One Health Implications of Agrochemicals and their Sustainable Alternatives (Sustainable Development and Biodiversity, 34) 9819934389, 9789819934386

Citation preview

Sustainable Development and Biodiversity 34

Matthew Chidozie Ogwu Sylvester Chibueze Izah   Editors

One Health Implications of Agrochemicals and their Sustainable Alternatives 123

Sustainable Development and Biodiversity Volume 34

Series Editor Kishan Gopal Ramawat, Botany Department, Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur, India

Sustainable Development Goals are best achieved by mechanisms such as research, innovation, and knowledge sharing. This book series aims to help researchers by reporting recent progress and providing complete, comprehensive, and broad subject-based reviews about all aspects of sustainable development and ecological biodiversity. The series explores linkages of biodiversity with delivery of various ecosystem services and it offers a discourse in understanding the biotic and abiotic interactions, ecosystem dynamics, biological invasion, ecological restoration and remediation, diversity of habitats and conservation strategies. It is a broad scoped collection of volumes, addressing relationship between ecosystem processes and biodiversity. It aims to support the global efforts towards achieving sustainable development goals by enriching the scientific literature. The books in the series brings out the latest reading material for botanists, environmentalists, marine biologists, conservationists, policy makers and NGOs working for environment protection. We welcome volumes on the themes -Agroecosystems, Agroforestry, Biodiversity, Biodiversity conservation, Conservation of ecosystem, Ecosystem, Endangered species, Forest conservation, Genetic diversity, Global climate change, Hotspots, Impact assessment, Invasive species, Livelihood of people, Plant biotechnology, Plant resource utilization, Sustainability of the environment, Sustainable management of forests, Sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems and plants, Traditional methods, Urban horticulture.

Matthew Chidozie Ogwu • Sylvester Chibueze Izah Editors

One Health Implications of Agrochemicals and their Sustainable Alternatives

Editors Matthew Chidozie Ogwu Department of Sustainable Development Appalachian State University Boone, NC, USA

Sylvester Chibueze Izah Department of Microbiology Bayelsa Medical University Yenagoa, Bayelsa, Nigeria

ISSN 2352-474X ISSN 2352-4758 (electronic) Sustainable Development and Biodiversity ISBN 978-981-99-3438-6 ISBN 978-981-99-3439-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-3439-3 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023, corrected publication 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Contents

Part I 1

Biodiversity and Human Health Impacts of Agrochemicals

Agrochemicals: Safety Evaluation and Characterization for Humans and Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sara Taha Abdelkhalek, Marwa Abdelaleem Moussa, Shaimaa Ibrahim Gomaa, Chang-Lai Qiu, and Man-Qun Wang

2

Agrochemical Use and Emerging Human and Animal Diseases . . . . Flora Ebaimoh Mukah, Peace Amarachi Chinedu-Ndukwe, Odoligie Imarhiagbe, and Daniel Ahamefule Nwaubani

3

Global Biodiversity Decline and Loss from Agricultural Intensification Through Agrochemical Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . Issaka Kanton Osumanu and Enoch Akwasi Kosoe

3

53

77

4

Evidence of the Toxic Potentials of Agrochemicals on Human Health and Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Abhay Punia, Lipsa Dehal, and Nalini Singh Chauhan

5

Agrochemicals and Pollinator Diversity: A Socio-ecological Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Abhishek Raj, Manoj Kumar Jhariya, Annpurna Devi, Arnab Banerjee, Poonam, and Sachin Kumar Jaiswal

6

One Health Implications of Agrochemicals and Their Eco-Benign Substitutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Shrikaant Kulkarni

7

Risk of Agrochemical on Biodiversity and Human Health: Conservation Implications and Sustainable Mitigations Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Gabriel Ortyom Yager, Munir Karounwi Adegoke Wahab, and Timothy Agboola v

vi

Contents

8

Mitigating the One Health Impacts of Agrochemicals Through Sustainable Policies and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Munir Karounwi Adegoke Wahab, Adams Ovie Iyiola, and Umar Faruq Abdulwahab

9

Health Implications of Agrochemicals: Nexus of Their Impacts, Sustainable Management Approaches and Policy Gaps . . . . . . . . . . 245 Deepa Kannaujiya, Devesh Vishwakarma, Shivangi Awasthi, and Shikha

10

Detrimental Effects of Agrochemical-Based Agricultural Intensification on Biodiversity: Evidence from Some Past Studies . . . 275 Oluseun A. Akinsorotan, Ademola Michael Akinsorotan, Rilwan O. Adewale, and Abosede B. Akande

Part II

Food Production, Safety, Security, Sovereignty and the Economic Implications of Agrochemical Use

11

Food Safety and Agrochemicals: Risk Assessment and Food Security Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 Godwin Edem Akpan, MacManus Chinenye Ndukwu, Promise Joseph Etim, Inemesit Edem Ekop, and Iniobong Enefiok Udoh

12

Chemical-Based Fruit Ripening and the Implications for Ecosystem Health and Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 Francis Aibuedefe Igiebor, Efeota Bright Odozi, and Beckley Ikhajiagbe

13

Socio-economic and Ecological Values of Sustainable Alternatives to Pesticides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355 Shivangi Awasthi, Devesh Vishwakarma, Deepa Kannaujiya, and Shikha

14

Meta-Evaluation of the One Health Implication on Food Systems of Agrochemical Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387 Enoch Akwasi Kosoe, Godwin T. W. Achana, and Matthew Chidozie Ogwu

15

Food Quality and Agrochemical Use: Integrated Monitoring, Assessment, and Management Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411 Odangowei Inetiminebi Ogidi, Sylvester Chibueze Izah, and Udeme Monday Akpan

16

Plants and Soil Microbiota Health Implications of Agrochemicals: Potential Alternatives for the Safe Propagation of Food Crops . . . . 441 Okon Godwin Okon and Ukponobong Efiong Antia

Contents

vii

17

A Global Perspective of Synthetic Agrochemicals in Local Farmers’ Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461 Ariana Macieira, Virgínia Cruz Fernandes, Cristina Delerue-Matos, and Paula Teixeira

18

Factors Influencing Agrochemical Use, Practices, and Knowledge Systems: Case Study of Rice Farmers in the Cauvery Delta Zone of Tamil Nadu, India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485 Jayakumar Samidurai, Honestraj Natarajan, Ashwin Cheruthottunkara Purushothaman, Paramanandham Jothi, Dhananjayan Venugopal, and Muralidharan Subramanian

Part III

Agrochemicals and Environmental Justice: Dynamics, Remediation, and Sustainable Alternatives

19

Sustainable Approaches for the Remediation of Agrochemicals in the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511 Kingsley Erhons Enerijiofi, S. I. Musa, F. I. Okolafor, Francis Aibuedefe Igiebor, Efeota Bright Odozi, and Beckley Ikhajiagbe

20

Plant-Based Agro-Biodiversity Solutions for Reducing Agrochemical Use and Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545 Sushil Nyaupane, Ram Prasad Mainali, Toyanath Joshi, and Ranjana Duwal

21

Prospects of Insect Farming for Food Security, Environmental Sustainability, and as an Alternative to Agrochemical Use . . . . . . . 565 Maduamaka Cyriacus Abajue and Tambeke Nornu Gbarakoro

22

Implications of Agrochemical Application on Soil Fauna and Ecosystem and Their Sustainable Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601 Tambeke Nornu Gbarakoro and Maduamaka Cyriacus Abajue

23

Sustainable Agricultural Pest Control Strategies to Boost Food and Socioecological Security: The Allelopathic Strategy . . . . . . . . . 637 Odoligie Imarhiagbe, A. C. Okafor, B. O. Ikponmwosa, and Matthew Chidozie Ogwu

24

Impacts of Agrochemicals on Fish Composition in Natural Waters: A Sustainable Management Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659 Adams Ovie Iyiola, Ademola Michael Akinsorotan, Berchie Asiedu, and Jacob Somorhire Ewutanure

25

Sustainable Alternatives to Agrochemicals and Their Socio-Economic and Ecological Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 699 Adams Ovie Iyiola, Ayotunde Samuel Kolawole, and Emmanuel Oluwasogo Oyewole

viii

Contents

26

Global Environmental Sustainability and Agrochemical Use . . . . . . 735 Stephen Ayodele Odewale, Ebenezer Leke Odekanle, and Bamidele Sunday Fakinle

27

Impacts of Chemical Use in Agricultural Practices: Perspectives of Soil Microorganisms and Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 765 Odangowei Inetiminebi Ogidi and Udeme Monday Akpan

28

Eco-Farming for Sustainability: Defending Our Way of Life Against Agrochemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 793 Abhishek Raj, Manoj Kumar Jhariya, Annpurna Devi, Aseem Kerketta, and Poonam

Correction to: One Health Implications of Agrochemicals and their Sustainable Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Matthew Chidozie Ogwu and Sylvester Chibueze Izah

C1

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817

The original version of this book was revised: Volume number 34 has been updated. The correction to this book can be found at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-3439-3_29

Editors and Contributors

About the Editors Matthew Chidozie Ogwu is an Assistant Professor of Integrated Ecology and Sustainable Development at Appalachian State University, USA. He is an interdisciplinary academic with transdisciplinary skills and diverse convergence research interests pertinent to the assessment of coupled human and natural as well as socioecological systems and has numerous awards, research grants, and scholarships to his name. He is spearheading some convergence works (One Health and Eco Health) in the Human Environmental and Agricultural Laboratory at Appalachian State University. Dr. Ogwu serves on the board and as a reviewer for many peer-reviewed journals. He continues to volunteer his time and skills to promote sustainable community development, especially in the Global South. Sylvester Chibueze Izah is a lecturer at Bayelsa Medical University in Yenagoa, Nigeria, where he also serves as the Assistant Director of Academic Planning, Research, and Innovations. Dr. Izah is a licensed Environmental Health Specialist in Nigeria. He is a multidisciplinary academic with multifaceted abilities relevant to Sustainable Human-Environmental Health Interactions (covering air, soil, and water quality; toxicology; hygiene and sanitation; food science; waste management; biodiversity and their sustainability and risk assessment). Dr. Izah has over 250 peerreviewed publications, including journal articles, book chapters, and edited books. He is also an editorial and reviewer board member of many journals.

Contributors Maduamaka Cyriacus Abajue Department of Animal and Environmental Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, Nigeria

ix

x

Editors and Contributors

Sara Taha Abdelkhalek Hubei Insect Resources Utilization and Sustainable Pest Management Key Laboratory, College of Plant Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China Department of Entomology, Faculty of Science, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt Umar Faruq Abdulwahab Department of Physiology, Usman Danfodiyo University, Sokoto, Nigeria Godwin T. W. Achana Department of Geography, SDD University of Business and Integrated Development Studies, WA, Bamahu, Ghana Rilwan O. Adewale Department of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ayetoro, Ogun State, Nigeria Timothy Agboola Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Osun State University, Osogbo, Nigeria Abosede B. Akande Department of Wildlife and Ecotourism Management, Faculty of Renewable Natural Resources Management,, Osun State University, Osogbo, Osun State, Nigeria Ademola Michael Akinsorotan Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Federal University, Oye-Ekiti, Ekiti State, Nigeria Oluseun A. Akinsorotan Department of Wildlife and Ecotourism Management, Faculty of Renewable Natural Resources Management,, Osun State University, Osogbo, Osun State, Nigeria Godwin Edem Akpan Department of Agricultural Engineering, Akwa Ibom State University, Ikot Akpaden, Nigeria Udeme Monday Akpan Department of Microbiology, School of Applied Sciences, Federal Polytechnic Ekowe, Ekowe, Bayelsa, Nigeria Ukponobong Efiong Antia Department of Microbiology, Akwa Ibom State University, Uyo, Ikot Akpaden-Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria Berchie Asiedu Department of Fisheries and Water Resources, School of Natural Resources, University of Energy and Natural Resources, Sunyani, Ghana Shivangi Awasthi Department of Microbiology, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University, Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, India Odewale Stephen Ayodele Department of Chemical and Mineral Resources Engineering, First Technical University, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria Arnab Banerjee Department of Environmental Science, Sant Gahira Guru Vishwavidyalaya, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, India Nalini Singh Chauhan Department of Zoology, Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Jalandhar, Punjab, India

Editors and Contributors

xi

Peace Amarachi Chinedu-Ndukwe Department of Zoology and Environmental Biology, Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike, Abia State, Nigeria Lipsa Dehal Department of Zoology, Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Jalandhar, Punjab, India Cristina Delerue-Matos REQUIMTE/LAQV, Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto, Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Porto, Portugal Annpurna Devi Department of Farm Forestry, Vishwavidyalaya, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, India

Sant

Gahira

Guru

Ranjana Duwal iDE Nepal, Lalitpur, Nepal Inemesit Edem Ekop Department of Agricultural Engineering, Akwa Ibom State University, Ikot Akpaden, Nigeria Kingsley Erhons Enerijiofi Department of Biological Sciences, College of Basic and Applied Sciences, Glorious Vision University (formerly Samuel Adegboyega University), Ogwa, Edo State, Nigeria Promise Joseph Etim Department of Agricultural Engineering, Akwa Ibom State University, Ikot Akpaden, Nigeria Jacob Somorhire Ewutanure Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Faculty of Environmental Management, Nigeria Maritime University, Okerenkoko, Delta State, Nigeria Virgínia Cruz Fernandes REQUIMTE/LAQV, Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto, Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Porto, Portugal Tambeke Nornu Gbarakoro Department of Animal and Environmental Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, Nigeria Shimaa Ibrahim Gomaa Plant Protection Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Giza, Egypt Francis Aibuedefe Igiebor Department of Biological Science, College of Science and Computing, Wellspring University, Benin City, Nigeria Beckley Ikhajiagbe Department of Plant Biology and Biotechnology, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria B. O. Ikponmwosa Department of food and Nutrition Science, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK Odoligie Imarhiagbe Department of Health and Social Science, London School of Science and Technology, London, UK

xii

Editors and Contributors

Adams Ovie Iyiola Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management, Osun State University, Osogbo, Nigeria Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management, Faculty of Renewable Natural Resources Management, College of Agriculture and Renewable Resources, Osun State University, Osogbo, Nigeria Sylvester Chibueze Izah Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Science, Bayelsa Medical University, Yenagoa, Bayelsa, Nigeria Sachin Kumar Jaiswal AICRP on Honey Bees & Pollinators, RMDCARS, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, India Manoj Kumar Jhariya Department of Farm Forestry, Sant Gahira Guru Vishwavidyalaya, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, India Toyanath Joshi Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development (MoALD), Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal Paramanandham Jothi P.G. and Research Department of Zoology and Wildlife Biology, A.V.C. College (Autonomous), Mayiladuthurai, Tamil Nadu, India Deepa Kannaujiya Department of Environmental Science, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University (A Central University), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India Aseem Kerketta Department of Biotechnology, Sant Gahira Guru University, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, India Ayotunde Samuel Kolawole Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management, Faculty of Renewable Natural Resources Management, College of Agriculture and Renewable Resources, Osun State University, Osogbo, Nigeria Enoch Akwasi Kosoe Department of Environment and Resource Studies, SD Dombo University of Business and Integrated Development Studies, Bamahu, Ghana Shrikaant Kulkarni Faculty of Science and Technology, Vishwakarma University, Pune, India Odekanle Ebenezer Leke Department of Chemical and Mineral Resources Engineering, First Technical University, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria Ariana Macieira CBQF—Centro de Biotecnologia e Química Fina—Laboratório Associado, Escola Superior de Biotecnologia, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Porto, Portugal Ram Prasad Mainali National Agriculture Genetic Resources Centre, Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), Lalitpur, Nepal Marwa Abdelaleem Moussa Plant Protection Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Giza, Egypt

Editors and Contributors

xiii

Flora Ebaimoh Mukah Department of Plant Science and Biotechnology, Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike, Abia State, Nigeria S. I. Musa Department of Biology and Forensic Science, Admiralty University of Nigeria, Ibusa, Delta State, Nigeria Honestraj Natarajan P.G. and Research Department of Zoology and Wildlife Biology, A.V.C. College (Autonomous), Mayiladuthurai, Tamil Nadu, India MacManus Chinenye Ndukwu Department of Agricultural and Bioresources Engineering, Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike, Nigeria Daniel Ahamefule Nwaubani Department of Microbiology, Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike, Abia State, Nigeria Sushil Nyaupane Faculty of Agriculture, Far Western University (FWU), Kailali, Nepal Efeota Bright Odozi Haematology and Blood Transfusion Science Unit, Department of Medical Laboratory Science, College of Medical Sciences, University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria Odangowei Inetiminebi Ogidi Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Basic Medical Sciences, Bayelsa Medical University, Yenagoa, Bayelsa, Nigeria Matthew Chidozie Ogwu Goodnight Family Department of Sustainable Development, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, USA A. C. Okafor Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), Vienna, Austria F. I. Okolafor Department of Science Laboratory Technology, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria Okon Godwin Okon Department of Botany, Akwa Ibom State University, Uyo, Ikot Akpaden-Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria Issaka Kanton Osumanu Department of Geography, SD Dombo University of Business and Integrated Development Studies, Bamahu, Ghana Department of Environment and Resource Studies, SD Dombo University of Business and Integrated Development Studies, Bamahu, Ghana Emmanuel Oluwasogo Oyewole Department of Aquaculture and Fisheries Management, College of Environmental Resources Management, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Ogun State, Nigeria Poonam Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Navgaon (Alwar-I), Sri Karan Narendra Agriculture University (SKNAU), Jobner, Rajasthan, India Abhay Punia Department of Zoology, DAV University, Jalandhar, Punjab, India

xiv

Editors and Contributors

Ashwin Cheruthottunkara Purushothaman P.G. and Research Department of Zoology and Wildlife Biology, A.V.C. College (Autonomous), Mayiladuthurai, Tamil Nadu, India Chang-Lai Qiu Hubei Insect Resources Utilization and Sustainable Pest Management Key Laboratory, College of Plant Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China Abhishek Raj Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay College of Horticulture and Forestry, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agriculture University, Pusa, Samastipur, Bihar, India Jayakumar Samidurai P.G. and Research Department of Zoology and Wildlife Biology, A.V.C. College (Autonomous), Mayiladuthurai, Tamil Nadu, India Shikha Department of Environmental Science, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University (A Central University), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India Muralidharan Subramanian Division of Ecotoxicology, Sálim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India Fakinle Bamidele Sunday Department of Chemical Engineering, Landmark University, Omu-Aran, Kwara State, Nigeria Paula Teixeira CBQF—Centro de Biotecnologia e Química Fina—Laboratório Associado, Escola Superior de Biotecnologia, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Porto, Portugal Iniobong Enefiok Udoh Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Uyo, Uyo, Nigeria Dhananjayan Venugopal Division of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology Division, ICMR-Regional Occupational Health Centre (Southern), Bangalore, India Devesh Vishwakarma Department of Environmental Science, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University (A Central University), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India Munir Karounwi Adegoke Wahab Department of Wildlife and Ecotourism Management, Osun State University, Osogbo, Nigeria Man-Qun Wang Hubei Insect Resources Utilization and Sustainable Pest Management Key Laboratory, College of Plant Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China Gabriel Ortyom Yager Department of Wildlife and Range Management, Joseph Sarwuan Tarka University, Makurdi, Benue State, Nigeria

Part I

Biodiversity and Human Health Impacts of Agrochemicals

Chapter 1

Agrochemicals: Safety Evaluation and Characterization for Humans and Biodiversity Sara Taha Abdelkhalek, Marwa Abdelaleem Moussa, Shaimaa Ibrahim Gomaa, Chang-Lai Qiu, and Man-Qun Wang

Abstract Agrochemicals are used globally to enhance plant productivity and protect the ecosystem from miscellaneous damages. The current chapter focuses on the definition and classification of agrochemicals as well as recent trends and challenges in the usage of agrochemicals (i.e., pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, acidifiers, growth regulators hormones, and soil conditioners) besides their effects on nontargeted organisms. Although the pros and cons of using agrochemicals are numerous, this chapter focused on enumerating some of the implications of these chemical substances on humans and biodiversity. Despite ongoing efforts to assess the environmental risks, there is huge uncertainty in the scientific community over the suitability of existing approaches because the detrimental One Health effects of some agrochemicals are still unpredictable. The safety evaluation included in the present work covers toxicity, ecological safety, health risks, and exposure (level) assessments, along with the most appropriate control strategies and safe alternatives. In addition, agrochemicals were characterized to test the amounts of agrochemical residues in plants, soil, water, etc., which was used to present the exposure profile of some agrochemicals and their degradation (biological, physicochemical, field dissipation, and environmental approaches). Controlling the overuse of some agrochemicals has become a critical issue due to their genotoxicity and potential hereditary effects. Moreover, the complex and multidimensional relationship between agrochemicals

S. T. Abdelkhalek Hubei Insect Resources Utilization and Sustainable Pest Management Key Laboratory, College of Plant Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China Department of Entomology, Faculty of Science, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt M. A. Moussa · S. I. Gomaa Plant Protection Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Giza, Egypt C.-L. Qiu · M.-Q. Wang (✉) Hubei Insect Resources Utilization and Sustainable Pest Management Key Laboratory, College of Plant Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 M. C. Ogwu, S. Chibueze Izah (eds.), One Health Implications of Agrochemicals and their Sustainable Alternatives, Sustainable Development and Biodiversity 34, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-3439-3_1

3

4

S. T. Abdelkhalek et al.

and agrobiodiversity is ill understood but has legacy effects on livestock, cultivated crops, soil organisms, and other organisms that inhibit or move through agricultural lands. However, this chapter documents recent advances and provides recommendations for preserving agrobiodiversity and the controlled use of agrochemicals. Keywords Cytotoxicity · Health implications · Pesticides monitoring · Exposure assessment · Agrobiodiversity · Landscape simplification · Terrestrial system · Aquatic system

Abbreviations A ABA AChE ATP B Bt D DDT DEET DF or WDG DNA EC EPA F FAO G or GR GA GABA GL IGRs IPM LC50 LD50 M NK NOAEL NOEL NP NPK OCs OECD OPs

Aerosols Abscisic acid Acetylcholinesterase enzyme Adenosine triphosphate Bait Bacillus thuringiensis Dust Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide Dry flowable or water-dispersible granules Deoxyribonucleic acid Emulsifiable concentrate Environmental Protection Agency Flowable Food and Agriculture Organization Granules Gibberellin Gamma-aminobutyric acid Gel Insect growth regulators Integrated pest management The mean lethal concentration The mean lethal dose Microencapsulated materials Nitrogen, potassium The no-observable adverse effect level The no-observable effect level Nitrogen, phosphorus Nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium Organochlorines Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Organophosphates

1

Agrochemicals: Safety Evaluation and Characterization for Humans. . .

P or PS PEC PK POPs PRs RNA rRNA SC SN SP T3 T4 ULV WHO WP or W WSP

1.1

5

Pellets Predicted environmental concentration Phosphorus, potassium Persistent organic pollutants Pesticide residues Ribonucleic acid Ribosomal ribonucleic acid Suspension concentrate Solution Soluble powder Plasma triiodothyronine Thyroxine Ultralow-volume concentrate World Health Organization Wettable powder Water-soluble packets/powder

Introduction

In recent decades, the vulnerability to feed a growing population posed by fast global population growth has prompted new attempts to increase agricultural production. It is estimated that by 2050 the global population will grow by 70 million/year and reach about 9.4–10 billion. Thus, food scarcity will become more of a concern (Koli et al. 2019). Consequently, significant pressure on the agricultural demand and its linked activities concerning meeting food demand necessitates an increase in agricultural inputs (Kumar et al. 2021). Accordingly, vast amounts of different agrochemicals are used to protect and enhance the productivity of the crop, like pesticides and fertilizers (Pathak et al. 2018). Generally, agrochemicals aim to increase agricultural output and economic benefits by increasing nutrients, improving water quality and soil structure, and controlling pests. Fertilizers can improve the availability of nutritional resources essential for photosynthesis, energy conversion, and physiological and biochemical activities during plant growth and development (Maathuis 2009; Maathuis and Diatloff 2013; Fried et al. 2018). It is estimated that fertilizers contribute between 40% and 65% to crop yield (Baligar et al. 2001; Stewart et al. 2005). In addition, pesticides can minimize agricultural product losses and enhance product quality by preventing invasion or competition of pests, weeds, and pathogen infections (Aktar et al. 2009). Pesticides contribute 78%, 54%, and 32% to fruits, leafy vegetables, and cereal production, respectively (Lamichhane 2017). Furthermore, minor agrochemicals regulate the agroecosystem, such as plant growth hormones and soil conditioners. Growth-regulating hormones regulate various hormone metabolic pathways in cells by activating or inhibiting the chain reaction to transmit different hormonal signals.

6

S. T. Abdelkhalek et al.

Table 1.1 Comparison of fertilizer (1990–2019) and pesticide (1976–2018) usage in five regions (adapted from Ritchie et al. 2022) Fertilizer use Group

Consumption (kg/ha of arable land)

Total fertilizer consumption (tons)

Pesticide use Group

Use/area of cropland (kg/ha)

Total pesticide use (tonnes)

Country

1976

2018

Absolute change (kg)

China Egypt UK US World China Egypt UK US World

65.78 156.68 279.81 105.19 70.95 9,797,418 526,484 2,580,659 22,058,699 119,130,745

393.22 324.64 245.62 128.77 136.82 54,922,339 1,476,227 2,005,472 22,358,913.00 210,467,185

+327.44 +167.96 -34.19 +23.57 +65.87 +45,124,921 +949,743 -575,187 +300,214 +91,336,440

Country

1990

2019

Absolute change (kg)

China Egypt UK US World China Egypt UK US World

5.83 4.99 4.41 2.14 1.55 765,307 13,214 29,517 400,976 2,303,814

13.07 3.44 3.16 2.54 2.69 1,763,000 13,178 19,373 407,779 4,168,778

+7.24 -1.55 -1.25 +0.40 +1.14 +997,693 -36 -10,144 +6803 +1,864,964

Relative change (%) +498 +107 -12 +22 +93 +461 +180 -22 +1 +77 Relative change (%) +124 -31 -28 +19 +74 +130 -0 -34 +2 +81

Additionally, they are widely involved in regulating various growth and developmental stages of plants and responding to various biological or abiotic stressors (Aerts et al. 2021; Sun et al. 2021). Soil conditioners are substances used to improve the physicochemical and biological properties of agricultural soil to make the soil more suitable for plant growth as well as to improve the ion exchange rate and enzyme activity of the soil and increase soil moisture, temperature, and fertility (Gajalakshmi and Abbasi 2008; Yang and Lu 2021). In past decades, the usage of agricultural chemicals has increased rapidly, especially fertilizers increased by 93% from 1976 to 2018, and pesticides increased by 81% from 1990 to 2019; Table 1.1 shows the consumption of fertilizers (1976–2018) and pesticides (1990–2019) in five countries. However, only a few portions of fertilizer (Yan et al. 2014; Yu et al. 2022) and pesticides (Tudi et al. 2021) are effectively used to improve the output and quality of agricultural products.

1

Agrochemicals: Safety Evaluation and Characterization for Humans. . .

7

On the other hand, the excessive unwise application of agrochemicals causes deleterious effects on many nontarget organisms (beneficial insects, birds, fishes, and farm animals), biological accumulation in food chains, disruption of the soil fertility and microbial community, and human health risks (for adults and children) (Liu et al. 2016). Moreover, these practices have resulted in various unintentional poisonings, and even the typical application of pesticides can cause significant shortand long-term dangers to farmers’ health and damage the ecosystem’s sustainability (Damalas and Eleftherohorinos 2011). Agricultural workers in developing countries are exposed to hazardous chemicals that are restricted or prohibited in other regions. Inappropriate application strategies, poorly maintained or improper spraying tools, inadequate storage methodologies, and the regular recycling of old pesticide packaging for food and water storage (Ecobichon 2001; Asogwa and Dongo 2009). Pesticide exposure is a persistent threat to human health, particularly in agricultural work contexts. Most pesticides, like atrazine, glyphosate, acetamiprid, epoxiconazole, and fluroxypyr, have a high level of toxicity, as they are intended to eliminate certain species and pose a danger of injury. Hence, the use of these pesticides has prompted grave concerns regarding their possible One Health effects (Berny 2007; Power 2010). According to the WHO, the One Health approach integrates multidisciplinary research groups to sustain the health of ecosystems (humans, plants, and animals) (Humboldt-Dachroeden and Mantovani 2021). For example, insecticide utilization increased the resistance buildup of many human disease vectors (different species of mosquitoes) (Yadouleton et al. 2009). Many researchers, including Checcucci et al. (2020) and Samtiya et al. (2022), investigated that overdoses of fertilizers affect crop production and increase the antimicrobial resistance infections transmitted to humans through the food chains. Furthermore, the long environmental cycles of some agrochemicals influence the nutritional status of some individuals, causing cutaneous damage, congenital disabilities, and some reproductive problems for both sexes (Thakur et al. 2014; Pirsaheb et al. 2015; Zheng et al. 2016). Moreover, many consumers have inadequate awareness of the dangers associated with pesticide use, particularly the need for the proper administration and the precautions required (Yassin et al. 2002; Salameh et al. 2004). Even when producers are aware of the detrimental consequences of pesticides, they are frequently unable to implement this knowledge (Atreya 2007; Isin and Yildirim 2007; Zyoud et al. 2010). The biological accumulation of pesticides and fertilizers in the environment leads to various impairments: (1) plants, like chlorosis, DNA damage, photosynthetic cycle disruptions, etc.; (2) soil, including decreasing the abundance of microbial populations, malfunction of enzymatic cycles, and alternations in the physicochemical characteristics of the soil; (3) nontargeted organisms, such as changes and malfunctions of many enzymes, especially in liver and kidney functions, or behavioral and developmental modifications in birds, fishes, bats, and amphibians; (4) human health problems, including organ failures, ovarian cancer, hormonal disturbances, birth weight defects, and in some cases leading to direct death. According to the abovementioned illustrations, the current chapter focuses on identifying and classifying the most popular agrochemicals (pesticides and

S. T. Abdelkhalek et al.

8

fertilizers). The global percentages of applied agrochemicals were obtained from the most recent FAOSTAT reports. In addition, the regulations and the information on exposure, risk, and toxicity assessments were collected from the EPA, WHO, and OECD. Moreover, their side effects on biodiversity, ecosystems, and humans are also presented and collected from scientific papers in well-reputed journals. Finally, some recommendations and future perspectives to preserve environmental sustainability and the overusage of agrochemicals are also included.

1.2

Classification of Agrochemicals

Agrochemicals are synthesized chemical compounds widely utilized in the agricultural domain, including pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, acidifiers, plant growth hormones, and soil conditioners. Agricultural production is strongly dependent on the use of numerous agrochemicals that have a considerable impact on boosting the efficiency and economy of crop yields to meet the rapidly increasing world population’s food demands (Pal et al. 2006; Ikhajiagbe et al. 2021a, b; 2022a, b). Therefore, agrochemicals are frequently used in the agricultural sector to close the gap between food production and consumption rates (Salem et al. 2013). On the other hand, the excessive uncontrolled distribution/treatment of such agrochemicals affects the sustainability of the ecosystem, such as soil, plant, animals, air, groundwater, etc., because of their bioaccumulation and long-time persistence (Khanna and Gupta 2018; Mandal et al. 2020; Ikhajiagbe and Ogwu 2020, 2021). Figure 1.1 shows a diagrammatic structure for the agrochemical cycle in the environment.

Fig. 1.1 A diagrammatic pathway of agrochemicals cycle in the environment

1

Agrochemicals: Safety Evaluation and Characterization for Humans. . .

9

Fig. 1.2 Broad agrochemical classification. (Modified after Ansari et al. 2021)

The classification of agrochemicals contains many groups; the most prominent are pesticides (pests killers) and fertilizers (soil and plant enhancers), besides other groups, such as disinfectants (microorganisms suppressors), acidifiers (increasing soil acidity), soil conditioners (enhancing the physical properties of soil), and plant growth hormones (natural or synthetic compounds regulate the development of the plant). To understand the types and the classification of the widely utilized agrochemicals, Fig. 1.2 illustrates the general and broad agrochemical categorization.

1.2.1

Pesticides

The global usage of pesticides rose by 36% during the period 2000–2019, reaching 4.2 million tons. This data is inconsistent with Zhang (2018), who statistically investigated that the annual usage of pesticides will rise to 3.5 Mt worldwide in 2020. Asia contributed significantly, followed by the Americas, Europe, and Africa (Fig. 1.3). Over time, the regional contribution percentages to the global total altered slightly, while Asia’s proportion around 52–53% remained constant. Moreover, its percentages fluctuated between an increase like in the Americas (29–33%) and depletion in Europe (14–11%). Consequently, Africa showed minor percentages of pesticide usage (1–2%). According to FAO reports, China was the top pesticide consumer in 2019, with 1.8 Mt (42%) global production (FAO 2022). In 2019, the worldwide proportion of total pesticides usage was recorded as 4190.99 × 103 tons, followed by 2171.02 × 103 tons (Asia), 1364 × 103 tons (the Americas), 478.39 × 103 tons (Europe), and 107.86 × 103 tons (Africa) (Table 1.2) (FAO 2021).

10

S. T. Abdelkhalek et al.

Thousand tonnes

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

Asia

Americas

Europe

Africa

Fig. 1.3 The pesticide usage by region during 2000–2019 (FAO 2022) Table 1.2 The usage of pesticides during 2014–2019 (source: FAOSTAT 2019) Pesticide amount (thousand tons) 2014 2015 World 4165.4 4127.53 Africa 98.73 99.22 Americas 1330.97 1332.67 Asia 2174.34 2151.37 Europe 505.26 487.11

2016 4160.98 97.45 1319.15 2173.39 501.33

2017 4185.59 102.1 1338.33 2185.23 490.26

2018 4141.02 107.02 1306.78 2177.22 480.27

2019 4190.99 107.86 1364 2171.02 478.39

The agricultural domain is one of the most pesticide consumers worldwide, with about 85% of the total pesticide production annually (Gilden et al. 2010). Pesticides are chemical constituents (active ingredients) chemically prepared or naturally existing. Therefore, they have broad usage in the agricultural sector, houses, hospitals, factories, etc. Pesticides are effectively utilized to kill, disrupt, or repel pests (agricultural pests, including destructive larvae (armyworms and cotton leafworms), flies (white fly), and adults (crickets) and disease carriers (like mosquitoes, fleas, bugs, and rodents) (Kim et al. 2017). Crop damage is usually caused by various species, like 8000 weeds, 50,000 pathogens, and about 9000 hexapods worldwide (Zhang 2018). Insect pests caused the highest percentage of crop loss (14%), followed by plant pathogens (13%) and weeds (13%) (Pimentel 2009). In 2020, FAO statistics showed that approximately 2.5 Mt pesticides were utilized worldwide. Herbicides are in the first rank with 56.3%, followed by fungicides and bactericides (24.4%), insecticides (19%), and other pesticides (0.30%) (FAOSTAT 2022), as presented in Fig. 1.4.

1.2.1.1

Pesticide Classification

The chemical and physical characteristics of pesticides vary from class to class. Therefore, it is commendable to classify them based on their features and investigate

1

Agrochemicals: Safety Evaluation and Characterization for Humans. . .

Insecticides

Herbicides

Fungicides and Bactericides

11

Others

0.3% 19% 24.4%

56.3%

Fig. 1.4 Percentages of different pesticides used in 2020 (FAOSTAT 2022)

their specialized categories. There are numerous categories based on the user’s objectives; the most common methodologies for classification are as follows (Drum 1980).

1.2.1.1.1

Classification According to the Specified/Targeted Function

Table 1.3 represents the classification of synthetic pesticides according to their targeted pests; some end with the suffix “cide,” which means killers (fungicides and herbicides), and others are named based on their functions like repellents and attractant pesticides (Katagi 2015; Lippmann and Leikauf 2021).

1.2.1.1.2

Classification According to the Mode of Entry

1. Stomach pesticides: They are a type of toxicant entering the pest’s body through the feeding process via the digestive system, and insects die after some time, like boric acid and malathion. 2. Fumigants: They are gaseous insecticides that penetrate the insect’s body through the tracheal system (spiracles), such as 1,3-dichloropropene. 3. Contact pesticides: They are toxicants that exterminate their pests directly through physical contact and then penetrate the outer body layer (skin), e.g., dimethoate and diquat dibromide.

12

S. T. Abdelkhalek et al.

Table 1.3 The classification of pesticides according to the targeted pests (modified from Akashe et al. 2018) Pesticide name Insecticides Fungicides

Herbicides

Larvicides Bactericides

Algicide Molluscicides Rodenticides Repellents

Termiticides Ovicides Nematicides Insect growth regulators Plant growth regulators Chemosterillant

Attractants

Antifeedants Acaricides

Targeted function Chemical substances that kill, destroy, or malformed insect pest’s growth. Pesticides that inhibit the growth or kill fungi (molds and mildews) or their spores. Substances called weedkillers are utilized for controlling undesired weeds or plants. Insecticides that precisely control the larval stages of insect pests. Chemical compounds called bacteria killers Compounds preventing and destroying the algal growth Compounds to control mollusks/gastropod pests like snails and slugs Chemicals for controlling/killing rodents Substances are applied on the surfaces (skin or clothes) to keep insects from climbing on the host. They are preventing and controlling the outbreaks of most arthropod-borne. Insecticidal agents used for treating termite infestations. Chemical substances that kill eggs of pests Pesticides used for destroying plantparasitic worms/nematodes. An insecticidal compound that disrupts the developmental process of insect pests Compounds that modulate plant growth (promoting or inhibiting) Chemical substances control pests through the sterility of reproductive systems. Chemical substances stimulate insects to move in a direction toward their targets. Organic substances that prevent pests from attacking plant hosts Toxic substances used for killing ticks and mites

Example Fenpropathrin, malathion, methyl parathion, DDT Azoxystrobin 23% SC, captan 50% WP, carbendazim 46.27% SC, difenconazole 25% EC, kresoxim methyl, mandipropamid 2,4-D amine salt, atrazine 50% WP, fenoxaprop-p-ethyl, glyphosate, oxadiargyl, pendimethalin Temephos, methoprene Copper oxychloride 50% WDG, 2-bromo 2-nitropropane-1,3-diol, streptomycin Benzalkonium chloride, bethoxazin, copper sulfate Carbaryl, metaldehyde, niclosamide, thiodicarb Warfarin, pindone, difethialone, sulfaquinoxaline Methiocarb, DEET, picaridin

Fipronil Acetamiprid 20% SP, benzoxazin Aldicarb, dazomet, methyl bromide, dichloropropene Methoprene, diflubenzuron, fenoxycarb. Ethylene, gibberellin (GA), and abscisic acid (ABA). Aziridines, busulfan, pyriproxyfen, diflubenzuron R-Octenol, methyl eugenol, trimedlure Azadirachtin rotenone, veratridine, nicotine Spiromesifen 22.9% SC, Sulfur 80% WDG (continued)

1

Agrochemicals: Safety Evaluation and Characterization for Humans. . .

13

Table 1.3 (continued) Pesticide name Chitin biosynthesis inhibitors Adulticides

Targeted function IGR insecticide kills pests by interrupting the molting process and preventing the synthesis of chitin. Insecticides that precisely control the adult stages of insect pests

Example Diflubenzuron, hexaflumuron, lufenuron, teflubenzuron Resmethrin, malathion, naled, rhenothrin = sumithrin

4. Repellents: They do not penetrate the victim’s body and destroy them; instead, they push and oppose the pests to keep them away from the host, such as methyl anthranilate and picaridin. 5. Systemic pesticides: Pesticides incorporated into a plant and disseminated throughout its parts, roots, stem, leaves, and any fruits or flowers, like glyphosate.

1.2.1.1.3

Classification According to the Chemical Structure

Depending on the chemical structures, there are different categories of pesticides, including organochlorines, organophosphates, carbamates, synthetic pyrethroids, and other minor groups as follows: 1. Organochlorines (OCs) are one of the largest classes of pesticides. OCs are organic chlorinated chemical substances. Their chemical structure usually has at least one covalent bond with a chlorine atom (Cl-1). OCs have various physical and structural characteristics, which lead to a considerable variation in their functions and applications (Shukla et al. 2014). Moreover, there are two groups of OCs: (a) aromatic OCs and (b) aliphatic OCs. The aromatic OCs are mainly pesticidal agents, such as DDT, aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, and endosulfan, while the aliphatic OCs are used mainly in many industries, including textile manufacturing (chloromethane as a dry cleaning solvent) and polymer production (vinyl chloride) (Shukla et al. 2014). On the other hand, OCs are considered one of the most critical persistent organic pollutants (POPs) due to their hazardous effect and longtime persistence in ecosystems (Jayaraj et al. 2016). 2. Organophosphates (OPs) are organic compounds that result from the esterification process of phosphoric acid with the chemical formula O = P (OR)3 (Greaves et al. 2016). OPs have many structures with adverse functions, such as (a) pesticides (herbicides and insecticides), including terbufos, phosmet, parathion, malathion, diazinon, dichlorvos, and azinphos-methyl; (b) biomolecule formations as in ATP, RNA, and DNA; and (c) flame retardants. Furthermore, OPs can produce engine oil additives, plasticizers in the electronic industry, and polymer synthesis (Wei et al. 2015). They have many deleterious health effects as they are nerve substances suppressing the activity of acetylcholinesterase in the nervous system. Their compounds rapidly hydrolyzed directly from sunlight, air, and soil.

14

S. T. Abdelkhalek et al.

3. Carbamates are organic chemicals derived from carbamic acid with the chemical formula R2NC(O)OR. They have a potential functional group involved in insecticides as carbamate esters (ester ethyl carbamate) (Jäger et al. 2000). Carbamates are considered reversible acetylcholinesterase inhibitor insecticides, including aldicarb, carbofuran, carbaryl, oxamy, and fenobucarb (Goel and Aggarwal 2007). 4. Synthetic pyrethroids are derived from naturally existing pyrethrin compounds of pyrethrum (Chrysanthemum cinerariaefolium) flowers. Unlike other pesticides, pyrethroids do not have a common chemical structure leading to a large diversity in their biological activity. They are used as household insecticides for their safety toward mammals (Metcalf 2000). Pyrethroids, such as permethrin, transfluthrin, etofenprox, deltamethrin, and fenpropathrin, control many insect species like dragonflies, mayflies, gadflies, and some invertebrates. In addition, they are recommended as potential insecticides in malaria outbreaks (Eskenazi et al. 2018). 5. Phenoxyalkonates are the most popular herbicide class. The vast majority of these class members are microbially degraded. This group includes dichloroprop, mecoprop, erbin, sesone, 2,4 dichlorophenoxyaceticacid (2,4-D), and 2,4,5 trichlorophenoxyaceticacid (2,4,5-T) (Chládková et al. 2004). 6. The dipyrid chemical group belongs to the herbicide class. Dipyridylium substances, such as 1,1′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium salts (paraquat) and 6,7-dihydrodipyrido[1,2-a:2′, l′-c] pyrazinediium salts (diquat), have been widely utilized for controlling and managing terrestrial and aquatic weeds in the agricultural sector (Akhavein and Linscott 1968). 7. Triazines are categorized as highly persistent herbicides due to their biological and chemical degradation resistance (Downie and Templeton 2022). The major compounds of this group are cyanazine, atrazine, propazine, simazine, cyprazine, and terbutryn. Many reports investigated their deleterious health effects on humans, including endocrine disruption, immunological, neurological, reproductive disorders, and carcinogenic activity (Van Leeuwen et al. 1999; Hayes et al. 2002; Jowa and Howd 2011). 8. Phenylamides are antifungal organic compounds that are especially applied against plant pathogens. They interrupt the biosynthesis of rRNA during the disease’s propagation cycles (Yang et al. 2011). Combining phenylamide fungicides with substances from other pesticide classes enhances and extends the activity and postpones the resistant building up of subpopulations (Gisi and Ziegler 2003). Phenylamide fungicides include many substances, for example, ofurace, mefenoxam (metalaxyl-M), furalaxyl, oxadixyl, and benalaxyl. 9. Other groups of pesticides: Other pesticide categories are used in the agricultural system—some belonging to phthalimide fungicides like captafol, captan, and folpet (Pimentel and Burgess 2014). The benzoic acid (herbicide) class contains compounds like ioxynil, dicamba, bromoxynil, and naptalam (Zaki 1996). Moreover, heavy metals are often utilized as insecticides. Metal forms of elements, such as iron, lead, sulfur, cadmium, arsenic, mercury, and zinc, have been utilized. This category comprises chemicals such as methyl mercury chloride

1

Agrochemicals: Safety Evaluation and Characterization for Humans. . .

15

(CH3HgCl), sodium arsenate (Na3AsO4), calcium arsenate (Ca3(AsO4)2), and zinc phosphide (Zn3P2) (Jayaraj et al. 2016).

1.2.1.1.4

Classification According to the Origin

Two main groups pop down this classification: (a) chemical pesticides and (b) biopesticides. Chemical pesticides have four major subgroups: organochlorines, organophosphates, carbamates, and synthetic pyrethroids. Biopesticides are naturally existing or naturally extracted substances from living organisms like bacteria, plants, fungi, and nematodes. Recently, chemically synthesized pesticides combined with natural substances (plant extracts or microorganisms) and that are environmentally safe (as they are biodegradable) can be utilized in IPM programs and are considered eco-friendly pesticides (Tijjani et al. 2017) (Fig. 1.5).

1.2.1.1.5

Classification According to the Commercial Form

A pesticide is formulated by modifying it to enhance its storage, usage, security, application, or efficacy. Pesticide formulations are chemical combinations (active and inert ingredients) that successfully control a pest. Pesticide formulations vary owing to differences in the active ingredient’s solubility, effectiveness in controlling the pest, and simplicity of handling and transportation. There are four main pesticidal formulation categories: (a) liquid (7 types), (b) solid (8 types), (c) gases (1 type), and (d) packaging (1 type). The formulation names, definitions, examples, and usage are illustrated in Table 1.4.

Pesticides Chemical pesticides

Biopesticides

Organochlorines

Plant incorporated protectants

DDT, dieldrin, heptachlor, chlordane, and lindane

•

Organophosphates Malathion, parathion, diazinon, and chlorpyrifos

Carbamates

Genetically modified BT cotton and corn.

Plant oils: eugenol, thymol, carvacrol, and menthol. • Pheromones: insect sex pheromones.

Aldicarb, carbaryl, carbofuran, ferbam, and captan.

•

Azadirachtin, lemongrass oil, Lantana camara, and Citrullus colocynthis.

Microbial •

Synthetic pyrethroids Cypermethrin, deltamethrin, Silafluofen, and lambda-cyhalothrin.

Plant extracts

Biochemical •

•

Bacteria: Bacillus thuringinesis. • Fungi: Beauveria sp. and Yersinia sp. • Viruses: baculoviruses. Nematoda: Heterorhabdittis sp. And Steinernema sp.

Fig. 1.5 Classification of pesticides according to the origin. (Modified after Ansari et al. 2021)

16

1.2.2

S. T. Abdelkhalek et al.

Fertilizers

Fertilizers are natural or synthetic compounds containing active ingredients that promote plant growth and productivity. Fertilizers may increase the soil’s intrinsic fertility or restore the chemical ingredients removed by previous crops. According to European regulations, there are various kinds of supplements belonging to fertilizers, like (1) primary nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium), which are utilized in large quantities; (2) secondary nutrients (calcium, magnesium, sodium, and sulfur), moderately applied to plants; and (3) micronutrients (boron, zinc, cobalt, molybdenum, copper, manganese, and iron) that are essential supplements to plants but in small percentages compared to other nutrient groups (Delgado et al. 2016). In 2019, the global usage of fertilizers was about 189 Mt for the most dominant three nutrients, 57% (nitrogen as N), 23% (phosphorus as P2O5), and 20% (potassium as K2O). Moreover, Asia was the highest-consuming continent in fertilizer application per cropland region, followed by the Americas, Europe, and Africa at 180, 135, 80, and 26 kg/ha, respectively (FAOSTAT 2022) (Fig. 1.6).

1.2.2.1

Fertilizer Classification

Fertilizers are categorized into many groups according to multiple criteria: (1) according to the nature of the fertilizer, (2) according to composition, and (3) according to the formulation state.

1.2.2.1.1

Classification According to Nature

Fertilizers are categorized into two main groups, inorganic and organic fertilizers. Inorganic fertilizers are synthesized using naturally existing minerals and chemically modifying them through chemical procedures, such as nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P2O5), and potassium (K2O). They are a rapid nutrient supply to many plants with precise doses and requirements. Even though artificial fertilization contributes to monopolizing primary agricultural output, it also raises the global system productivity. Hence, various reactions from biodiversity components may be anticipated (Emmerson et al. 2016; Ogwu et al. 2014, 2022). Organic fertilizers contain natural mineral resources containing a modest amount of necessary plant nutrients. Therefore, they minimize the frequency of synthetic fertilizers that must be applied to preserve soil fertility. In addition, organic fertilizers comprise a wide variety of organic matter (fresh and dried matter, agro-byproducts, and animal manure) (Shaji et al. 2021).

1

Agrochemicals: Safety Evaluation and Characterization for Humans. . .

17

Table 1.4 Classification of pesticides according to their commercial form (modified after Akashe et al. 2018) Formulation name Usage Liquid formulations Emulsifiable Comprises a petroleumconcentrate based solvent, an emulsifier, and an active ingredient (oil-solubilized liquid). ECs are adaptable and can be used with a multitude of sprayers. Flowable Some active ingredients are embedded in a dry carrier, like clay, which is then crushed into a fine powder since they cannot dissolve in water or oil. Gel Semiliquid insecticidal solutions: Insecticide solutions called gel bait formulations are created when the active ingredient is combined with a diet or an attractant carrier consumed by the targeted pests. Microencapsulated The pesticide (dry particles materials or liquid droplets) is covered with a polymeric or plastic coat like plastic or starch; then, they are diluted and sprayed. Ultralow-volume These formulations have concentrate 100% active ingredients (concentrated pesticides). They are made to be used “as it is” or slightly diluted with a particular carrier. Aerosols These formulations include a solvent and low concentrations of one or more active constituents. There are two types of aerosols: (1) readyto-use (RTU) aerosol, a small pressurized gas that pushes the pesticide, and (2) smoke or fog generator, usually applied using a spraying machine to distribute the fine pesticide droplets.

Common abbreviations

Examples

EC

Cypermethrin EC, chlorpyriphos EC, permethrin EC

F

Carbaryl AF, chlorothalonil 500 ZN

GL

Indoxacarb, 0.6%

M

Gamma-cyhalothrin

ULV

Methamidophos, fenthion

A

Dursban (chlorpyrifos); Baytex 550 spray (fenthion); Insectigas-D (dichlorvos)

(continued)

18

S. T. Abdelkhalek et al.

Table 1.4 (continued) Formulation name Solution

Solid formulations Wettable powder

Soluble powder

Dust

Pellets

Bait

Granules

Impregnated products

Usage The active ingredients (one or more) are completely miscible in a solvent (carrier or diluent). The active ingredient in this formulation is finely grounded and mixed with wetting or bulking agents producing pesticide suspension. The active ingredients are soluble in water without further agitation. The active component is either completely pure (such as silica or borate) or dry and associated with clay or another fine powder (like talc, clay, volcanic ash, and nut hulls). The formulation is relatively similar to granules. However, in PS, each particle has the same weight and shape. The particles’ homogeneity allows them to utilize with high-precision application equipment. It consists of one or more pesticidal active ingredients mixed into an attractive food substrate that fluctuates depending on the target pest species. The active ingredients are formed at low concentrations (less than 1–15%) and coated by granules or impeded in small carrier particles like clay or talc. A pesticide tag on some impregnated products containing pesticides, such as pet collars and “no-pest” strips, livestock ear tags, and adhesive tapes. These pesticides gradually evaporate,

Common abbreviations SN

Examples Roundup Pro (glyphosate), liquidator tornado extra (glyphosate), Premise SC

WP or W

Streptomycin sesquisulfate, Lindane, Demon WP

SP

Acephate

D

Deltamethrin D (DeltaDust), Sevin D, malathion D

P or PS

Pramitol 5PS, Orthene PCO (acephate 97.4%).

B

Rodenthor, Coax® and diflubenzuron, Wheast®, Niban

G or GR

DeltaGard G (deltamethrin), Permetrol (5% permethrin), Bifen LP G (bifenthrin 0.2%).

-–

Chlorpyrifos-ethyl + olive oil and acetone (carrier oil), pirimiphos-methyl + acetone alone (carrier)

(continued)

Agrochemicals: Safety Evaluation and Characterization for Humans. . .

1

19

Table 1.4 (continued) Formulation name

Dry flowable or water-dispersible granules

Common abbreviations

Usage and the fumes they release in the area control the targeted pests. Like WP formulations, however, the powder particles (clay) in formulations are compressed into tiny spherical particles.

Gaseous formulations Fumigants Pesticides release hazardous gases or vapors to plants, animals, and microbes. The active ingredients are prepared, packed, and released as gases. Packaging formulations Water-soluble A specific quantity of WP, packets/powder SP, or gel containing the active ingredient is packaged in a particular film.

Examples

DF or WDG

Captan 83WG, isoproturon 75WG, triazophos 20WG

–

Phosphine, chloropicrin, 1,3-dichloropropene

WSP

Imidacloprid 75 WSB, Talaris 70 WSB

200 180

160 140 Kg/ha

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 200020102019

200020102019

200020102019

200020102019

200020102019

Africa

Americas

Asia

Europe

World

Nitrogen, as N

Phosphorus, as P2O5

Potassium, as K2O

Fig. 1.6 The amounts of inorganic fertilizers per cropland by region (FAOSTAT 2019)

1.2.2.1.2

Classification According to Composition

(a) Straight fertilizers: They include one of the major nutrients, such as nitrogenous, phosphorous, and potassium fertilizers. (b) Compound fertilizers: They have legal doses of two or more primary nutrients chemically produced through a mixture of both approaches.

20

S. T. Abdelkhalek et al.

(c) Complex fertilizers: They are manufactured through chemical reactions, liquid solutions, or solid-state/particle agglomeration of the primary nutrients (Delgado et al. 2016). Complex and compound fertilizers (binary NP, PK, NK fertilizers, and ternary NPK fertilizers) allow for the joint influence of multiple nutrients, eliminating the need for farmers to create their fertilizer combinations, which can be ineffective and inadequate for a uniform distribution and pose compatibility issues between mixed products. Therefore, the selection of compound or complex fertilizers must depend on the crop’s relative need for N, P, and K and the cost/nutrient unit administered (Yin et al. 2019).

1.2.2.1.3

Classification According to Formulation State

Three main formulations that determine the suitable and adequate conditions of fertilizer application are presented in Table 1.5.

1.3

Safety Evaluation of Agrochemicals

The vast majority of agrochemicals, particularly pesticides, are regarded as pollutants that can have adverse biological consequences on the ecosystem. Intentionally introduced to the ecosystem to manage pests and plant diseases, they have several detrimental effects that cannot be neglected. This necessitated a comprehensive evaluation of their potential dangers to the ecological system and other inhabitants (Majumder et al. 2021). Therefore, an accurate estimation of the maximum applicable amount of these agrochemicals must be made. The environmental risk assessment of agrochemicals requires multiple sets of evidence, including bioassay with Table 1.5 Classification of fertilizers according to their physical state formulations (modified after Delgado et al. 2016) Fertilizer state 1. Solidstate fertilizers

2. Liquid fertilizers

3. Gaseous fertilizers

Definition Many types of this group depend on the physical shape, particle sizes, solubility, and application form, like powder (non-granular), crystalline, granules, pelletized, and micro granules. They are concentrated liquid fertilizers (suspensions or solutions). Therefore, they can be diluted according to their application concentration. They are directly released on the plant or injected into the soil.

Example Ammonium nitrate, urea, superphosphates, and muriate of potash

Anhydrous ammonia, solutions of ammonium nitrate or urea, and concentrated ammonia solutions CO2 gas fertilizer and anhydrous ammonia

1

Agrochemicals: Safety Evaluation and Characterization for Humans. . .

21

different standard species and biomarkers (Sánchez-Bayo and Tennekes 2015). There are different types of assessments of pesticides, as follows:

1.3.1

Toxicity Assessment

Toxicity assessment is a crucial component of risk assessment. This assessment is regarded as a strategy for examining a particular chemical potential for causing damage or injury and identifying the level and type of such injury. In addition, recognizing the mode of action of the toxin helps in understanding its harmful consequences (Escher et al. 2011). Pesticides are one of the most widely employed agrochemicals in the agricultural sector; they pose significant risks to the ecosystem and humans. Thus, pesticides should be subjected to extensive research before introducing into the environment. According to the databases provided by the WHO, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Pesticide Action Network, the toxicity of 276 legally available synthetic chemical compounds in Europe revealed that 42.10% of the fungicides, 36.36% of the insecticides, and 28.73% of the herbicides had at least one adverse effect (Karabelas et al. 2009). In human health risk assessments, the EPA applied some toxicity tests for pesticide registration, including acute toxicity, sub-chronic toxicity, chronic toxicity assays, reproductive and developmental tests, mutagenicity testing, and hormone disruption testing (EPA 2017). Acute toxicity tests can provide initial information about the toxic nature of a chemical compound that does not contain other toxicological information. The acute toxicity test detected the adverse effects that occurred shortly after a single chemical dosage was administered. Standard toxicity tests, performed on different animals and plants, were mainly constructed to calculate acute lethal potential (OECD 1984): either the mean lethal concentration (LC50) or the mean lethal dose (LD50). The LD50 test was used to determine the amount or dose of a pesticide that would kill 50% of the tested animals after oral or dermal exposure, while the LC50 test was used to determine the pesticide concentration that would kill 50% of the experimental animals after exposure for 4 h via inhalation or water intake (Damalas and Eleftherohorinos 2011). For humans, the LD50 values are unknown; alternatively, the LD50 values for animals can be utilized to examine the lethal amounts for humans. Additionally, the lower the percentage of the LD50 value, the more hazardous the chemical. However, for terrestrial organisms, acute toxicity is typically estimated for single doses at 24 h, while in marine animals, it can be proven after a fixed exposure time ranging from 24 or 48 h for small organisms to 96 h for fish and larger crustaceans (Sánchez-Bayo and Tennekes 2015). Table 1.6 comparatively illustrates the classification of pesticides according to the EPA and WHO identifications. The toxic effect of pesticides may depend on the dose level or concentration and duration of exposure and require toxicity testing to contain information on the duration of exposure in addition to concentrations or dose values (Baas et al. 2010)

Signal words Danger

Warning

Caution

Caution (optional)

Class I

II

III

IV

US EPA Acute toxicity to rat

2000–20,000

>20,000

>5000

200–2000

Dermal (LD50 mg/kg)