Processing math: 100%
Research article Special Issues

Ranking system for national regulatory jurisdictions based on pesticide standard values in major exposures

  • To control the risk of human exposure to pesticides, about 50 nations have promulgated pesticide soil regulatory guidance values (RGVs), and 104 nations have provided pesticide drinking water maximum concentration levels (MCLs). In addition, 90 nations have regulated pesticide agricultural commodity maximum residue limits (MRLs). Pesticide standard values (PSVs) for one single pesticide varied in a range of six, seven, or even eight orders of magnitude. Some PSVs are too large to prevent the impact of pesticides on human health. Many nations have not provided PSVs for some commonly used pesticides until now. This research has introduced several completeness values and numerical values methods to evaluate the national jurisdiction’s performance on PSVs on a nation base. The national jurisdiction ranking system developed by these methods will be beneficial to the environmental regulation makers in the management of PSVs. Results also indicate that European countries perform better in the regulation of pesticide soil RGVs, drinking water MCLs, and agricultural commodity MRLs.

    Citation: Zijian Li, Aaron A. Jennings. Ranking system for national regulatory jurisdictions based on pesticide standard values in major exposures[J]. AIMS Environmental Science, 2017, 4(4): 540-561. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2017.4.540

    Related Papers:

    [1] Laksanee Boonkhao, Satayu Phonkaew, Suphaphat Kwonpongsagoon, Pongsak Rattanachaikunsopon . Carbofuran residues in soil and consumption risks among farmers growing vegetables in Ubon Ratchathani Province, Thailand. AIMS Environmental Science, 2022, 9(5): 593-602. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2022035
    [2] Muhammad Arinal Surgama Yusuf, Anwar Mallongi, Anwar Daud, Agus Bintara Birawida, Sukri Palutturi, Lalu Muhammad Saleh, Setiawan Kasim . Environmental health risk analysis from detergent contamination in well water. AIMS Environmental Science, 2025, 12(2): 256-275. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2025013
    [3] Thanawat Jumepaeng, Nirand Pongpun . Development of sample preparation method for organochlorine pesticides analysis in soil samples. AIMS Environmental Science, 2020, 7(5): 380-386. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2020025
    [4] Jirapa Wongsa, Ramita Liamchang, Neti Ngearnpat, Kritchaya Issakul . Cypermethrin insecticide residue, water quality and phytoplankton diversity in the lychee plantation catchment area. AIMS Environmental Science, 2023, 10(5): 609-627. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2023034
    [5] Francesco Teodori . Health physics calculation framework for environmental impact assessment of radiological contamination. AIMS Environmental Science, 2021, 8(4): 403-420. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2021026
    [6] Thierry Woignier, Florence Clostre, Philippe Cattan, Magalie Lesueur-Jannoyer . Pollution of soils and ecosystems by a permanent toxic organochlorine pesticide: chlordecone—numerical simulation of allophane nanoclay microstructure and calculation of its transport properties. AIMS Environmental Science, 2015, 2(3): 494-510. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2015.3.494
    [7] Parthiban Rajasekaran, Harikishan Kannan, Smruti Das, Mikaeel Young, Swadeshmukul Santra . Comparative analysis of copper and zinc based agrichemical biocide products: materials characteristics, phytotoxicity and in vitro antimicrobial efficacy. AIMS Environmental Science, 2016, 3(3): 439-455. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2016.3.439
    [8] Jerry R. Miller . Potential ecological impacts of trace metals on aquatic biota within the Upper Little Tennessee River Basin, North Carolina. AIMS Environmental Science, 2016, 3(3): 305-325. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2016.3.305
    [9] M.A. Rahim, M.G. Mostafa . Impact of sugar mills effluent on environment around mills area. AIMS Environmental Science, 2021, 8(1): 86-99. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2021006
    [10] Hoa T. Trinh, Peter Adriaens, Christian M. Lastoskie . Fate factors and emission flux estimates for emerging contaminants in surface waters. AIMS Environmental Science, 2016, 3(1): 21-44. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2016.1.21
  • To control the risk of human exposure to pesticides, about 50 nations have promulgated pesticide soil regulatory guidance values (RGVs), and 104 nations have provided pesticide drinking water maximum concentration levels (MCLs). In addition, 90 nations have regulated pesticide agricultural commodity maximum residue limits (MRLs). Pesticide standard values (PSVs) for one single pesticide varied in a range of six, seven, or even eight orders of magnitude. Some PSVs are too large to prevent the impact of pesticides on human health. Many nations have not provided PSVs for some commonly used pesticides until now. This research has introduced several completeness values and numerical values methods to evaluate the national jurisdiction’s performance on PSVs on a nation base. The national jurisdiction ranking system developed by these methods will be beneficial to the environmental regulation makers in the management of PSVs. Results also indicate that European countries perform better in the regulation of pesticide soil RGVs, drinking water MCLs, and agricultural commodity MRLs.


    1. Introduction

    Pesticides are widely applied for pest control around the world and largely used in agricultural, industrial, commercial, home, and garden fields. Like other chemical contaminants, pesticides will be transported to major environmental sinks after application, which includes air, biomass (crops, plants, animals, and other living organisms), soil, and water. The pervasive presence of pesticides in the environment makes pesticides easy to get into the human body by ingestion of pesticide contaminated water, food, and soil, inhalation of pesticides contaminated air and soil dust, and dermal contact with food, water, air, and soil contaminated by pesticides. To control the risk of human exposure to pesticides, worldwide jurisdictions are taking action to regulate PSVs. The PSV in this research means either soil RGV, drinking water MCL, or agricultural commodity MRL. Generally, PSVs should be regulated in all possible exposures and derived based on certain human health risk models to effectively protect human health. Several previous studies[1,2] have examined the variability of drinking water MCLs. Some studies [3,4] were conducted on pesticide food standard analysis. Previous studies indicate that worldwide jurisdictions did not make an agreement on PSVs in residential soil [5,6,7,8,9] and drinking water [10]. Although some nations share same values in regulating pesticide agricultural commodity MRLs, there are still many MRLs too large to effectively protect human health [10]. Most nations did not regulate the pesticide standards in the residential air, probably because when some organochlorine and organophosphate pesticides evaporate into the atmosphere, their half-lives are usually very short, and however, there is still little information about regulating volatile and semi-volatile pesticides standards in the air. Therefore, promulgating PSVs is still a worldwide problem and complex work because for hundreds of currently used pesticides, many of them have over 100,200, or even 300 different standard values in different nations worldwide. Some nations regulated pesticide soil RGVs very conservatively while providing some extremely large pesticide drinking water MCLs as a comparison with other nations. Some nations provided full information soil RGV set but did not regulate pesticide agricultural commodity MRLs. It is necessary to evaluate worldwide jurisdictions performance regarding their PSVs to help jurisdiction makers know how their PSVs perform as a comparison of other jurisdictions. In this research, pesticide national jurisdictions were ranked based on their PSVs performance. Because only U.S. regulated pesticide standards in the air, PSVs analysis for air was omitted in the ranking system. The objective of this study is to rank and compare the worldwide pesticide regulatory jurisdictions by completeness and numerical analysis of the PSVs. Hopefully, the results will benefit worldwide environmental policy makers to review and formulate the PSVs.


    2. Materials


    2.1. Residential Soil RGVs from National Jurisdictions

    A total of 174 worldwide jurisdictions from 50 nations have provided at least 19 421 pesticide RGVs. To build a ranking system for national jurisdictions, a total of 57 national soil pesticide jurisdictions out of 174 were selected in this study (Table 1). The website addresses and dates accessed of those references in Table 1 were listed in the supplementary materials S1, and when websites are out of date or invalid, some keywords of the document titles could be used to conduct the internet search. Most of worldwide national jurisdictions were published as foreign languages and a total of 29 foreign languages were translated into English. USEPA has regulated the most pesticide soil RGVs, about 516 in total. Turkey and one national jurisdiction from U.K. only regulated one pesticide. Belarus (139), Moldova (166), and Uzbekistan (104) regulated the numbers of RGVs, which are similar to Russia (146) probably because they adopted some values from former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).

    Table 1. National jurisdictions for pesticides residential soil RGVs.
    Jurisdictions No. of RGVs References for pesticide RGVs Language
    Principality of Andorra 14 Andorra Official Gazette (2010) Catalan
    Republic of Armenia 286 Armenia Minister of Health (2011) Armenian
    Commonwealth of Australia 48 Australia National Environmental Protection Council (ANEPC) (2013) English
    Commonwealth of the Bahamas 123 Bahamas Ministry of Works and Transport (2008) English
    Republic of Belarus 139 Belarus Ministry of Health (2004) Belarusian
    Federative Republic of Brazil 8 Brazil Ministry of the Environment (2009) Portuguese
    Republic of Bulgaria 64 Bulgaria Ministry of Environment and Water (2001,2008) English and Bulgarian
    Canada 4 Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) (2014) English
    People's Republic of China 20 People's Republic of China (PRC) (1995), and PRC Ministry of Environmental Protection (2006) Chinese
    Republic of Costa Rica 8 Costa Rica President of the Republic, Minister of Health, Minister of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications, and Minister of Agriculture and Livestock (2010) Spanish
    (Croatia) Agricultural Univ. of Zagreb 15 Agriculture University of Zagreb (2008) Croatian
    Czech Republic 11 Czech Republic Ministry of Environment (1994), Carlon (2007) English
    Kingdom of Denmark 9 Danish Environmental Protection Agency (2002,2010) English and Danish
    Republic of Ecuador 27 Ecuador Ministry of Environment (2002) Spanish
    Republic of Estonia 12 Estonia Ministry of the Environment (2004) Estonian
    Republic of Finland 12 Finland Ministry of the Environment (2007) Finish
    French Republic 18 Carlon (2007) English
    Georgia 231 Georgia Minister of Health, Labor and Social Affairs (2001), and Georgia Ministry of Environment and Minister of Natural Resources (2006) Georgian
    Federal Republic of Germany 8 German Federal Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (1999). German
    Hungary 68 Hungary Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Agriculture, and Ministry of Transport (2000) Hungarian
    Republic of Italy 13 President of the Republic of Italy (2006) Italian
    Republic of Latvia 17 Latvia Cabinet of Ministers (2005) Latvian
    Republic of Lithuania 24 Lithuania Minister of Environment (2008) Lithuanian
    Malaysia 194 Malaysia Dept. of Environment (2009) English
    Republic of Moldova 166 Moldova Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources (2004) Romanian
    Montenegro 9 Official Gazette of Montenegro (1997) Croatian
    Kingdom of the Netherlands 61 Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and Environment (2001,2006,2009) English and Dutch
    New Zealand 344 New Zealand Ministry of the Environment (1997,2006,2011,2012,2013) English
    Kingdom of Norway 3 Norwegian Pollution Control Authority (1999) English
    Republic of Panama 20 Panama Ministry of Economy and Finance (2009) Spanish
    Republic of Peru 4 Peru Ministry of Environment (2013) Spanish
    Republic of Poland 14 Poland Minister of the Environment (2002) Polish
    Republic of Portugal 15 Portuguese Environment Agency (2012), and Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (1997) Portuguese and English
    State of Qatar 4 Qatar Ministry of Environment (2013), CCME (2007) Arabic and English
    Romania 56 Romanian Ministry of Water, Forests, and Environmental Protection (1997) Romanian
    Russian Federation 146 Russian Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (1993), Russian State Construction Code (1997) Russian
    Republic of Serbia 56 Serbia Agency for Environmental Protection (2010) Serbian
    Republic of Singapore 46 Singapore National Environmental Agency (2010) English
    Slovak Republic 5 Slovakia Ministry of Agriculture (2004) Slovak
    Republic of Slovenia 45 Slovenia Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning (1996) Slovenian
    Republic of South Africa 10 South Africa Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs (2008) English
    Kingdom of Spain 14 Office of the President of the Government of Spain (OPGS) (2005) Spanish
    United Republic of Tanzania 17 Tanzania National Environmental Management Council (2007) English
    Kingdom of Thailand 9 Thailand Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (2004) English
    Republic of Turkey 1 Turkey Ministry of Environment and Forestry (2001) Turkish
    Ukraine 286 Ukraine Ministry of Health (2001) Ukrainian
    (United Kingdom) Anglian Water Services, Ltd. 1 Anglian Water Services Ltd. (2010) English
    (United Kingdom) White, Young, Green Environmental, Ltd. 2 White Young Green Environmental Ltd. (2008) English
    (United Kingdom) Environmental Industries Commission 36 Environmental Industries Commission, The Association of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Specialists, and Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments (2010) English
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 516 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2013) English
    U.S. Army 259 U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (2013) English
    (U.S.) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 39 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Response and Restoration (2008) English
    (U.S.) National Aeronautics and Space Administration 20 Boeing Company, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and Dept. of Energy (2010) English
    (U.S.) Department of Energy 20 Boeing Company, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and Dept. of Energy (2010) English
    (U.S.) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 26 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (2014) English
    Republic of Uzbekistan 104 Head State Health Officer of the Republic of Uzbekistan (2005) Russian
    Socialist Republic of Vietnam 60 Republic of Vietnam (1995,2008) Vietnamese
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    2.2. Drinking Water MCLs from National Jurisdictions

    A total of 5474 pesticides drinking water MCLs from 104 nations were identified (Table 2). The website addresses and dates accessed of those references in Table 2 were listed in the supplementary materials S2. Thirty-four foreign languages for international documents were translated into English. Australia provided 152 MCLs which is the largest set among those national jurisdictions. Some nations such as Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, and Fiji got 36 MCLs because they adopted the WHO standards. The European Union (EU) and several nations promulgated MCLs for distinct classes of pesticides but the total number of MCLs is unknown because the members of these classes are not specified individually.

    Table 2. National jurisdictions for pesticides drinking water MCLs.
    Jurisdictions No. of MCLs References of pesticide MCLs Language
    Republic of Albania 36 Albania Institute for European Environmental Policy (2007) Albanian
    Principality of Andorra 25 Andorra Official Gazette (1999) Catalan
    Antigua and Barbuda 36 Environmental Solutions Antigua Limited (2008) English
    Argentine Republic 49 Argentine Official Gazette (1993) Spanish
    Commonwealth of Australia 152 National Health and Medical Research Council (2013) English
    Republic of Austria UNK* Austria Dept. of Health (2013) German
    Commonwealth of the Bahamas 36 The Bahamas Water and Sewerage Corporation (1999) English
    People's Republic of Bangladesh 2 Amio Water Treatment Limited (2010) English
    Republic of Belarus 16 Belarus Ministry of Health (2013) Russian
    Kingdom of Belgium Brussels-Capital Region Government (2014) English
    Belize 36 Belize Agricultural Health Authority (2003) English
    Kingdom of Bhutan 36 Codex Alimentarius (2001) English
    Plurinational State of Bolivia UNK* Bolivia Ministry of Public Works and Services Vice of Basic Services (2004) Spanish
    Republic of Botswana UNK* Water Utilities Corporation (2000) English
    Federative Republic of Brazil 26 Brazil Ministry of Health (2004) Portuguese
    Republic of Bulgaria UNK* Bulgaria Ministry of Health (2001) Bulgarian
    Kingdom of Cambodia 19 Cambodia Ministry of Industry Mines and Energy (2004) English
    Canada 25 Health Canada (2012) English
    Republic of Chile 8 Chile Ministry of Public Works (2005) Spanish
    People's Republic of China 17 China Dept. of Health (2007) Chinese
    Republic of Colombia 16 Colombian Institute for Technical Standards and Certification (1994) Spanish
    Republic of Costa Rica 33 Costa Rica Minister of Finance (2005) Spanish
    Republic of Croatia UNK* Croatia Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (2007) Croatian
    Republic of Cuba 16 Cuba Government (1997) Spanish
    Republic of Cyprus UNK* Cyprus Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment (1999) English
    Czech Republic UNK* European Commission (1998) Czech
    Kingdom of Denmark UNK* Nature Agency of Denmark (2014) Danish
    Dominican Republic UNK* Dominican Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance (2005) Spanish
    Republic of Ecuador 19 Ecuadorian Institute of Standards (2011) Spanish
    Arab Republic of Egypt 33 World Health Organization Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean (2006) English
    Republic of Estonia UNK* Estonia Minister of Social Affairs (2013) Estonian
    Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia 10 World Health Organization (2010) English
    Republic of Fiji 36 Secretariat of the Pacific Community (2005) English
    Republic of Finland UNK* Finland Minister of Social Affairs and Health (2001) Finish
    French Republic UNK* France Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development And Energy (1998) French
    Republic of the Gambia UNK* Gambia Environmental Quality Standards Board (1999) English
    Georgia UNK* Georgia Ministry of Justice (2007) Georgian
    Federal Republic of Germany UNK* Germany Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (2001) German
    Hellenic Republic UNK* Greece Central Public Health Laboratory (1998) Greek
    Republic of Guatemala 55 Guatemala Government (1999) Spanish
    Republic of Honduras 33 Honduras Dept. of Health (1995) Spanish
    Republic of Hungary UNK* Hungary National Public Health and Medical Officer Service (2001) Hungarian
    Republic of Indonesia 17 Indonesia Government (1990) Indonesian
    Republic of Iraq 3 Iraq Central Agency for Meteorology and Quality Control (2001) Arabic and English
    Ireland UNK* Ireland EPA (2007) English
    State of Israel 7 Israel Ministry of Health (2000) Hebrew
    Republic of Italy 59 Navy Medicine (2012) English
    Japan 36 Japan Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (2001) English and Japanese
    Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 11 The Jordanian Institute of Standards and Metrology (2001) English
    Republic of Kazakhstan 3 Kazakhstan Government (2001) Russian
    Republic of Kiribati 36 Secretariat of the Pacific Community (2005) English
    Republic of Korea 5 Korea Ministry of Environment (2011) English
    State of Kuwait 36 World Health Organization Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean (2006) English
    Republic of Latvia UNK* Latvia Ministry of Health (2004) Latvian
    Lebanese Republic 4 World Health Organization Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean (2006) English
    Principality of Liechtenstein UNK* Liechtenstein Drinking Water Inspectorate (1999) English
    Republic of Lithuania UNK* Lithuania Ministry of Health (2003) Lithuanian
    Grand Duchy of Luxembourg UNK* Luxembourg Collection of Legislation (2002) French
    Malaysia 23 Malaysia Ministry of Health (2010) English
    Republic of Malta UNK* Malta Government (2009) Maltese
    Republic of Mauritius 10 Mauritius Government Gazette (1996) English
    United Mexican States 18 Government of Mexico (1994) Spanish
    Mongolia 5 Government of Mongolia (2005) Mongolian
    Kingdom of Morocco 1 World Health Organization Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean (2006) English
    Republic of Nauru 36 Secretariat of the Pacific Community (2005) English
    Kingdom of the Netherlands UNK* Government of Netherlands (2014) Dutch
    New Zealand 55 New Zealand Ministry of Health (2008) English
    Republic of Nicaragua 35 Nicaragua Ministry of Health (1994) Spanish
    Federal Republic of Nigeria UNK* Standards Organization of Nigeria (2007) English
    Kingdom of Norway UNK* Norway Ministry of Health and Care Services (2001) Norwegian
    Islamic Republic of Pakistan 19 Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority (Undated) English
    Republic of Palau 6 Environmental Quality Protection Board (Undated) English
    Republic of Peru 45 Peru Ministry of Health (2011) Spanish
    Republic of the Philippines 17 Philippines Dept. of Health (2007) English
    Republic of Poland UNK* Poland Ministry of Health (2007) Polish
    Portuguese Republic UNK* Portugal Ministry of Environment, Planning and Regional Development (2007) Portuguese
    State of Qatar 33 The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Standardization (2012) Arabic and English
    Russian Federation 106 Russian Ministry of Health (1998,1999,2002,2007) Russian
    Republic of Rwanda 19 Rwanda Standards Board (2013) English
    Saint Lucia 40 Caricom Regional Organization for Standards and Quality (undated) English
    Republic of Serbia 28 Serbia Official Gazette (1999) English
    Republic of Singapore 39 Government of Singapore (2008) English
    Slovak Republic UNK* Council Regulation Government of the Slovak Republic (2010) Slovak
    Republic of Slovenia UNK* Slovenia Ministry of Health (2004) Slovenian
    Republic of South Africa 1 South Africa Dept. of Water and Sanitation (2005) English
    Kingdom of Spain UNK* Government of Spain (2003) Spanish
    Republic of the Sudan 36 World Health Organization Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean (2006) English
    Kingdom of Sweden UNK* Sweden Nutrition and Food Agency (2001) Swedish
    Swiss Confederation UNK* Switzerland Dept. of Consumer and Veterinary (2014) French
    Syrian Arab Republic 12 World Health Organization Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean (2006) English
    United Republic of Tanzania 1 Tanzania Bureau of Standards (2009) English
    Kingdom of Thailand 1 Thailand Ministry of Health (2001) Thai
    Kingdom of Tonga 36 Secretariat of the Pacific Community (2005) English
    Republic of Tunisia 1 Global Water and Wastewater Quality Regulations (2012) English
    Tuvalu 36 Secretariat of the Pacific Community (2005) English
    Republic of Uganda 34 Uganda Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry (2008) English
    Ukraine UNK* Ukraine Water Health (Undated) Russian
    United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland UNK* United Kingdom Drinking Water Inspectorate (2000) English
    United States of America 24 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2009) English
    Eastern Republic of Uruguay 41 Uruguay Administration of Sanitary Works (2006) Spanish
    Republic of Uzbekistan 2 Uzbekistan Ministry of Health (2006) Russian
    Republic of Vanuatu 36 Secretariat of the Pacific Community (2005) English
    Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 16 Venezuela Ministry of Health And Welfare (1998) Spanish
    Socialist Republic of Viet Nam 36 Viet Nam Ministry of Health (2002) Vietnamese
    * UNK—The European Union and several nations promulgate MCLs for distinct classes of pesticides but since the members of these classes are not specified individually, the total number of MCLs is unknown.
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    2.3. Agricultural Commodity MRLs from National Jurisdictions

    The Global MRL Database [11] collected agricultural commodity pesticide MRLs from nearly 90 worldwide jurisdictions (Table 3). Each nation only got one national jurisdiction on MRLs because of the international trade need. In this research, the commonly consumed agricultural commodities were selected in the analysis based on human diet statistical data.

    Table 3. National jurisdictions for pesticides agricultural MRLs.
    Worldwide jurisdictions
    United States Codex (WHO) European Union Albania Algeria
    Angola Antigua/Barbuda Argentina Australia Bahamas
    Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belgium Bermuda
    Brazil Brunei Cambodia Canada Cayman Islands
    Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Cuba
    Customs Union Denmark Dominica Ecuador Egypt
    El Salvador Finland France French Polynesia West Indies
    Germany Greece Guatemala Gulf Cooperation Haiti
    Honduras Hong Kong Iceland India Indonesia
    Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan
    Jordan Kenya Korea Kuwait Lebanon
    Malaysia Mexico Morocco Netherlands Antilles
    New Zealand Nicaragua Norway Oman Pakistan
    Panama Peru Philippines Poland Portugal
    Qatar Russia Saudi Arabia Singapore South Africa
    Spain Sri Lanka St. Lucia Sweden Switzerland
    Taiwan Thailand Trinidad/Tobago Tunisia Turkey
    UAE United Kingdom Venezuela Vietnam
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    3. Methods


    3.1. Selected Pesticides for Ranking System

    There are hundreds of pesticides regulated in the soil, drinking water, and agricultural commodities. In this research, 25 important pesticides were selected for the ranking system. The 25 pesticides were selected due to current and historical largely usage. Because large amounts of these pesticides were applied and most of them were transported to the soil, air, water, and biomass, the selected pesticides become important factors to build the ranking system.


    3.2. Pesticide Completeness Score Values

    Since little information was found about the pesticide air standards, national jurisdictions ranking systems were developed only for soil, drinking water, and agricultural commodity exposures. Pesticide completeness score value was introduced to examine the degree to which regulated standard values by national jurisdictions are enough for those selected pesticides in major exposure. The completeness score was computed based on the PSVs number of 25 selected pesticides for soil (Cs), drinking water (Cw), and food (Cf). Each completeness score has the maximum value of 25 and completeness score for air was omitted due to lack of information. If a nation got larger completeness score value that country regulated more PSVs for those 25 selected pesticides.

    Cs=25i=1xi;xi=(1,ifthereisapesticidesoilRGV;0,ifnot) (1)
    Cw=25i=1xi;xi=(1,ifthereisapesticidedrinkingwaterMCL;0,ifnot) (2)
    Cf=25j=1112(12i=1xij);xi=(1,ifthereisapesticidefoodMRL;0,ifnot) (3)

    3.3. Pesticide Numerical Standard Score Value

    Based on the PSVs magnitude three methods were developed for this national jurisdictions ranking system. These three methods were characterized as Method 1, 2 and 3. The ranking score values yielded from these methods were characterized as S1, S2 and S3. Each numerical standard score value has the maximum value of 25.

    Method 1 was based on the log-normal random distributions of PSVs. S1 score was developed by summing the probabilities of a random PSV being greater than the jurisdiction's PSV as follows. If a nation has larger S1, it means this country provided a relatively conservative PSV set.

    Method 1:

    S1=25i=1{1.0Normdist[PSVLiμLiσLi]} (4)

    The Normdist is the function that calculate the probability of a random Log10 (PSV) being less than that of a Log10 (PSVi).

    Method 2 quantified the relative location of the PSV based on the interpolation between the extreme distribution PSVs. If a nation has larger S2, it means this nation provided a relatively conservative PSV set.

    Method 2:

    S2=25i=1{1.0log10(PSVi)Mini[log10(PSVi)]Maxi[log10(PSVi)]Mini[log10(PSVi)]} (5)

    Where Mini[log10 (PSVi)] and Maxi[log10 (PSVi)] are the extreme PSVs in the distribution.

    Method 3 was based on the measurement of how close the average PSV is to the central tendency of PSVs distribution. An assumption was made that values about the PSV distribution central tendency fall into a range of credible values around which worldwide consensus may be emerging. S3 score value will be negative if the PSVs from a jurisdiction were below the average value of worldwide PSVs. If a country has a smaller S3, it means this country provided a relatively conservative PSV set.

    Method 3:

    S3=Ni=1{[log10(PSVi)μLiN]} (6)

    Method 1, 2 and 3 were applied to drinking water MCLs and residential soil RGVs. Only method 2 and 3 were used to agricultural commodity MRLs because MRLs distributions were skewed by large data clusters and do not fit the normal random variable model. Method 2 and 3 for agricultural commodity were modified as follows.

    Method 2 (food):

    Sf2=Nj=1Mi=1{1.0log10(MRLij)Minij[log10(MRL)]Maxij[log10(MRL)]Minij[log10(MRL)]} (7)

    Method 3 (food):

    Sf3=Nj=11NMi=1{[log10(MRLij)μLijM]} (8)

    Where M and N are the number of agricultural commodities and pesticides for which a jurisdiction provided the MRLs.


    4. Results


    4.1. Twenty-five Selected Pesticides

    A total of 25 pesticides were selected to build this ranking system based on current and historical largely usage. Current largely used pesticides were selected by the investigation of some worldwide nations which have relatively large populations and high agricultural productivities, such as Australia [12], Brazil [13], Canada [14], China [15], India [16], Philippine [17], Germany [18], Mexico [19], New Zealand [20], South Africa [21], United Kingdom [22] and U.S. [23]. Those pesticides include Glyphosate, Mancozeb, Chlorothalonil, 2, 4-D, Chlorpyriphos, Atrazine, MCPA, Dicamba, Metolachlor, Aldicarb, Malathion, Diazinon, Trifluralin and Diuron. Historical largely used pesticides (the Stockholm Convention Persistent Organic Pollutants) which are banned in most nations include Aldrin, Chlordane, DDT, Dieldrin, Endrin, Heptachlor, Toxaphene, Lindane, Endosulfan, Pentachlorophenol, and Bromomethane. Large amounts of these pesticides applied currently or in the past could result in the ubiquitous presence of these pesticides in soil, water, air and agricultural commodities. So choosing these 25 selected pesticides in this ranking system is a better evaluation of each national jurisdiction.


    4.2. National Jurisdictions Rank by Completeness Score


    4.2.1. Soil Completeness Score Value Cs

    Figure 1 shows the pesticide soil Cs geographic distribution. The darker color the country has a higher Cs, which means this country regulated more selected pesticides in soil. A total of 107 Cs values from 52 nations and territories provided soil RGVs for at least one of the 25 selected pesticides. The Czech Republic, New Zealand, Slovakia and the U.S. provided soil RGVs for all of these selected pesticides. Malaysia provided RGVs for 24 of the pesticides. Turkey and U.K. only provided RGVs for one of these pesticides. Some nations got more than one jurisdiction on pesticide soil RGVs, and only the highest Cs value for that nation will be illustrated in Figure 1. The arithmetic mean and median of Cs are 6.63 and 5.00 respectively, which suggests that most jurisdictions lack pesticide soil RGVs for 25 selected pesticides.

    Figure 1. Geographic distribution of pesticide soil Cs values.

    4.2.2. Drinking Water Completeness Score Value Cw

    Figure 2 shows the pesticide drinking water Cw geographic distribution. The darker color the country has a higher Cw, which means this country regulated more selected pesticides in drinking water. A total of 108 Cw from 100 nations and territories provided drinking water MCLs for at least one of the 25 selected pesticides. A total of 37 jurisdictions which adopted EU standards provided drinking water MCLs for all of these selected pesticides. Australia regulated 22 and Iraq provided 21 of these selected pesticides. Turkey and U.K. only provided MCLs for one of these pesticides. Some nations got more than one jurisdiction on pesticide drinking water MCLs, and only the highest Cw value for that nation will be illustrated in Figure 2. The arithmetic mean and median of Cw are 14.80 and 13.00 respectively, which suggests that most jurisdictions lack pesticide drinking water MCLs for 25 selected pesticides.

    Figure 2. Geographic distribution of pesticide drinking water Cw values.

    4.2.3. Agricultural Commodity Completeness Score Value Cf

    Figure 3 shows the pesticide agricultural commodity Cf geographic distribution. The darker color the country has a higher Cf, which means this country regulated more selected pesticides in agricultural commodities. A total of 90 Cf from 100 nations and territories provided agricultural commodity MRLs for at least one of the 25 selected pesticides. Dominican Republic and Switzerland got the highest Cf value which is 7.5. All of the nations did not regulate the historical largely used pesticides in agricultural commodity probably because they got banned in most nations. However, since those pesticides were environmental persistent and ubiquitous presence it is necessary for nations to provide MRLs for these pesticides in order to protect human health. The arithmetic mean and median of Cf are 5.06 and 4.83 respectively, which suggests that most jurisdictions lack pesticide agricultural commodity MRLs for these 25 selected pesticides.

    Figure 3. Geographic distribution of pesticide agricultural commodity Cf values.

    4.3. National Jurisdictions Rank by Numerical Standard Score Values


    4.3.1. Soil Pesticide Score Values

    Soil pesticide ranking score S1 calculated by method 1 range from 0.1 to 22.68. The Czech Republic got 22.68 score value and ranked top among those 108 national drinking water jurisdiction score values. The U.S. has eight different S1 values and the USEPA (HQ = 0.1) got the highest S1 among those U.S. jurisdictions which is 10.28. The soil ranking score S2 developed by method 2 range from 0.13 to 21.40. Czech Republic ranks top among those soil national jurisdictions and got 21.40 score value. Again USEPA (HQ = 0.1) ranks top among eight U.S. S2 values with 7.91 score value. For soil ranking score S3 computed by method 3, the values range from −3.76 to 2.69. The Singapore (Target Value) score value is −3.76 which is the lowest, indicating that soil RGVs from Singapore are well below the average. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) got −1.88 score value which is the lowest among U.S. jurisdictions. Because soil S3 score values were based on the measurement of how close the average PSV is to the central tendency of PSVs distribution. The limitation of S3 is that it did not take account the total number of RGVs regulated for these selected pesticides. The soil RGVs for the 25 selected pesticides were listed in the supplementary material S3.

    Figure 4 illustrates soil ranking score S1, S2 and S3 values plotted as cumulative distribution function (CDF) and compared with the CDF of a normal random variable with identical μ and σ statistics. Pearson correlation coefficients of these score values (Table 4) indicates S1, S2 and S3 values are well dispersed over the value span. Although New Zealand got the minimum S1, S2 values, and the maximum S3 values, it has more than one jurisdictions that regulated soil RGVs for these selected pesticides. For example, New Zealand (2006) jurisdiction got 5.00 S1 value which is above the average. The mean and median of these score values indicate that many jurisdictions did not provide enough RGVs for these selected pesticides or the RGVs are relatively high.

    Figure 4. Pesticide soil ranking score values plotted as cumulative distribution function and compared with a normal cumulative distribution function.
    Table 4. Statistic summary of pesticide soil ranking score values.
    Mean Median Max, nation Min, nation Pearson correlation coefficient
    Soil S1 3.22 2.08 22.68, Czech Republic 0.10, New Zealand 0.950
    Soil S2 2.74 1.99 21.40, Czech Republic 0.13, New Zealand 0.943
    Soil S3 0.03 −0.07 −3.76, Singapore 2.19, New Zealand 0.993
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    4.3.2. Drinking Water Pesticide Score Values

    Drinking water pesticide ranking score S1 calculated by method 1 range from 0.04 to 19.06. The Gambia got 19.06 score value and ranks top among those 107 national soil jurisdictions. 25 score values were 18.06 and those jurisdictions adopted the EU standards. The U.S. got 2.80 which is below the average. The drinking water pesticide ranking score S2 developed by method 2 range from 0.25 to 23.79. Also, Gambia jurisdiction ranks top among those drinking water national jurisdictions. The 25 score values were 23.46 and came from jurisdictions that adopted EU standards. The U.S. got 2.81 S2 value which is below the average. Drinking water ranking score S3 was computed by method 3 and the values range from −0.97 to 3.21. The Belarus score value is −0.97 which is the lowest, indicating that drinking water MCLs from Belarus are well below the average because S3 score values were based on the measurement of how close the average PSV is to the central tendency of PSVs distribution. The limitation of S3 is that it did not take account of the total number of MCLs regulated for these selected pesticides. The drinking water MCLs for these selected pesticides were listed in the supplementary material S4.

    Figure 5 illustrates drinking water ranking score S1, S2 and S3 values plotted as cumulative distribution function (CDF) and compared with the CDF of a normal random variable with identical μ and σ statistics. Pearson correlation coefficients of these score values (Table 5) indicates S1, S2 and S3 values are well dispersed over the value span. The mean and median of these score values indicate that many jurisdictions did not provide enough MCLs for these selected pesticides or the MCLs are relatively high.

    Figure 5. Pesticide drinking water ranking score values plotted as cumulative distribution function and compared with a normal cumulative distribution function.
    Table 5. Statistic summary of pesticide drinking water ranking score values.
    Mean Median Max, nation Min, nation Pearson correlation coefficient
    Drinking water S1 7.96 4.77 19.06, Gambia 0.04, Georgia 0.907
    Drinking water S2 11.06 8.18 23.79, Gambia 0.25, South Korea 0.930
    Drinking water S3 0.03 −0.07 −0.97, Belarus 3.21, Viet Nam 0.973
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    4.3.3. Agricultural Commodity Pesticide Score Values

    Agricultural commodity pesticide ranking score Sf2 calculated by method 2 range from 0.15 to 11.86. Switzerland got 11.86 Sf2 which is the highest. Fifteen worldwide jurisdictions got 10.76 probably because they adopted the EU standards. Twenty-seven jurisdictions shared the value 5.74 probably applied the WHO standards. The overall Sf2 values are lower than soil and water score values because no jurisdiction regulated historical pesticides MRLs. Agricultural commodity pesticide ranking score Sf3 calculated by method 3 range from −0.57 to 0.53. The Customs Union (Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia) got −0.57 Sf3 which is the lowest because Sf3 score values were based on the measurement of how close the average MRL is to the central tendency of MRLs distribution. The limitation of Sf3 is that it did not take account of the total number of MCLs regulated for these selected pesticides.

    Figure 6 illustrates agricultural commodity ranking score Sf2 and Sf3 values plotted as cumulative distribution function (CDF) and compared with the CDF of a normal random variable with identical μ and σ statistics. Pearson correlation coefficients of these score values (Table 6) indicate Sf2 and Sf3 values are well dispersed over the value span. The mean and median of these score values indicate that many jurisdictions did not provide enough MRLs for these selected pesticides or the MRLs are relatively high.

    Figure 6. Pesticide agricultural commodity ranking score values plotted as cumulative distribution function and compared with a normal cumulative distribution function.
    Table 6. Statistic summary of pesticide agricultural commodity ranking score values.
    Mean Median Max, nation Min, nation Pearson correlation coefficient
    Agricultural commodity Sf2 7.24 6.81 11.86, Switzerland 0.15, St. Lucia 0.982
    Agricultural commodity Sf3 11.06 8.18 0.53, Qatar −0.57, Customs Union 0.978
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    4.4. Summary of the PSV Ranking Score Values

    Figure 7 illustrates the percentage of nations that provided PSVs of selected pesticides for each exposure in each continent. Sixty-seven percent of nations in Europe provided at least one soil RGVs for selected pesticides, which is the highest percentage among the continents. For Africa, only 4% of nations regulated soil RGVs for these pesticides. In addition, 88% of the total European nations provided drinking water MCLs for selected pesticides because most European nations followed the EU standards. Over half of the nations in Asia (57%), North America (57%), and South America (57%) regulated MCLs for these pesticides. For agricultural commodity, 78% of North American nations provided MRLs and over half of the Asian nations (60%) and South American nations (58%) regulated MRLs probably, because most nations in these continents produce and export large amounts of agricultural commodities and have to regulate enough MRLs to satisfy other nations' food standards.

    Figure 7. Percentage of nations that regulated PSVs of selected pesticides for residential soil, drinking water, and agricultural commodity in each continent.

    Table 7 provides the average ranking scores summary for national jurisdictions in each continent. Nations in North America got the highest soil completeness score value 10.25, which means averagely regulatory jurisdictions from North America provided more soil RGVs for these selected 25 pesticides. The reason for it is because U.S. related jurisdictions got higher Cs. European national jurisdictions got the highest drinking water average completeness score which is 19.61 because most European nations apply the EU standards which provided full MCLs for these selected pesticides. For agricultural commodity completeness scores, because no jurisdiction provides historical largely used pesticides for food, the average Cf for national jurisdiction is much lower than Cs and Cw in all the continents. For pesticide ranking scores based on numerical standard values, national jurisdictions from Europe got the highest average drinking water (S1 and S2) and agricultural commodity (Sf2) scores. The average pesticide soil ranking scores of national jurisdictions in all continents are relatively low because many jurisdictions are either lack of RGVs for selected pesticides or provided relatively less conservative standard values.

    Table 7. Average ranking scores summary for national jurisdictions in each continent.
    Continent No. of nations in ranking system Average score by Method 1 Average score by Method 2 Average score by Method 3 Average completeness score value
    Soil Drinking water Food Soil Drinking water Food Soil Drinking water Food Soil Drinking water Food Soil Drinking water Food
    Africa 2 10 7 3.26 7.66 2.65 11.07 7.67 −0.02 0.35 −0.01 8.50 12.50 5.61
    Asia 8 24 25 4.40 3.69 3.79 5.80 6.08 −0.46 0.76 0.10 7.64 8.57 4.77
    Europe 30 38 30 3.54 12.32 3.07 15.99 10.19 −0.42 0.05 −0.19 6.05 19.61 6.70
    North America 5 13 17 4.21 4.70 3.32 7.48 6.47 0.16 0.51 0.17 10.25 12.69 4.61
    Oceania 2 10 2 1.05 5.68 0.91 9.66 4.39 1.30 0.52 0.24 5.43 14.30 5.46
    South America 3 8 7 3.63 5.80 2.89 8.66 6.67 −0.58 0.35 0.06 4.75 13.50 5.05
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    5. Conclusions

    Overall, jurisdictions from European nations provided better drinking water MCLs (more conservative) for the 25 selected pesticides. Most European jurisdictions adopted EU standards which regulated larger numbers of the MCLs and more conservative standard values than other worldwide jurisdictions. Most nations in Asia, North America, and South America have regulated MRLs for agricultural commodity probably because of the international food trade purpose. Although more European nations provided soil RGVs for these selected pesticides, nations in North America got better average soil score values because U.S. related national jurisdictions contributed more. Many nations in Africa, Asia, and South America did not provide the PSVs in the residential soil yet, and there is little information about the PSVs in the residential air around the world.


    Acknowledgments

    The authors would like to appreciate the contributions from other scholars who provided help and suggestion to this research: Dr. Xiong Yu, Dr. Kurt Rhoards, Dr. Xiangwu Zeng, and Dr. Jenný Brynjarsdóttir.


    Conflict of Interest

    The authors have declared that is no conflict of interest in this paper.


    [1] Gammie L (2001) Managing health risks from drinking water: A background paper for the walkerton inquiry. Available from: http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/en/e_records/walkerton/part2info/partieswithstanding/pdf/OWWA5.pdf.
    [2] Radcliff R (2003) International drinking water regulations: The developed world sets the standards. Available from: http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/ndwc/articles/ot/sp03/inter_dwregs.html.
    [3] Winter C, Jara E (2014) Pesticide food safety standards as companions to tolerances and maximum residue limits. J Integr Agric 14: 2358-2364.
    [4] Chen Z, Dong F, Xu J, et al. (2015) Management of pesticide residues in China. J Integr Agric 14: 2319-2327.
    [5] Jennings A, Li Z (2014) Scope of the worldwide effort to regulate pesticide contamination in surface soils. J Environ Manage 146: 420-443. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.020
    [6] Jennings A, Li Z (2015) Residential surface soil guidance applied worldwide to the pesticides added to the Stockholm Convention in 2009 and 2011. J Environ Manage 160: 226-240. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.06.020
    [7] Jennings A, Li Z (2015) Residential surface soil guidance values applied worldwide to the original 2001 Stockholm Convention POP pesticides. J Environ Manage 160: 16-29. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.06.001
    [8] Jennings A, Li Z (2017) Worldwide regulatory guidance values applied to direct contact surface soil pesticide contamination: Part II-Noncarcinogenic pesticides. Air, Soil Water Res 10: 1-14.
    [9] Jennings A, Li Z (2017) Worldwide regulatory guidance values applied to direct contact surface soil pesticide contamination: Part I-Carcinogenic pesticides. Air, Soil Water Res 10:1-12.
    [10] Li Z (2016) Analysis of worldwide pesticide regulatory models and standards for controlling human health risk. Case Western Reserve University. Available from: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/.
    [11] Global MRL Database (2014). Agricultural commodities pesticide MRLs. Available from: http://www.mrldatabase.com/.
    [12] Australian Government (2012). Australian vegetable growing farms. Available from: http://data.daff.gov.au/data/warehouse/9aab/9aabf/2012/avfesd9abri20121127/AustVegGrwFrmEcoSurvey_1.0.0.pdf.
    [13] Brazil Department of Rural Economy (2012). Fruit culture-Scenario analysis of agricultural. Available from: http://www.agricultura.pr.gov.br/arquivos/File/deral/Prognosticos/fruticultura_2012_13.pdf.
    [14] Statistics Canada (2011). World and Canadian production of major grains and oilseeds. Available from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/96-325-x/2014001/article/11913-eng.htm.
    [15] Ministry of Agriculture of China (2014). Pesticide production, consumption and import/export of China. Available from: http://www.stats.gov.cn/.
    [16] India for Safe Food Agency (2013). Pesticide use in India. Available from: http://indiaforsafefood.in/farminginindia.
    [17] Philippine Statistics Authority (2014). Agricultural production by type of crop 2010 to 2012. Available form: http://www.nscb.gov.ph/secstat/d_agri.asp.
    [18] Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (2013). Sales of pesticides in the Federal Republic of Germany (In German). Available from: https://www.bund.net/fileadmin/bundnet/pdfs/chemie/pestizide/150213_bund_chemie_einkaufscheck_pestizidverkauf.
    [19] Mexico Ministry of Agriculture (2007). Mexico's top agricultural products. Available from: http://www.tnvmanagement.com/mexecon-blog/2010/3/8/mexico's-top-agriculturalproducts.aspx.
    [20] Manktelow D, Stevens P, Walker J, et al. (2005) Trends in pesticide use in New Zealand: 2004. Report to the Ministry for the Environment.
    [21] Dabrowski JM, Shadung JM, Wepener V (2014) Prioritizing agricultural pesticides used in South Africa based on their environmental mobility and potential human health effects. Environ Int 62: 31-40. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2013.10.001
    [22] Food and Environment Research Agency (2012). Pesticide usage survey report 254-Amenity pesticides in the United Kingdom. Available from: https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/.../surveys/2012surveys.cfm.
    [23] U.S. Department of Agriculture (2007). National Agricultural Statistics Service. Top Vegetable Crops. Available from: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Fact_Sheets/Production/vpm.pdf.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Zijian Li, Aaron A. Jennings, Implied Maximum Dose Analysis of Standard Values of 25 Pesticides Based on Major Human Exposure Pathways, 2017, 4, 2327-8994, 383, 10.3934/publichealth.2017.4.383
    2. Esmeralda Pereira de Araújo, Eloisa Dutra Caldas, Eduardo Cyrino Oliveira-Filho, Relationship between Pesticide Standards for Classification of Water Bodies and Ecotoxicity: A Case Study of the Brazilian Directive, 2022, 10, 2305-6304, 767, 10.3390/toxics10120767
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2017 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(5109) PDF downloads(993) Cited by(2)

Article outline

Figures and Tables

Figures(7)  /  Tables(7)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog