Citation: Tuan Syaripah Najihah, Mohd Hafiz Ibrahim, A'fifah Abd Razak, Rosimah Nulit, Puteri Edaroyati Megat Wahab. Effects of water stress on the growth, physiology and biochemical properties of oil palm seedlings[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(4): 854-868. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.4.854
| [1] | Rolf Nieder, Dinesh K. Benbi . Integrated review of the nexus between toxic elements in the environment and human health. AIMS Public Health, 2022, 9(4): 758-789. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2022052 |
| [2] | Leonel J.R. Nunes, António Curado . Indoor radon exposure in Africa: A critical review on the current research stage and knowledge gaps. AIMS Public Health, 2025, 12(2): 329-359. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2025020 |
| [3] | Gareth Morgan . Prophylactic aspirin and public. AIMS Public Health, 2014, 1(1): 1-8. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2013.1.1 |
| [4] | Niclas Olofsson . A life course model of self-reported violence exposure and illhealth with a public health problem perspective. AIMS Public Health, 2014, 1(1): 9-24. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2014.1.9 |
| [5] | Jessica Miller Clouser, John C. Flunker, Jennifer E. Swanberg, Gail Betz, Surjeet Baidwan, J. Kathleen Tracy . Occupational exposures and associated risk factors among U.S. casino workers: a narrative review. AIMS Public Health, 2018, 5(4): 378-393. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2018.4.378 |
| [6] | Alfred M Levine, Donna B Gerstle . Female breast cancer mortality in relation to puberty on Staten Island, New York. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(2): 344-353. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020029 |
| [7] | Marte K.R. Kjøllesdal, Gerd Holmboe-Ottesen . Dietary Patterns and Birth Weight—a Review. AIMS Public Health, 2014, 1(4): 211-225. doi: 10.3934/Publichealth.2014.4.211 |
| [8] | Sudip Bhattacharya . Artificial intelligence, human intelligence, and the future of public health. AIMS Public Health, 2022, 9(4): 644-650. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2022045 |
| [9] | Erin Linnenbringer, Sarah Gehlert, Arline T. Geronimus . Black-White Disparities in Breast Cancer Subtype: The Intersection of Socially Patterned Stress and Genetic Expression. AIMS Public Health, 2017, 4(5): 526-556. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2017.5.526 |
| [10] | Julia Metelka, Colin Robertson, Craig Stephen . Japanese Encephalitis: Estimating Future Trends in Asia. AIMS Public Health, 2015, 2(4): 601-615. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2015.4.601 |
The European Commission [1] defines a pesticide as something that prevents, destroys, or controls a harmful organism (“pest”) or disease, or protects plants or plant products during production, storage, and transport. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) [2] defines a pesticide as a matter or mixture of matters applied for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest. Pests can be bacteria, microorganisms, plants, and any other species that are harmful to crops, human beings, and living animals. Pesticides are largely applied worldwide to control pests and they can be classified by function (Table 1).
| Pesticide Type | Function | Example |
| Algicides | Kill algae | Copper sulphate |
| Antifouling agents | Kill or repel organisms that attach to underwater surfaces | SEA-NINE CR2 |
| Antimicrobials | Kill microorganisms (such as bacteria and viruses) | Sulphonamides |
| Attractants | Attract pests (to lure an insect or rodent to a trap) | Heptyl Butyrate |
| Biopesticides | Derived from natural materials | Canola oil |
| Biocides | Kill microorganisms | Trichlor |
| Disinfectants and sanitizers | Kill or inactivate disease-producing microorganismss | Alcohol |
| Fungicides | Kill fungi | Mancozeb |
| Fumigants | Produce gas or vapor intended to destroy pests in buildings or soil | Methyl bromide |
| Herbicides | Kill weeds | 2,4-D |
| Insecticides | Kill insects and other arthropods | DDT |
| Miticides | Kill mites | Permethrin |
| Molluscicides | Kill snails and slugs | Methiocarb |
| Nematicides | Kill nematodes | Aldicarb |
| Ovicides | Kill eggs of insects and mites | Hexythiazox |
| Pheromones | Disrupt the mating behavior of insects | Androstenone |
| Repellents | Repel pests and birds | Neem oil |
| Rodenticides | Control mice and other rodents | Warfarin |
| Defoliants | Cause leaves or other foliage to drop from a plant | Drexel |
| Desiccants | Kill leaves | Paraquat |
| Insect growth regulators | Disrupt the molting, maturity from pupal stage to adult, or other life processes of insects | Triflumuron |
| Plant growth regulators | Inhibit growth and other plant responses | Ethephon |
DownLoad: CSVPesticides are largely used in agricultural, commercial, industrial, home, and garden applications. After applied to the environment, pesticides can be transported to four major environmental sinks which include soil, water, air, and biomass. Pesticides could be absorbed by soil partials and rushed away into river, groundwater, and lake by rain water. Some volatile and semi-volatile pesticides can evaporate into the air and disperse through winds. Moreover, pesticides can bio-accumulate and bio-magnitude into crops, plants, animals, and human beings through food chain [3].
Pesticides are very common in the environment. Human exposure to pesticides can occur through ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact [4]. The exposure pathways include ingestion of pesticide contaminated food, drinking water, and soil, inhalation of air and soil dust contaminated by pesticides, and dermal contact by swimming and showering in pesticide contaminated water, touching soil and food contaminated by pesticides. Also, infants can exposure to pesticides through ingestion of pesticide contaminated breast milk [5].
Because most pesticides are toxic chemicals, worldwide jurisdictions are taking actions to help manage human health risks caused by pesticides. The actions include regulation of pesticide standard values (PSVs) such as pesticide soil regulatory guidance values (RGVs), pesticide drinking water and air maximum concentration levels (MCLs), and pesticide food maximum residue limits (MRLs). Most jurisdictions regulated PSVs to specify their maximum allowable concentrations in each exposure pathway. PSVs should be regulated and derived based on human health risk model and applied essential toxicological data like acceptable daily intake (ADI) which is the maximum amount of pesticide that can enter human body without adverse health effects. Previous researches have made contributions on regulating worldwide contamination chemical standards. Proctor et al. [6] conducted research on Chromium standard values regarding human health. Davis et al. [7] analyzed Arsenic soil standards. Also, other studies analyzed pesticide standards in soil and drinking water [8-13]. Since human exposure to pesticides may occur by many different exposure pathways, it is necessary to examine PSVs in a more comprehensive approach and consider all the major exposures. Therefore, the objective of this study is to evaluate whether PSVs could protect human health based on all major exposures.
The materials needed for this research are worldwide jurisdictions and their PSVs, which include pesticide soil RGVs, pesticide drinking water MCLs, pesticides air MCLs, and pesticide agricultural commodity MRLs. These jurisdictions and PSVs were mainly obtained from online data base. Most governments and environmental departments provided the documents on their official websites. Some materials are collected from other sources such as publication journals, environmental conferences, or news reports. Pesticides from worldwide jurisdictions were identified by Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Numbers (CAS No.). A total of 19,421 soil pesticide RGVs from 174 worldwide soil jurisdictions in 50 nations were identified. Also, a total of 5,474 drinking water pesticide MCLs from 145 worldwide jurisdictions in 95 nations were identified. There are at least 90 worldwide jurisdictions provided agricultural commodity pesticide MRLs. Because only the U.S. regulated pesticide air MCLs, the analysis of air PSVs is omitted. These PSVs references and sources were provided in Supplementary Materials.
Based on current and historical usage, a total of 25 pesticides have been selected for IMDL analysis (Table 2). Among these 25 selected pesticides, a total of 11 are Stockholm Convention Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) pesticides which were largely applied historically [14-16] and the rest are widely used nowadays [17].
| Pesticide | CAS No. | Reason for selection |
| Aldrin | 309-00-2 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Chlordane | 57-74-9 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| DDT | 50-29-3 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Dieldrin | 60-57-1 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Endrin | 72-20-8 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Heptachlor | 76-44-8 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Toxaphene | 8001-35-2 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Lindane | 58-89-9 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Endosulfan | 115-29-7 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Pentachlorophenol | 87-86-5 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Bromomethane | 74-83-9 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Glyphosate | 1071-83-6 | Current high quantity use |
| Mancozeb | 8018-01-7 | Current high quantity use |
| Chlorothalonil | 1897-45-6 | Current high quantity use |
| 2,4-D | 94-75-7 | Current high quantity use |
| Chlorpyriphos | 2921-88-2 | Current high quantity use |
| Atrazine | 1912-24-9 | Current high quantity use |
| MCPA | 94-74-6 | Current high quantity use |
| Dicamba | 1918-00-9 | Current high quantity use |
| Metolachlor | 51218-45-2 | Current high quantity use |
| Aldicarb | 116-06-3 | Current high quantity use |
| Malathion | 121-75-5 | Current high quantity use |
| Diazinon | 333-41-5 | Current high quantity use |
| Trifluralin | 1582-09-8 | Current high quantity use |
| Diuron | 330-54-1 | Current high quantity use |
DownLoad: CSVIMDL was introduced in this research to examine the pesticide maximum exposure mass loading based on national jurisdictions PSVs from all major exposure pathways. Pesticide implied dose limits (IDLs) were calculated for each exposure pathway as the following, and because only U.S. regulated pesticide air MCLs, the IDLair calculation was omitted.
For drinking water:
| IDLdw=(EFHW)(MCL)(V) | (1) |
For residential soil:
| IDLsoll=(EFHW)[(RGV)(CF)(IR)+(RGV)(CF)(ABSd)(GIABS)] | (2) |
For agricultural commodities:
| IDLfood=(EFHW)∑ni=1(MRLi)(IRi) | (3) |
All IDLs are based on the following set of exposure scenario coefficient values.
EF - Exposure Factor (1) [18];
HW - Human Weight (70 kg) [18];
V - Volume of water intake rate (2 L/day) [18];
CF - Convert Factor (106 mg/kg);
IR - Intake Rate for soil [19];
ABSd - Absorption Factor [19];
GIABS - GastroIntestinal Absorption Factor [19];
IRi - Intake Rate for food i (kg/day) [20].
And IMDL was derived by adding up IDLs from these possible exposures. If a nation regulated more than one PSVs in one of the major exposures, different IMDLs were calculated by combining different IDL with others.
| IMDL=(EFHW)[(MCL)(V)+(RGV)(CF)(IR)+(RGV)(CF)(ABSd)(GIABS)+∑ni=1(MRLi)(IRi)] | (4) |
The arithmetic mean (&mgr;), median (m), standard deviation (&sgr;L), and geometric mean (&mgr;G) were computed for those selected pesticides IMDLs. CDF analysis was applied to illustrate the distribution of IMDLs. IMDL empirical cumulative distribution for each pesticide was shown as follows.
| P(IMDLr≤IMDLi)≈niN; ∀i=1,…,N | (5) |
IMDLr - a random IMDL;
IMDLi - a known IMDL;
ni - integer rank of IMDL in N known values.
Pearson (r) correlation coefficient was calculated in
| r=N[∑E(IMDLi)×F(IMDLi)]−[∑E(IMDLi)][∑F(IMDLi)]√[N∑E(IMDLi)2−(∑E(IMDLi))2][N∑F(IMDLi)2−(∑F(IMDLi))2] | (6) |
E (IMDLi) - probability calculated from IMDL empirical cumulative distribution;
F (IMDLi) - probability calculated from IMDL theoretical lognormal cumulative distribution.
CDF analysis was also applied to find IMDL clusters. IMDL cluster is defined as IMDL interval (IMDLi − IMDLi+M) with M non-random values. Binomial probability function expressed in
| Pc[M IMDLsϵ(IMDLi,IMDLi+M]=[N!M!(N−M)!][F(IMDLi+M)−F(IMDLi)]M{1−[F(IMDLi+M)−F(IMDLi)]}N−M | (7) |
The IMDLs for 25 selected pesticides were analyzed by CDF and compared with the acceptable daily intake (ADI) value which measures the maximum amount of pesticide which can get into the human body without occurring adverse health effects. IMDLs for three pesticides 2,4-D, Chlorpyrifos, and Diazinon were discussed in this study.
Figure 1 illustrates the CDF of 145 IMDLs calculated from 2,4-D major exposures and compared with a theoretical lognormal CDF calibrated with the computed mean and standard deviation statistics. The IMDLs of 2,4-D range from 1.73 E-07 (Moldova) to 8.66 E-01 mg/kg-day (Vietnam) with 6.70 orders of magnitude. The Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.881, indicating that values are well dispersed over this span. The CDF is skewed by three IMDLs clusters.
The cluster at 7.18 E-03 - 7.81 E-03 mg/kg-day is made up of 33 IMDLs computed from Cambodia, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Egypt, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Venezuela, Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, European Union (EU), Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and Thailand. The cluster at 6.95 E-03 mg/kg-day is made up of 17 IMDLs computed from Algeria, Angola, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bermuda, Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Hong Kong, French West Indies, Iceland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Romania, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, and Ukraine. The cluster at 8.57 E-04 mg/kg-day is made up of 21 IMDLs computed from Argentina, Tanzania, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Bhutan, Fiji, India, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kuwait, Labia, Nauru, Russia, Rwanda, St. Lucia, Syrian Arab, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uganda, and U.S..
Only four 2,4-D IMDLs are above the arithmetic mean (2.31 E-02 mg/kg-day) because it is skewed by some extreme values such as 8.66 E-01 mg/kg-day at the high end of the distribution. On the other hand, the median and geometric mean (6.94 E-03 and 2.14 E-03 mg/kg-day respectively) are better measures of vales central tendency. Table 3 provides the statistics summary of 2,4-D IMDLs.
There are 13 (9.0% of the total) 2,4-D IMDLs exceeding the 2,4-D ADI which is equal to 0.01 mg/kg-day [21]. Although the rest of IMDLs seem appropriate, it is hard to suggest that many worldwide jurisdictions have provided appropriate 2,4-D PSVs because only jurisdictions from Mexico, Honduras, Pakistan, Peru, and Philippines regulated 2,4-D PSVs in soil, water, and agricultural commodity.
Figure 1. Empirical CDF of 2,4-D IMDLs Computed from Soil, Water, and Agricultural Commodity PSVs Compared to a Theoretical Lognormal CDF with Identical Statistics.| Total exposures | Three exposures | Two exposures | One exposure | |
| Number of IMDLs | 145 | 17 | 53 | 75 |
| µ (mg/kg-day) | 2.31E-02 | 1.12E-01 | 2.31E-02 | 3.07E-03 |
| µG (mg/kg-day) | 2.14E-03 | 1.65E-02 | 5.37E-03 | 7.04E-04 |
| µL | −2.67E+00 | −1.78E+00 | −2.27E+00 | −3.15E+00 |
| &sgr;L | 1.16E+00 | 6.73E-01 | 7.40E-01 | 1.26E+00 |
| &sgr; (mg/kg-day) | 1.23E-01 | 2.83E-01 | 1.18E-01 | 3.03E-03 |
| Max IMDL (mg/kg-day) | 8.66E-01 | 8.64E-01 | 8.66E-01 | 8.06E-03 |
| Min IMDL (mg/kg-day) | 1.73E-07 | 5.69E-03 | 3.03E-06 | 1.73E-07 |
| Orders of magnitude variation | 6.70E+00 | 2.18E+00 | 5.46E+00 | 4.67E+00 |
| m (mg/kg-day) | 6.95E-03 | 1.08E-02 | 7.18E-03 | 8.57E-04 |
DownLoad: CSVFigure 2 illustrates the CDF of 129 IMDLs calculated from Chlorpyrifos major exposures and compared with a theoretical lognormal CDF calibrated with the computed mean and standard deviation statistics. The IMDLs of Chlorpyrifos range from 4.06 E-07 (Moldova) to 6.77 E-03 mg/kg-day (New Zealand) with 4.22 orders of magnitude. The Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.861, which suggests values are well dispersed over this span. The CDF is skewed by four IMDLs clusters.
Figure 2. Empirical CDF of Chlorpyrifos IMDLs Computed from Soil, Water, and Agricultural Commodity PSVs Compared to a Theoretical Lognormal CDF with Identical Statistics.The cluster at 2.86E-06 mg/kg-day is made up of 9 IMDLs from Andorra, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Gambia, Labia, Liechtenstein, Ukraine, and Vanuatu. The cluster at 8.57 E-04 mg/kg-day is made up of 14 IMDLs from Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Bhutan, Fiji, Labia, Kiribati, Kuwait, Nauru, Qatar, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uganda, and St. Lucia. The cluster at 2.09 E-03 - 2.10 E-03 mg/kg-day is made up of 29 IMDLs from Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, French West Indies, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, EU, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain, and United Kingdom. The cluster at 5.38 E-03 - 5.42 E-03 mg/kg-day is made up of 26 IMDLs from Algeria, Angola, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bermuda, Cambodia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Netherlands Antilles, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, and Venezuela.
There are 100 (77.5% of the total) Chlorpyrifos IMDLs above the ADI which is 0.001 mg/kg-day [22], which suggests that Chlorpyrifos PSVs from most worldwide jurisdiction can hardly protect human health. For the rest of Chlorpyrifos IMDLs which are below the ADI, none of them account for all major pesticide exposures. Among the 129 Chlorpyrifos IMDLs, only seven of them were computed from three exposures. Table 4 provides the statistics summary of Chlorpyrifos IMDLs.
| Total exposures | Three exposures | Two exposures | One exposure | |
| Number of IMDLs | 129 | 7 | 41 | 81 |
| µ (mg/kg-day) | 3.07E-03 | 3.48E-03 | 3.19E-03 | 2.97E-03 |
| µG (mg/kg-day) | 1.47E-03 | 3.00E-03 | 2.53E-03 | 1.05E-03 |
| µL | −2.83E+00 | −2.52E+00 | −2.60E+00 | −2.98E+00 |
| &sgr;L | 9.21E-01 | 2.42E-01 | 4.96E-01 | 1.08E+00 |
| &sgr; (mg/kg-day) | 2.01E-03 | 2.24E-03 | 1.55E-03 | 2.20E-03 |
| Max IMDL (mg/kg-day) | 6.77E-03 | 6.77E-03 | 6.24E-03 | 6.01E-03 |
| Min IMDL (mg/kg-day) | 4.06E-07 | 2.00E-03 | 3.26E-06 | 4.06E-07 |
| Orders of magnitude variation | 4.22E+00 | 5.29E-01 | 3.28E+00 | 4.17E+00 |
| m (mg/kg-day) | 2.55E-03 | 2.30E-03 | 2.10E-03 | 2.55E-03 |
DownLoad: CSV
Figure 3. Empirical CDF of Diazinon IMDLs Computed from Soil, Water, and Agricultural Commodity PSVs Compared to a Theoretical Lognormal CDF with Identical Statistics.Figure 3 illustrates the CDF of 108 IMDLs calculated from Diazinon major exposures and compared with a theoretical lognormal CDF calibrated with the computed mean and standard deviation statistics. The IMDLs of Diazinon range from 1.43 E-07 (Iraq) to 8.90 E-03 mg/kg-day (Russia) with 4.79 orders of magnitude. The Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.947, which suggests values are well dispersed over this span. The CDF is skewed by four IMDLs clusters.
The data cluster at 2.86 E-06 mg/kg-day is made up of 8 IMDLs from Andorra, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Labia, Liechtenstein, Ukraine, and Vanuatu. The cluster at 3.58 E-05 mg/kg-day is made up of 18 IMDLs from the Austria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, EU, France, Germany, Greek, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, and Switzerland. The cluster at 2.59 E-04 - 2.63 E-04 mg/kg-day is made up of 32 IMDLs from Algeria, Angola, Bangladesh, Barbados, Cambodia, China, Chile, Costa Rica, Egypt, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Morocco, Netherlands Antilles, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Vietnam, and WHO. The cluster at 9.84 E-04 - 1.11 E-03 mg/kg-day is made up of 11 IMDLs from Bahrain, Brunei, Hong Kong, South Korea, New Zealand, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore.
Only 22 Diazinon IMDLs are above the arithmetic mean which is 4.26 E-04 mg/kg-day because it is skewed by some extreme values such as 8.90 E-03 mg/kg-day at the high end of the distribution. The median and geometric mean (2.59 E-04 and 1.11 E-04 mg/kg-day, respectively) are probably better measures of vales central tendency. Among the 108 Diazinon IMDLs, only two of them were computed from three exposures. Table 5 provides statistics summary of Diazinon IMDLs.
| Total exposures | Three exposures | Two exposures | One exposure | |
| Number of IMDLs | 108 | 2 | 39 | 67 |
| µ (mg/kg-day) | 4.26E-04 | 3.68E-05 | 6.75E-04 | 2.93E-04 |
| µG (mg/kg-day) | 1.11E-04 | 3.68E-05 | 1.34E-04 | 1.02E-04 |
| µL | −3.96E+00 | −4.43E+00 | −3.87E+00 | −3.99E+00 |
| &sgr;L | 8.90E-01 | 1.68E-02 | 7.97E-01 | 9.51E-01 |
| &sgr; (mg/kg-day) | 9.69E-04 | 1.42E-06 | 1.54E-03 | 3.02E-04 |
| Max IMDL (mg/kg-day) | 8.90E-03 | 3.78E-05 | 8.90E-03 | 1.10E-03 |
| Min IMDL (mg/kg-day) | 1.43E-07 | 3.58E-05 | 3.06E-06 | 1.43E-07 |
| Orders of magnitude variation | 4.79E+00 | 2.38E-02 | 3.46E+00 | 3.89E+00 |
| m (mg/kg-day) | 2.59E-04 | 3.68E-05 | 3.58E-05 | 2.59E-04 |
DownLoad: CSVThere are 20 (18.5% of the total) Diazinon IMDLs above the ADI which is 0.002 mg/kg-day [23] indicating that these Diazinon PSVs from worldwide jurisdiction can hardly protect human health. For the rest of Diazinon IMDLs which are below the ADI, only jurisdictions from Slovakia and the Czech Republic regulated Diazinon PSVs in major exposures.
Table 6 provides statistics information for these selected pesticides (Bromomethane and Toxaphene were omitted due to few jurisdictions regulated PSVs for them). Vietnam contributes ten maximum IMDLs not only because Vietnam provided PSVs in three major exposures but also Vietnam regulated relatively large pesticide drinking water MCLs. Russia and Croatia contribute three maximum IMDLs. For most nations with minimum IMDLs, they only regulated PSVs in one exposure pathway. For example, Moldova contributes four minimum IMDLs which computed from soil RGVs, and Iraq contributes three minimum IMDLs computed from drinking water MCLs only.
The weighted average Pearson correlation coefficient of selected pesticides IMDLs is 0.926. For some pesticides such as Dieldrin, the correlation coefficient is 0.981. The weighted average order of variance of IMDLs is 6.09. Endosulfan IMDL values have the largest span of 8.29 order of magnitude. It suggests that in general, the IMDLs of selected pesticides are well dispersed over data spans, and worldwide jurisdictions lack the agreement on PSVs regulations in major exposures.
Only 105 IMDLs (4% of the total number of the selected pesticides) were computed from three major exposures. Most worldwide jurisdictions regulated selected pesticides in either two exposures or one exposure. As those are largely used pesticides and they can move and be transported to the soil, water, air, and biomass. It is necessary for worldwide jurisdictions to regulate PSVs in all major exposures. Glyphosate is top used pesticides over the world, however, only four Glyphosate IMDLs were computed from PSVs in soil, water, and agricultural commodity. Although the use of DDT has been banned, it can still be detected in soil, water, and food because of the wide application in the past.
There are 100 Chlorpyrifos IMDLs (77.5% of the total) above the ADI, however, only seven IMDLs were computed from major exposures, indicating that jurisdictions haven't provide safe Chlorpyrifos standard values even in one of the major exposure pathways. Although all IMDLs of Endosulfan are below the ADI value, none of them account for all major human exposures. Above all, it suggests that PSVs in all major exposure pathways should be regulated and comprehensive regulations of PSVs are necessary from human health point of view.
| Pesticide | CAS No. | Pearson correlation coefficient | Log orders of variance | Max IMDL (mg/kg-day) | Min IMDL (mg/kg-day) | Total number of IMDLs | Number of IMDLs computed from three exposures | Number of IMDLs above ADI |
| 2,4-D | 94-75-7 | 0.881 | 6.70 | 8.66 E-01, Viet Nam | 1.73 E-07, Armenia * | 145 | 17 | 13 (9.0%) |
| Aldicarb | 116-06-3 | 0.977 | 5.00 | 2.86 E-01, Viet Nam | 2.86 E-06, Andorra * | 121 | 5 | 3 (2.5%) |
| Aldrin | 309-00-2 | 0.824 | 5.15 | 2.86 E-03, Croatia | 2.03 E-08, Italy | 147 | 0 | 22 (9.0%) |
| Atrazine | 1912-24-9 | 0.917 | 6.75 | 5.70 E-02, Viet Nam | 1.02 E-08, Ecuador | 125 | 22 | 2 (1.6%) |
| Chlordane | 57-74-9 | 0.923 | 8.06 | 5.71 E-03, Viet Nam * | 5.01 E-11, Serbia | 131 | 5 | 9 (6.9%) |
| Chlorothalonil | 1897-45-6 | 0.925 | 3.51 | 9.22 E-03, Australia | 2.86 E-06, Andorra * | 105 | 2 | 0 (0.0%) |
| Chlorpyriphos | 2921-88-2 | 0.861 | 4.22 | 6.77 E-03, New Zealand | 4.06 E-07, Moldova | 129 | 7 | 100 (77.5%) |
| DDT | 50-29-3 | 0.979 | 6.55 | 5.71 E-02, Viet Nam | 1.62 E-08, Montenegro | 161 | 0 | 25 (15.5%) |
| Diazinon | 333-41-5 | 0.947 | 4.79 | 8.90 E-03, Russia | 1.43 E-07, Iraq | 108 | 2 | 20 (18.5%) |
| Dicamba | 1918-00-9 | 0.713 | 4.34 | 1.10 E-02, Russia | 5.08 E-07, Uzbekistan | 105 | 2 | 0 (0.0%) |
| Dieldrin | 60-57-1 | 0.981 | 5.15 | 2.86 E-03, Croatia | 2.03 E-08, Italy | 140 | 0 | 20 (14.2%) |
| Diuron | 330-54-1 | 0.946 | 4.45 | 2.86 E-02, Russia | 1.02 E-06, Moldova * | 75 | 2 | 11 (11.4%) |
| Endosulfan | 115-29-7 | 0.941 | 8.29 | 3.94 E-03, Argentina | 2.03 E-11, Serbia * | 76 | 0 | 0 (0.0%) |
| Endrin | 72-20-8 | 0.915 | 7.55 | 2.87 E-03, Hungary | 8.13 E-11, Serbia | 102 | 0 | 6 (5.9%) |
| Glyphosate | 1071-83-6 | 0.854 | 6.11 | 1.86 E-01, Guatemala | 1.43 E-07, Iraq | 115 | 4 | 42 (27.1%) |
| Heptachlor | 76-44-8 | 0.981 | 6.30 | 2.86 E-03, Croatia | 1.42 E-09, Singapore | 113 | 8 | 18 (15.9%) |
| Lindane | 58-89-9 | 0.969 | 7.53 | 5.71 E-02, Viet Nam | 1.67 E-09, Bulgaria | 153 | 4 | 14 (9.2%) |
| Malathion | 121-75-5 | 0.688 | 5.91 | 1.17 E-01, Viet Nam | 1.43 E-07, Iraq | 111 | 2 | 94 (84.7%) |
| Mancozeb | 8081-01-7 | 0.719 | 5.11 | 2.63 E-02, U.S. | 2.03 E-07, Belarus * | 105 | 2 | 0 (0.0%) |
| MCPA | 94-74-6 | 0.917 | 5.85 | 5.78 E-02, Viet Nam | 8.13 E-08, Belarus | 126 | 12 | 39 (69.0%) |
| Metolachlor | 51218-45-2 | 0.921 | 5.78 | 2.44 E-02, Bahamas | 4.06 E-08, Georgia | 77 | 3 | 0 (0.0%) |
| Pentachlorophenol | 87-86-5 | 0.970 | 5.94 | 2.57 E-01, Viet Nam | 2.94 E-07, Moldova | 130 | 4 | 2 (1.5%) |
| Trifluralin | 1582-09-8 | 0.897 | 6.45 | 5.71 E-01, Viet Nam | 2.03 E-07, Moldova | 98 | 2 | 1 (1.0%) |
| * The values are also shared by other nation. | ||||||||
DownLoad: CSVThe authors would like to appreciate the contributions from other scholars who provided help and suggestion to this research: Xiong Yu, Xiangwu Zeng, Kurt R. Rhoads, and Jenný Brynjarsdóttir.
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
| [1] | Kushairi A, Singh R, Ong-Abdullah M (2017) The oil palm industry in Malaysia: Thriving with transformative technologies. J Oil Palm Res 29: 431-439. |
| [2] | MPOB (2019) Monthly export of oil palm Products-2018. Available from: http://bepi.mpob.gov.my/index.php/en/statistics/export/192-export-2018/869 monthly- export-of-oil-palm-products-2018.html. |
| [3] |
Paterson RRM, Lima N (2018) Climate change affecting oil palm agronomy, and oil palm cultivation increasing climate change, require amelioration. Ecol Evol 8: 452-461. doi: 10.1002/ece3.3610
|
| [4] | Paterson RRM, Kumar L, Taylor S, et al. (2015) Future climate effects on suitability for growth of oil palms in Malaysia and Indonesia. Sci Rep 5: 14457. |
| [5] | Siwar C, Ahmed F, Begum RA (2013) Climate change, agriculture and food security issues: Malaysian perspective. J Food, Agric Environ 11: 1118-1123. |
| [6] | Basiron Y (2007) Palm oil production through sustainable plantations. Eur J Lipid Sci Technol 109: 289-295. |
| [7] | Oettli P, Behera SK, Yamagata T (2018) Climate-based predictability of oil palm tree yield in Malaysia. Sci Rep 8: 2271. |
| [8] | Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2014) Climate change 2014: Synthesis report: Contribution of Working Groups I, Ⅱ and Ⅲ to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available from: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/. |
| [9] | Sheffield J, Wood EF, Roderick ML (2012) Little change in global drought over the past 60 years. Nature 491: 435-438. |
| [10] | Kamil NN, Omar SF (2017) The impact of El Niño and La Niña on Malaysian palm oil industry. Oil Palm Bull 74: 1-6. |
| [11] |
Shidiq IPA, Ismail MH, Kamarudin N, et al. (2018) Projections on future impact and vulnerability of climate change towards rubber areas in Peninsular Projections on future impact and vulnerability of climate change towards rubber areas in Peninsular Malaysia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 169: 012053. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/169/1/012053
|
| [12] | Amirul HA, Tui L, Yaw S, et al. (2016) Impact of El Niño on palm oil production. Planter 92: 789-806. |
| [13] | Adnan H (2015) El Nino dry weather to lead to rise in the palm oil price. Available from: https://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2015/09/28/the-return-of-el-nino/. |
| [14] | Culman M, De Farias CM, Bayona C, et al. (2019) Using agrometeorological data to assist irrigation management in oil palm crops: A decision support method and results from crop model simulation. Agric Water Manage 213: 1047-1062. |
| [15] | Noor MRM, Harun MH (2004) Importance of water use efficiency (WUE) in oil palm productivity. Oil Palm Bull 48: 24-30. |
| [16] | Silva PA, Oliveira IV, Rodrigues KCB, et al. (2016) Leaf gas exchange and multiple enzymatic and non-enzymatic antioxidant strategies related to drought tolerance in two oil palm hybrids. Trees-Struct Funct 30: 203-214. |
| [17] | Putra ETS, Issukindarsyah, Taryono, et al. (2015) Physiological responses of oil palm seedlings to the drought stress using boron and silicon applications. J Agron 14: 49-61. |
| [18] | Tan CC (2011) Nursery practices for production of superior oil palm planting materials. Agronomic Princ Pract Oil Palm Cultiv 145-169. |
| [19] | Campos H, Trejo C, Peña-Valdivia CB, et al. (2014) Stomatal and non-stomatal limitations of bell pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) plants under water stress and re-watering: Delayed restoration of photosynthesis during recovery. Environ Exp Bot 98: 56-64. |
| [20] | Hopkins WG, Huner NPA (1999) Introduction to plant physiology. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 25-50. |
| [21] | Liu F, Jensen CR, Shahanzari A, et al. (2005) ABA-regulated stomatal control and photosynthetic water use efficiency of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) during progressive soil drying. Plant Sci 168: 831-836. |
| [22] | Cha-um S, Yamada N, Takabe T, et al. (2013) Physiological features and growth characters of oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) in response to reduced water-deficit and rewatering. Aust J Crop Sci 7: 432-439. |
| [23] | Suresh K, Nagamani C, Ramachandrudu K, et al. (2010) Gas-exchange characteristics, leaf water potential and chlorophyll a fluorescence in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) seedlings under water stress and recovery. Photosynthetica 48: 430-436. |
| [24] | Noor MRM, Harun MH, Jantan NM (2011) Physiological plant stress and responses in oil palm. Oil Palm Bull 62: 25-32. |
| [25] | Klapwijk D, Lint PJAL (1974) Fresh weight and flowering of tomato plants as influenced by container type and watering conditions. Acta Hortic 23: 237-248. |
| [26] | MPOB (2017) Oil palm Vegetative Measurements Manual. Kuala Lumpur. Malaysian Palm Oil Board, 50-65. |
| [27] |
Weatherly P (1950) Studies in the water relations of the cotton plant. New Phytol 49: 81-97. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1950.tb05146.x
|
| [28] | Zainuren NF, Ibrahim MH, Abdullah CAC, et al. (2019) Growth, carbon assimilation and quality of kesum (Persicaria minor) as exposed to zinc oxide nanoparticles. Annu Res. Rev Biol 31: 1-15. |
| [29] |
Jaafar HZE, Ibrahim MH, Fakri NFM (2012) Impact of soil field water capacity on secondary metabolites, phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL), malondialdehyde (MDA) and photosynthetic responses of Malaysian Kacip Fatimah (Labisia pumila Benth). Molecules 17: 7305-7322. doi: 10.3390/molecules17067305
|
| [30] | Ibrahim MH, Jaafar HZE, Rahmat A, et al. (2012) Involvement of nitrogen on flavonoids, glutathione, anthocyanin, ascorbic acid and antioxidant activities of Malaysian medicinal plant Labisia pumila Blume (Kacip Fatimah). Int J Mol Sci 13: 393-408. |
| [31] | Bates LS, Waldren RP, Teare ID (1973) Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant Soil 39: 205-207. |
| [32] | Abdul Jaleel C, Manivannan P, Wahid A, et al. (2009) Drought stress in plants: A Review on morphological characteristics and pigments composition. Int J Agric Biol 11: 100-105. |
| [33] | Farooq M, Hussain M, Wahid A, et al. (2012) Drought stress in plants: An overview BT-Plant responses to drought stress: From morphological to molecular features. In: Aroca R, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1-33. |
| [34] | Anjum S, Xie X, Wang L, et al. (2011) Morphological, physiological and biochemical responses of plants to drought stress. Afr J Agric Res 6: 2026-2032. |
| [35] | Rivera-Mendes YD, Cuenca JC, Romero HM (2016) Physiological responses of oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) seedlings under different water soil conditions. Agronomía Colombiana 34: 163-171. |
| [36] | Boutraa T, Akhkha A, Al-Shoaibi AA, et al. (2010) Effect of water stress on growth and water use efficiency (WUE) of some wheat cultivars (Triticum durum) grown in Saudi Arabia. J Taibah Univ Sci 3: 39-48. |
| [37] | Chartzoulakis K, Noitsakis B, Therios I (1993) Photosynthesis, plant growth and dry matter distribution in kiwifruit as influenced by water deficits. Irrig Sci 14: 1-5. |
| [38] | Liu F, Stützel H (2004) Biomass partitioning, specific leaf area, and water use efficiency of vegetable amaranth (Amaranthus spp.) in response to drought stress. Sci Hortic 102: 15-27. |
| [39] | Griñán I, Rodrgí uez P, Cruz ZN, et al. (2019) Leaf water relations in Diospyros kaki during a mild water deficit exposure. Agric Water Manage 217: 391-398. |
| [40] | Trabelsi L, Gargouri K, Ben Hassena A, et al. (2019) Impact of drought and salinity on olive water status and physiological performance in an arid climate. Agric Water Manage 213: 749-759. |
| [41] | Blanch M, Alvarez MD, Sanchez-Ballesta MT, et al. (2017) Water relations, short-chain oligosaccharides and rheological properties in lettuces subjected to limited water supply and low temperature stress. Sci Hortic 225: 726-735. |
| [42] | Ashraf M, Harris PJC (2013) Photosynthesis under stressful environments: An overview. Photosynthetica 51: 163-190. |
| [43] | Hernandez-Santana V, Fernández JE, Cuevas MV, et al. (2017) Photosynthetic limitations by water deficit: Effect on fruit and olive oil yield, leaf area and trunk diameter and its potential use to control vegetative growth of super-high density olive orchards. Agric Water Manage 184: 9-18. |
| [44] | Klamkowski K, Treder W (2008) Response to drought stress of three strawberry cultivars grown under greenhouse conditions. J Fruit Ornamental Plant Res 16: 179-188. |
| [45] | Liu B, Liang J, Tang G, et al. (2019) Drought stress effects on growth, water use efficiency, gas exchange and chlorophyll fluorescence of Juglans rootstocks. Sci Hortic 250: 230-235. |
| [46] | Srivastava LM (2002) CHAPTER 16-Abscisic Acid and Stress Tolerance in Plants. San Diego: Academic Press, 381-412. |
| [47] | Basu S, Ramegowda V, Kumar A, et al. (2016) Plant adaptation to drought stress. Research 5: 1554. |
| [48] |
Correia B, Pintó‐Marijuan M, Neves L, et al. (2014) Water stress and recovery in the performance of two Eucalyptus globulus clones: Physiological and biochemical profiles. Physiol Plant 150: 580-592. doi: 10.1111/ppl.12110
|
| [49] | Puangbut D, Jogloy S, Vorasoot N (2017) Association of photosynthetic traits with water use efficiency and SPAD chlorophyll meter reading of Jerusalem artichoke under drought conditions. Agric Water Manage 188: 29-35. |
| [50] |
Paknejad F, Nasri M, Moghadam HRT, et al. (2007) Effects of drought stress on chlorophyll fluorescence parameters, chlorophyll content and grain yield of wheat cultivars. J Biol Sci 7: 841-847. doi: 10.3923/jbs.2007.841.847
|
| [51] | Ju Y, Yue X, Zhao X, et al. (2018) Physiological, micro-morphological and metabolomic nalysis of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) leaf of plants under water stress. Plant Physiol Biochem 130: 501-510. |
| [52] | Naidoo G, Naidoo KK (2018) Drought stress effects on gas exchange and water relations of the invasive weed Chromolaena odorata. Flora 248: 1-9. |
| [53] |
Li Y, Li H, Li Y, et al. (2017) Improving water-use efficiency by decreasing stomatal conductance and transpiration rate to maintain higher ear photosynthetic rate in drought-resistant wheat. Crop J 5: 231-239. doi: 10.1016/j.cj.2017.01.001
|
| [54] | Zargar SM, Gupta N, Nazir M, et al. (2017) Impact of drought on photosynthesis: Molecular perspective. Plant Gene 11: 154-159. |
| [55] | Pessarakli M, Haghighi M, Sheibanirad A (2015) Plant responses under environmental stress conditions. Adv Plants Agric Res 2: 276-286. |
| [56] | Hussain M, Farooq S, Hasan W, et al. (2018) Drought stress in sunflower: Physiological effects and its management through breeding and agronomic alternatives. Agric Water Manage 201: 152-166. |
| [57] | Toscano S, Farieri E, Ferrante A, et al. (2016) Physiological and Biochemical Responsesin Two Ornamental Shrubs to Drought Stress. Front Plant Sci 7: 645. |
| [58] | Guo YY, Yu HY, Yang MM, et al. (2018) Effect of drought stress on lipid peroxidation, osmotic adjustment and antioxidant enzyme activity of leaves and roots of Lycium ruthenicum Murr. Seedling. Russ J Plant Physiol 65: 244-250. |
| [59] | Zhao XH, Yu HQ, Jing W, et al. (2016) Response of root morphology, physiology and endogenous hormones in maize (Zea mays L.) to potassium deficiency. J Integr Agric 15: 785-794. |
| 1. | Stephen Bondy, Arezoo Campbell, Water Quality and Brain Function, 2017, 15, 1660-4601, 2, 10.3390/ijerph15010002 | |
| 2. | Simeon Kayowa Olatunde, Abiodun Ayanfemi Ayandele, Microbiological and physico-chemical analyses of hand dug well-water near pit latrine in a rural Area of Western Nigeria, 2018, 12, 1996-0786, 132, 10.5897/AJEST2017.2463 | |
| 3. | Jin-Jing Xiao, Yang Li, Qing-Kui Fang, Yan-Hong Shi, Min Liao, Xiang-Wei Wu, Ri-Mao Hua, Hai-Qun Cao, Factors Affecting Transfer of Pyrethroid Residues from Herbal Teas to Infusion and Influence of Physicochemical Properties of Pesticides, 2017, 14, 1660-4601, 1157, 10.3390/ijerph14101157 | |
| 4. | Margaret Eggers, John Doyle, Myra Lefthand, Sara Young, Anita Moore-Nall, Larry Kindness, Roberta Other Medicine, Timothy Ford, Eric Dietrich, Albert Parker, Joseph Hoover, Anne Camper, Community Engaged Cumulative Risk Assessment of Exposure to Inorganic Well Water Contaminants, Crow Reservation, Montana, 2018, 15, 1660-4601, 76, 10.3390/ijerph15010076 | |
| 5. | Zijian Li, Health and safety assessment and regulatory management of Aldicarb, Atrazine, Diuron, Glyphosate, and MCPA by theoretical maximum daily intake estimation, 2018, 25, 18715532, 3, 10.1016/j.jchas.2017.09.003 | |
| 6. | Eid Brima, Toxic Elements in Different Medicinal Plants and the Impact on Human Health, 2017, 14, 1660-4601, 1209, 10.3390/ijerph14101209 | |
| 7. | Motoyuki Kamata, Yoshihiko Matsui, Mari Asami, National trends in pesticides in drinking water and water sources in Japan, 2020, 744, 00489697, 140930, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140930 | |
| 8. | Ibrahim Shabbaj, Mansour Alghamdi, Magdy Shamy, Salwa Hassan, Musaab Alsharif, Mamdouh Khoder, Risk Assessment and Implication of Human Exposure to Road Dust Heavy Metals in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, 2017, 15, 1660-4601, 36, 10.3390/ijerph15010036 | |
| 9. | Young-seoub Hong, Byeong-jin Ye, Yu-mi Kim, Byoung-gwon Kim, Gyeong-hui Kang, Jeong-jin Kim, Ki-hoon Song, Young-hun Kim, Jeong-wook Seo, Investigation of Health Effects According to the Exposure of Low Concentration Arsenic Contaminated Ground Water, 2017, 14, 1660-4601, 1461, 10.3390/ijerph14121461 | |
| 10. | Zijian Li, Evaluation of regulatory variation and theoretical health risk for pesticide maximum residue limits in food, 2018, 219, 03014797, 153, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.067 | |
| 11. | Zijian Li, Aaron Jennings, Global variations in pesticide regulations and health risk assessment of maximum concentration levels in drinking water, 2018, 212, 03014797, 384, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.083 | |
| 12. | Shalini Sanyal, Sujata Law, Chronic pesticide exposure induced aberrant Notch signalling along the visual pathway in a murine model, 2021, 282, 02697491, 117077, 10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117077 | |
| 13. | Allan Pretti Ogura, Jacqueline Zanin Lima, Jéssica Pelinsom Marques, Lucas Massaro Sousa, Valéria Guimarães Silvestre Rodrigues, Evaldo Luiz Gaeta Espíndola, A review of pesticides sorption in biochar from maize, rice, and wheat residues: Current status and challenges for soil application, 2021, 300, 03014797, 113753, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113753 | |
| 14. | Karina Bano, Sandeep Kaushal, Prit Pal Singh, A review on photocatalytic degradation of hazardous pesticides using heterojunctions, 2021, 209, 02775387, 115465, 10.1016/j.poly.2021.115465 | |
| 15. | Ke Fang, Yu‐Xin Xiang, Han Wang, Ming‐Kun Li, Si‐Yuan Jiang, Chen‐Jun Liu, Xin Yang, Su‐Wan Wei, Jin‐Jing Xiao, Yan‐Hong Shi, Hai‐Qun Cao, In vitro inhalation bioaccessibility and health risk assessment of difenoconazole in the atmosphere, 2023, 1526-498X, 10.1002/ps.7811 | |
| 16. | Anjana Bhardwaj, Preeti Yadav, Rajendra Vishwakarma, 2024, 9780443156601, 453, 10.1016/B978-0-443-15660-1.00018-6 |
Figures(5) / Tables(1)
Tuan Syaripah Najihah, Mohd Hafiz Ibrahim, A'fifah Abd Razak, Rosimah Nulit, Puteri Edaroyati Megat Wahab. Effects of water stress on the growth, physiology and biochemical properties of oil palm seedlings[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(4): 854-868. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.4.854
| Pesticide Type | Function | Example |
| Algicides | Kill algae | Copper sulphate |
| Antifouling agents | Kill or repel organisms that attach to underwater surfaces | SEA-NINE CR2 |
| Antimicrobials | Kill microorganisms (such as bacteria and viruses) | Sulphonamides |
| Attractants | Attract pests (to lure an insect or rodent to a trap) | Heptyl Butyrate |
| Biopesticides | Derived from natural materials | Canola oil |
| Biocides | Kill microorganisms | Trichlor |
| Disinfectants and sanitizers | Kill or inactivate disease-producing microorganismss | Alcohol |
| Fungicides | Kill fungi | Mancozeb |
| Fumigants | Produce gas or vapor intended to destroy pests in buildings or soil | Methyl bromide |
| Herbicides | Kill weeds | 2,4-D |
| Insecticides | Kill insects and other arthropods | DDT |
| Miticides | Kill mites | Permethrin |
| Molluscicides | Kill snails and slugs | Methiocarb |
| Nematicides | Kill nematodes | Aldicarb |
| Ovicides | Kill eggs of insects and mites | Hexythiazox |
| Pheromones | Disrupt the mating behavior of insects | Androstenone |
| Repellents | Repel pests and birds | Neem oil |
| Rodenticides | Control mice and other rodents | Warfarin |
| Defoliants | Cause leaves or other foliage to drop from a plant | Drexel |
| Desiccants | Kill leaves | Paraquat |
| Insect growth regulators | Disrupt the molting, maturity from pupal stage to adult, or other life processes of insects | Triflumuron |
| Plant growth regulators | Inhibit growth and other plant responses | Ethephon |
DownLoad: CSV| Pesticide | CAS No. | Reason for selection |
| Aldrin | 309-00-2 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Chlordane | 57-74-9 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| DDT | 50-29-3 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Dieldrin | 60-57-1 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Endrin | 72-20-8 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Heptachlor | 76-44-8 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Toxaphene | 8001-35-2 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Lindane | 58-89-9 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Endosulfan | 115-29-7 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Pentachlorophenol | 87-86-5 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Bromomethane | 74-83-9 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Glyphosate | 1071-83-6 | Current high quantity use |
| Mancozeb | 8018-01-7 | Current high quantity use |
| Chlorothalonil | 1897-45-6 | Current high quantity use |
| 2,4-D | 94-75-7 | Current high quantity use |
| Chlorpyriphos | 2921-88-2 | Current high quantity use |
| Atrazine | 1912-24-9 | Current high quantity use |
| MCPA | 94-74-6 | Current high quantity use |
| Dicamba | 1918-00-9 | Current high quantity use |
| Metolachlor | 51218-45-2 | Current high quantity use |
| Aldicarb | 116-06-3 | Current high quantity use |
| Malathion | 121-75-5 | Current high quantity use |
| Diazinon | 333-41-5 | Current high quantity use |
| Trifluralin | 1582-09-8 | Current high quantity use |
| Diuron | 330-54-1 | Current high quantity use |
DownLoad: CSV| Total exposures | Three exposures | Two exposures | One exposure | |
| Number of IMDLs | 145 | 17 | 53 | 75 |
| µ (mg/kg-day) | 2.31E-02 | 1.12E-01 | 2.31E-02 | 3.07E-03 |
| µG (mg/kg-day) | 2.14E-03 | 1.65E-02 | 5.37E-03 | 7.04E-04 |
| µL | −2.67E+00 | −1.78E+00 | −2.27E+00 | −3.15E+00 |
| &sgr;L | 1.16E+00 | 6.73E-01 | 7.40E-01 | 1.26E+00 |
| &sgr; (mg/kg-day) | 1.23E-01 | 2.83E-01 | 1.18E-01 | 3.03E-03 |
| Max IMDL (mg/kg-day) | 8.66E-01 | 8.64E-01 | 8.66E-01 | 8.06E-03 |
| Min IMDL (mg/kg-day) | 1.73E-07 | 5.69E-03 | 3.03E-06 | 1.73E-07 |
| Orders of magnitude variation | 6.70E+00 | 2.18E+00 | 5.46E+00 | 4.67E+00 |
| m (mg/kg-day) | 6.95E-03 | 1.08E-02 | 7.18E-03 | 8.57E-04 |
DownLoad: CSV| Total exposures | Three exposures | Two exposures | One exposure | |
| Number of IMDLs | 129 | 7 | 41 | 81 |
| µ (mg/kg-day) | 3.07E-03 | 3.48E-03 | 3.19E-03 | 2.97E-03 |
| µG (mg/kg-day) | 1.47E-03 | 3.00E-03 | 2.53E-03 | 1.05E-03 |
| µL | −2.83E+00 | −2.52E+00 | −2.60E+00 | −2.98E+00 |
| &sgr;L | 9.21E-01 | 2.42E-01 | 4.96E-01 | 1.08E+00 |
| &sgr; (mg/kg-day) | 2.01E-03 | 2.24E-03 | 1.55E-03 | 2.20E-03 |
| Max IMDL (mg/kg-day) | 6.77E-03 | 6.77E-03 | 6.24E-03 | 6.01E-03 |
| Min IMDL (mg/kg-day) | 4.06E-07 | 2.00E-03 | 3.26E-06 | 4.06E-07 |
| Orders of magnitude variation | 4.22E+00 | 5.29E-01 | 3.28E+00 | 4.17E+00 |
| m (mg/kg-day) | 2.55E-03 | 2.30E-03 | 2.10E-03 | 2.55E-03 |
DownLoad: CSV| Total exposures | Three exposures | Two exposures | One exposure | |
| Number of IMDLs | 108 | 2 | 39 | 67 |
| µ (mg/kg-day) | 4.26E-04 | 3.68E-05 | 6.75E-04 | 2.93E-04 |
| µG (mg/kg-day) | 1.11E-04 | 3.68E-05 | 1.34E-04 | 1.02E-04 |
| µL | −3.96E+00 | −4.43E+00 | −3.87E+00 | −3.99E+00 |
| &sgr;L | 8.90E-01 | 1.68E-02 | 7.97E-01 | 9.51E-01 |
| &sgr; (mg/kg-day) | 9.69E-04 | 1.42E-06 | 1.54E-03 | 3.02E-04 |
| Max IMDL (mg/kg-day) | 8.90E-03 | 3.78E-05 | 8.90E-03 | 1.10E-03 |
| Min IMDL (mg/kg-day) | 1.43E-07 | 3.58E-05 | 3.06E-06 | 1.43E-07 |
| Orders of magnitude variation | 4.79E+00 | 2.38E-02 | 3.46E+00 | 3.89E+00 |
| m (mg/kg-day) | 2.59E-04 | 3.68E-05 | 3.58E-05 | 2.59E-04 |
DownLoad: CSV| Pesticide | CAS No. | Pearson correlation coefficient | Log orders of variance | Max IMDL (mg/kg-day) | Min IMDL (mg/kg-day) | Total number of IMDLs | Number of IMDLs computed from three exposures | Number of IMDLs above ADI |
| 2,4-D | 94-75-7 | 0.881 | 6.70 | 8.66 E-01, Viet Nam | 1.73 E-07, Armenia * | 145 | 17 | 13 (9.0%) |
| Aldicarb | 116-06-3 | 0.977 | 5.00 | 2.86 E-01, Viet Nam | 2.86 E-06, Andorra * | 121 | 5 | 3 (2.5%) |
| Aldrin | 309-00-2 | 0.824 | 5.15 | 2.86 E-03, Croatia | 2.03 E-08, Italy | 147 | 0 | 22 (9.0%) |
| Atrazine | 1912-24-9 | 0.917 | 6.75 | 5.70 E-02, Viet Nam | 1.02 E-08, Ecuador | 125 | 22 | 2 (1.6%) |
| Chlordane | 57-74-9 | 0.923 | 8.06 | 5.71 E-03, Viet Nam * | 5.01 E-11, Serbia | 131 | 5 | 9 (6.9%) |
| Chlorothalonil | 1897-45-6 | 0.925 | 3.51 | 9.22 E-03, Australia | 2.86 E-06, Andorra * | 105 | 2 | 0 (0.0%) |
| Chlorpyriphos | 2921-88-2 | 0.861 | 4.22 | 6.77 E-03, New Zealand | 4.06 E-07, Moldova | 129 | 7 | 100 (77.5%) |
| DDT | 50-29-3 | 0.979 | 6.55 | 5.71 E-02, Viet Nam | 1.62 E-08, Montenegro | 161 | 0 | 25 (15.5%) |
| Diazinon | 333-41-5 | 0.947 | 4.79 | 8.90 E-03, Russia | 1.43 E-07, Iraq | 108 | 2 | 20 (18.5%) |
| Dicamba | 1918-00-9 | 0.713 | 4.34 | 1.10 E-02, Russia | 5.08 E-07, Uzbekistan | 105 | 2 | 0 (0.0%) |
| Dieldrin | 60-57-1 | 0.981 | 5.15 | 2.86 E-03, Croatia | 2.03 E-08, Italy | 140 | 0 | 20 (14.2%) |
| Diuron | 330-54-1 | 0.946 | 4.45 | 2.86 E-02, Russia | 1.02 E-06, Moldova * | 75 | 2 | 11 (11.4%) |
| Endosulfan | 115-29-7 | 0.941 | 8.29 | 3.94 E-03, Argentina | 2.03 E-11, Serbia * | 76 | 0 | 0 (0.0%) |
| Endrin | 72-20-8 | 0.915 | 7.55 | 2.87 E-03, Hungary | 8.13 E-11, Serbia | 102 | 0 | 6 (5.9%) |
| Glyphosate | 1071-83-6 | 0.854 | 6.11 | 1.86 E-01, Guatemala | 1.43 E-07, Iraq | 115 | 4 | 42 (27.1%) |
| Heptachlor | 76-44-8 | 0.981 | 6.30 | 2.86 E-03, Croatia | 1.42 E-09, Singapore | 113 | 8 | 18 (15.9%) |
| Lindane | 58-89-9 | 0.969 | 7.53 | 5.71 E-02, Viet Nam | 1.67 E-09, Bulgaria | 153 | 4 | 14 (9.2%) |
| Malathion | 121-75-5 | 0.688 | 5.91 | 1.17 E-01, Viet Nam | 1.43 E-07, Iraq | 111 | 2 | 94 (84.7%) |
| Mancozeb | 8081-01-7 | 0.719 | 5.11 | 2.63 E-02, U.S. | 2.03 E-07, Belarus * | 105 | 2 | 0 (0.0%) |
| MCPA | 94-74-6 | 0.917 | 5.85 | 5.78 E-02, Viet Nam | 8.13 E-08, Belarus | 126 | 12 | 39 (69.0%) |
| Metolachlor | 51218-45-2 | 0.921 | 5.78 | 2.44 E-02, Bahamas | 4.06 E-08, Georgia | 77 | 3 | 0 (0.0%) |
| Pentachlorophenol | 87-86-5 | 0.970 | 5.94 | 2.57 E-01, Viet Nam | 2.94 E-07, Moldova | 130 | 4 | 2 (1.5%) |
| Trifluralin | 1582-09-8 | 0.897 | 6.45 | 5.71 E-01, Viet Nam | 2.03 E-07, Moldova | 98 | 2 | 1 (1.0%) |
| * The values are also shared by other nation. | ||||||||
DownLoad: CSV| Pesticide Type | Function | Example |
| Algicides | Kill algae | Copper sulphate |
| Antifouling agents | Kill or repel organisms that attach to underwater surfaces | SEA-NINE CR2 |
| Antimicrobials | Kill microorganisms (such as bacteria and viruses) | Sulphonamides |
| Attractants | Attract pests (to lure an insect or rodent to a trap) | Heptyl Butyrate |
| Biopesticides | Derived from natural materials | Canola oil |
| Biocides | Kill microorganisms | Trichlor |
| Disinfectants and sanitizers | Kill or inactivate disease-producing microorganismss | Alcohol |
| Fungicides | Kill fungi | Mancozeb |
| Fumigants | Produce gas or vapor intended to destroy pests in buildings or soil | Methyl bromide |
| Herbicides | Kill weeds | 2,4-D |
| Insecticides | Kill insects and other arthropods | DDT |
| Miticides | Kill mites | Permethrin |
| Molluscicides | Kill snails and slugs | Methiocarb |
| Nematicides | Kill nematodes | Aldicarb |
| Ovicides | Kill eggs of insects and mites | Hexythiazox |
| Pheromones | Disrupt the mating behavior of insects | Androstenone |
| Repellents | Repel pests and birds | Neem oil |
| Rodenticides | Control mice and other rodents | Warfarin |
| Defoliants | Cause leaves or other foliage to drop from a plant | Drexel |
| Desiccants | Kill leaves | Paraquat |
| Insect growth regulators | Disrupt the molting, maturity from pupal stage to adult, or other life processes of insects | Triflumuron |
| Plant growth regulators | Inhibit growth and other plant responses | Ethephon |
| Pesticide | CAS No. | Reason for selection |
| Aldrin | 309-00-2 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Chlordane | 57-74-9 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| DDT | 50-29-3 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Dieldrin | 60-57-1 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Endrin | 72-20-8 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Heptachlor | 76-44-8 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Toxaphene | 8001-35-2 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Lindane | 58-89-9 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Endosulfan | 115-29-7 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Pentachlorophenol | 87-86-5 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Bromomethane | 74-83-9 | The Stockholm Convention POP |
| Glyphosate | 1071-83-6 | Current high quantity use |
| Mancozeb | 8018-01-7 | Current high quantity use |
| Chlorothalonil | 1897-45-6 | Current high quantity use |
| 2,4-D | 94-75-7 | Current high quantity use |
| Chlorpyriphos | 2921-88-2 | Current high quantity use |
| Atrazine | 1912-24-9 | Current high quantity use |
| MCPA | 94-74-6 | Current high quantity use |
| Dicamba | 1918-00-9 | Current high quantity use |
| Metolachlor | 51218-45-2 | Current high quantity use |
| Aldicarb | 116-06-3 | Current high quantity use |
| Malathion | 121-75-5 | Current high quantity use |
| Diazinon | 333-41-5 | Current high quantity use |
| Trifluralin | 1582-09-8 | Current high quantity use |
| Diuron | 330-54-1 | Current high quantity use |
| Total exposures | Three exposures | Two exposures | One exposure | |
| Number of IMDLs | 145 | 17 | 53 | 75 |
| µ (mg/kg-day) | 2.31E-02 | 1.12E-01 | 2.31E-02 | 3.07E-03 |
| µG (mg/kg-day) | 2.14E-03 | 1.65E-02 | 5.37E-03 | 7.04E-04 |
| µL | −2.67E+00 | −1.78E+00 | −2.27E+00 | −3.15E+00 |
| &sgr;L | 1.16E+00 | 6.73E-01 | 7.40E-01 | 1.26E+00 |
| &sgr; (mg/kg-day) | 1.23E-01 | 2.83E-01 | 1.18E-01 | 3.03E-03 |
| Max IMDL (mg/kg-day) | 8.66E-01 | 8.64E-01 | 8.66E-01 | 8.06E-03 |
| Min IMDL (mg/kg-day) | 1.73E-07 | 5.69E-03 | 3.03E-06 | 1.73E-07 |
| Orders of magnitude variation | 6.70E+00 | 2.18E+00 | 5.46E+00 | 4.67E+00 |
| m (mg/kg-day) | 6.95E-03 | 1.08E-02 | 7.18E-03 | 8.57E-04 |
| Total exposures | Three exposures | Two exposures | One exposure | |
| Number of IMDLs | 129 | 7 | 41 | 81 |
| µ (mg/kg-day) | 3.07E-03 | 3.48E-03 | 3.19E-03 | 2.97E-03 |
| µG (mg/kg-day) | 1.47E-03 | 3.00E-03 | 2.53E-03 | 1.05E-03 |
| µL | −2.83E+00 | −2.52E+00 | −2.60E+00 | −2.98E+00 |
| &sgr;L | 9.21E-01 | 2.42E-01 | 4.96E-01 | 1.08E+00 |
| &sgr; (mg/kg-day) | 2.01E-03 | 2.24E-03 | 1.55E-03 | 2.20E-03 |
| Max IMDL (mg/kg-day) | 6.77E-03 | 6.77E-03 | 6.24E-03 | 6.01E-03 |
| Min IMDL (mg/kg-day) | 4.06E-07 | 2.00E-03 | 3.26E-06 | 4.06E-07 |
| Orders of magnitude variation | 4.22E+00 | 5.29E-01 | 3.28E+00 | 4.17E+00 |
| m (mg/kg-day) | 2.55E-03 | 2.30E-03 | 2.10E-03 | 2.55E-03 |
| Total exposures | Three exposures | Two exposures | One exposure | |
| Number of IMDLs | 108 | 2 | 39 | 67 |
| µ (mg/kg-day) | 4.26E-04 | 3.68E-05 | 6.75E-04 | 2.93E-04 |
| µG (mg/kg-day) | 1.11E-04 | 3.68E-05 | 1.34E-04 | 1.02E-04 |
| µL | −3.96E+00 | −4.43E+00 | −3.87E+00 | −3.99E+00 |
| &sgr;L | 8.90E-01 | 1.68E-02 | 7.97E-01 | 9.51E-01 |
| &sgr; (mg/kg-day) | 9.69E-04 | 1.42E-06 | 1.54E-03 | 3.02E-04 |
| Max IMDL (mg/kg-day) | 8.90E-03 | 3.78E-05 | 8.90E-03 | 1.10E-03 |
| Min IMDL (mg/kg-day) | 1.43E-07 | 3.58E-05 | 3.06E-06 | 1.43E-07 |
| Orders of magnitude variation | 4.79E+00 | 2.38E-02 | 3.46E+00 | 3.89E+00 |
| m (mg/kg-day) | 2.59E-04 | 3.68E-05 | 3.58E-05 | 2.59E-04 |
| Pesticide | CAS No. | Pearson correlation coefficient | Log orders of variance | Max IMDL (mg/kg-day) | Min IMDL (mg/kg-day) | Total number of IMDLs | Number of IMDLs computed from three exposures | Number of IMDLs above ADI |
| 2,4-D | 94-75-7 | 0.881 | 6.70 | 8.66 E-01, Viet Nam | 1.73 E-07, Armenia * | 145 | 17 | 13 (9.0%) |
| Aldicarb | 116-06-3 | 0.977 | 5.00 | 2.86 E-01, Viet Nam | 2.86 E-06, Andorra * | 121 | 5 | 3 (2.5%) |
| Aldrin | 309-00-2 | 0.824 | 5.15 | 2.86 E-03, Croatia | 2.03 E-08, Italy | 147 | 0 | 22 (9.0%) |
| Atrazine | 1912-24-9 | 0.917 | 6.75 | 5.70 E-02, Viet Nam | 1.02 E-08, Ecuador | 125 | 22 | 2 (1.6%) |
| Chlordane | 57-74-9 | 0.923 | 8.06 | 5.71 E-03, Viet Nam * | 5.01 E-11, Serbia | 131 | 5 | 9 (6.9%) |
| Chlorothalonil | 1897-45-6 | 0.925 | 3.51 | 9.22 E-03, Australia | 2.86 E-06, Andorra * | 105 | 2 | 0 (0.0%) |
| Chlorpyriphos | 2921-88-2 | 0.861 | 4.22 | 6.77 E-03, New Zealand | 4.06 E-07, Moldova | 129 | 7 | 100 (77.5%) |
| DDT | 50-29-3 | 0.979 | 6.55 | 5.71 E-02, Viet Nam | 1.62 E-08, Montenegro | 161 | 0 | 25 (15.5%) |
| Diazinon | 333-41-5 | 0.947 | 4.79 | 8.90 E-03, Russia | 1.43 E-07, Iraq | 108 | 2 | 20 (18.5%) |
| Dicamba | 1918-00-9 | 0.713 | 4.34 | 1.10 E-02, Russia | 5.08 E-07, Uzbekistan | 105 | 2 | 0 (0.0%) |
| Dieldrin | 60-57-1 | 0.981 | 5.15 | 2.86 E-03, Croatia | 2.03 E-08, Italy | 140 | 0 | 20 (14.2%) |
| Diuron | 330-54-1 | 0.946 | 4.45 | 2.86 E-02, Russia | 1.02 E-06, Moldova * | 75 | 2 | 11 (11.4%) |
| Endosulfan | 115-29-7 | 0.941 | 8.29 | 3.94 E-03, Argentina | 2.03 E-11, Serbia * | 76 | 0 | 0 (0.0%) |
| Endrin | 72-20-8 | 0.915 | 7.55 | 2.87 E-03, Hungary | 8.13 E-11, Serbia | 102 | 0 | 6 (5.9%) |
| Glyphosate | 1071-83-6 | 0.854 | 6.11 | 1.86 E-01, Guatemala | 1.43 E-07, Iraq | 115 | 4 | 42 (27.1%) |
| Heptachlor | 76-44-8 | 0.981 | 6.30 | 2.86 E-03, Croatia | 1.42 E-09, Singapore | 113 | 8 | 18 (15.9%) |
| Lindane | 58-89-9 | 0.969 | 7.53 | 5.71 E-02, Viet Nam | 1.67 E-09, Bulgaria | 153 | 4 | 14 (9.2%) |
| Malathion | 121-75-5 | 0.688 | 5.91 | 1.17 E-01, Viet Nam | 1.43 E-07, Iraq | 111 | 2 | 94 (84.7%) |
| Mancozeb | 8081-01-7 | 0.719 | 5.11 | 2.63 E-02, U.S. | 2.03 E-07, Belarus * | 105 | 2 | 0 (0.0%) |
| MCPA | 94-74-6 | 0.917 | 5.85 | 5.78 E-02, Viet Nam | 8.13 E-08, Belarus | 126 | 12 | 39 (69.0%) |
| Metolachlor | 51218-45-2 | 0.921 | 5.78 | 2.44 E-02, Bahamas | 4.06 E-08, Georgia | 77 | 3 | 0 (0.0%) |
| Pentachlorophenol | 87-86-5 | 0.970 | 5.94 | 2.57 E-01, Viet Nam | 2.94 E-07, Moldova | 130 | 4 | 2 (1.5%) |
| Trifluralin | 1582-09-8 | 0.897 | 6.45 | 5.71 E-01, Viet Nam | 2.03 E-07, Moldova | 98 | 2 | 1 (1.0%) |
| * The values are also shared by other nation. | ||||||||
