Hazard-ranking of agricultural pesticides for chronic health effects in Yuma County, Arizona

Abstract

With thousands of pesticides registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, it not feasible to sample for all pesticides applied in agricultural communities. Hazard-ranking pesticides based on use, toxicity, and exposure potential can help prioritize community-specific pesticide hazards. This study applied hazard-ranking schemes for cancer, endocrine disruption, and reproductive/developmental toxicity in Yuma County, Arizona. An existing cancer hazard-ranking scheme was modified, and novel schemes for endocrine disruption and reproductive/developmental toxicity were developed to rank pesticide hazards. The hazard-ranking schemes accounted for pesticide use, toxicity, and exposure potential based on chemical properties of each pesticide. Pesticides were ranked as hazards with respect to each health effect, as well as overall chronic health effects. The highest hazard-ranked pesticides for overall chronic health effects were maneb, metam sodium, trifluralin, pronamide, and bifenthrin. The relative pesticide rankings were unique for each health effect. The highest hazard-ranked pesticides differed from those most heavily applied, as well as from those previously detected in Yuma homes over a decade ago. The most hazardous pesticides for cancer in Yuma County, Arizona were also different from a previous hazard-ranking applied in California. Hazard-ranking schemes that take into account pesticide use, toxicity, and exposure potential can help prioritize pesticides of greatest health risk in agricultural communities. This study is the first to provide pesticide hazard-rankings for endocrine disruption and reproductive/developmental toxicity based on use, toxicity, and exposure potential. These hazard-ranking schemes can be applied to other agricultural communities for prioritizing community-specific pesticide hazards to target decreasing health risk.

Agricultural Pesticide Usage and Prioritization in South Korea

“…40 The validity of this approach hinges upon the validity of the toxicity data. We used categories for carcinogenicity assigned by the Pesticide Program of the US EPA through 2012.…”

Quantification of potential exposure of gray partridge (Perdix perdix) to pesticide active substances in farmlands

“…Global exposure may also be estimated using pesticide usage statistics as a proxy (Environment Canada, 2006;Sugeng et al, 2013) or using model outputs (Engelman et al, 2012;Pisani et al, 2008;Roelofs et al, 2005). To the best of our knowledge, no detailed national or regional statistics on pesticide use are available for France, contrarily to other countries such as U.K. (Food and Environment Research Agency) or USA (United States Geological Survey).…”

“…In this context, the statistics of potential exposure reported herein may serve to target ASs for future research on pesticide effects on wild birds inhabiting cultivated farmlands. In particular they may refine risk ranking models (EFSA, 2012;Environment Canada, 2006;Sugeng et al, 2013) that use pesticide usage data as a proxy of exposure. (2) The gray partridge is likely to be another well documented case study together with the skylark Topping and Odderskaer, 2004;Topping et al, 2005).…”

Protective gloves use and work habits of non-professionals handling agricultural pesticides – a survey

“…In general, the APs of liquid and emulsifiable formulations are absorbed more readily than those formulated as powders, dusts or granules (Mieldazys et al, 2015). Epidemiological studies have suggested the role of some APs in agriculture-related activities in the occurrence of neurodegenerative disorders like Parkinson's disease (Tanner et al, 2011;Pezzoli and Cereda, 2013;Brouwer et al, 2015;Furlong et al, 2015) and Alzheimer's disease (Hayden et al, 2009), endocrine-disrupting effects (Cocco, 2002;Weiss, 2011), some cancers (Alavanja et al, 2004;Purdue et al, 2007;Collota et al, 2013;Sugeng et al, 2013), etc.…”