Agricultural and domestic pesticides in house dust from different agricultural areas in France
Pesticides have been associated with various pathologies, and there is growing evidence of pesticide presence in domestic environments. However, most available studies focused on a limited number of pesticides or households, and few have been conducted in Europe. We aimed to assess indoor pesticide contamination by screening the prevalence of 276 pesticides and ten pesticide metabolites, in French households from different agricultural and urban areas. We sampled indoor dust from 239 households in 2012, proximate to orchards (n = 69), cereals (n = 66) and vineyard (n = 68) crops, or from urban area (n = 36). we used cellulose wipes moistened with isopropanol and polypropylene dust traps to collect recent (7 and 30 days, respectively) and settled dust (> 6 months). Overall, 125 pesticides and piperonyl butoxide were detected at least once in households, mostly at low prevalence: 97 in recent dust, and 111 in settled dust. In recent dust, the most prevalent compounds were o-phenylphenol (168 households, 70%), pentachlorophenol (86, 36%), and piperonyl butoxide (82, 34%). In addition to agricultural pesticides, we found a high proportion of domestic and banned compounds in recent and settled house dust. Several pesticides were identified in house dust, from different pesticide groups and sources. Our results suggest that domestic usage and persistence of banned pesticides may contribute substantially to indoor pesticide contamination.
KeywordsPesticides Dust Agriculture Gardening Airborne contamination
Departmental Agricultural Chambers
General Directorate of Customs and Excise
Regional Directorate for Food, Agriculture and Forestry
geographic information systems
principal coordinate analyses
recent dust samples
settled dust samples
The authors acknowledge Elodie Faure (Centre Léon Bérard) for the GIS analyses, Kevin Saout for collecting part of the samples, and Helen Bailey (IARC) for proof-reading; Guy Le Henaf (IRSTEA); all the volunteers that participated to the study; and the departmental agricultural chambers, the farmers, and the pesticide vendors that participate to the study.
RB, JB, JS, and FB drafted the study protocol, with the help of JRN. RB and JB participated to the sample collection. MLB and BC supervised the laboratory analyses. EB performed the statistical analyses. MM was involved in the design and the interpretation of the results of the validation study. RB and JB interpreted the main results, with the help of TP, EB, JRN, JS, and BF. RB drafted the manuscript, under the supervision of JS and BF, and with the help of the coauthors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Rémi Béranger held a doctoral grant from the Région Rhône-Alpes. This project was granted by the Fondation de France (Engt 2011-00023939) and the Région Rhône-Alpes (ref. 12-021795-01 and ref. 14-02516301-CLB001).
Compliance with ethical standards
Ethics approval and consent to participate
All participants signed informed consent. No monetary or non-monetary compensation was provided. The study was approved by relevant French authorities (French National Commission of Informatics and Freedom, CNIL—no.1560501v0).
The authors declare they have no competing interests.
- ANSES (Agence française de sécurité sanitaire de l’environnement et du travail) (2018). Latest version of the index of veterinary medicinal products authorized in France now online. https://www.anses.fr/en/content/latest-version-index-veterinary-medicinal-products-authorised-france-now-online. Accessed 7 January 2019
- ANSES (2010) Exposition de la population générale aux résidus de pesticides en France: Synthèse etrecommandations du comité d’orientation et de prospective scientifique de l’observatoire des résidus de pesticides, ORP. In French. https://www.ecophyto-pro.fr/data/exposition_population_generale_pesticides_2010_vdef.pdf. Accessed 8 January 2019
- ATMO Drôme-Ardeche (2010) Suivi des pesticides dans l’air ambiant. Bron, Air Rhône-AlpesGoogle Scholar
- Butte W, Heinzow B (2002) Pollutants in house dust as indicators of indoor contamination. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 175:1–46Google Scholar
- California Department of Pesticide Regulation (2010) Summary of pesticide use report data. California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
- Deziel NC, Colt JS, Kent EE, Gunier RB, Reynolds P, Booth B, Metayer C, Ward MH (2015) Associations between self-reported pest treatments and pesticide concentrations in carpet dust. Environ Health 25:14–27Google Scholar
- INRS (Institut national de recherche et de sécurité) (2017) 3-iodo-2-propynylbutylcarbamate (IPBC). In French. www.inrs.fr/dms/ficheTox/FicheFicheTox/FICHETOX_320-3/FicheTox_320.pdf. Accessed 8 January 2019
- Inserm (Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale) (2013) Pesticides: effets sur la santé. [in French]. INSERM, ParisGoogle Scholar
- Oksanen J, Blanchet, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Henry M, Tevens H, Agner H (2012) Vegan: community ecology package. R package[2.0-3]. CRAN.R-project.org
- Schantz MM, Lynch JM, Kucklick JR, Poster DL, Stapleton HM, Vander-Pol SS, Wise SA (2007) New standard reference material (SRM) 2585: organic contaminants in house dust to support exposure assessment measurements. Am Lab 39Google Scholar
- Tulve NS, Jones PA, Nishioka MG, Fortmann RC, Croghan CW, Zhou JY, Fraser A, Cavel C, Friedman W (2006) Pesticide measurements from the first national environmental health survey of child care centers using a multi-residue GC/MS analysis method. Environ Sci Technol 40:6269–6274CrossRefGoogle Scholar