The TEBU, TEBU, and CARB treatments performed similarly with regards to control efficacy (= 59%, 53% and 55%, respectively), and although better than PROP (47%), the difference was marginally significant. Yield response ( ) was highest for TEBU, ( = 558 kg/ha, = 19.2%) followed by PROP (497 kg/ha, 16.0%), TEBU (457 kg/ha, 17.3%), and CARB (456 kg/ha, 12.8%). For an average 2016 scenario of fungicide plus application costs (F = $18 U.S./ha) and average wheat price (W = $215 U.S./MT), the probability of breaking even on the financial investment in the four treatments ranged from 59 to 63%. For 140 scenarios (four fungicides) created based on the combination of five W ($133 to 266 U.S./MT) and seven F ($5 to 35 U.S./ha), the probability of breaking even was >50% for all but two scenarios. The information may serve as a guide for planning future trials and provides a baseline and first step toward optimizing FHB management in Brazil.
Topics: Benzimidazoles; Brazil; Fungicides, Industrial; Fusarium; Plant Diseases; Triazoles; Triticum
PubMed: 30677329
DOI: 10.1094/PDIS-03-17-0340-RE