Advertisement

Toxicology and Environmental Health Sciences

, Volume 10, Issue 5, pp 330–335 | Cite as

Monocrotophos, Its Toxic Effect (dermal) on Eisenia fetida (Savigny)

  • Senthil Kumar AbbiramyEmail author
  • Veeramani Vinitha
  • Gunasekaran Sangeetha
  • Mohandoss Monisha
Original article
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

Driven by the need to improve productivity and to secure and sustainable global food supply, pesticides are constantly used by farmers. Among the pesticides, Monocrotophos is the most locally popular pesticide used by Indian farmers. Strenuous usage of this pesticide affects the soil dwelling organisms especially the earthworms which are more deleteriously affected. Hence an ecotoxicity study against the pesticide Monocrotophos was performed to determine the dermal toxicity of earthworm Eisenia fetida.

Methods

The standard paper contact test proposed by OECD (1984) was implemented and histological studies as evidence was performed to prove the effect of Monocrotophos on the tissues of earthworm.

Results

The acute dermal toxicity (LC50) of Monocrotophos on the earthworm, Eisenia fetida was determined as 0.0036 μg/cm2. Hence the Monocrotophos was categorized as “Super toxic” to earthworms. The histological studies showed heavy damages on the earthworm tissues such as epidermis, peritoneal epithelium, Chloragogen cells, longitudinal muscles, etc.

Conclusion

The study concluded that Monocrotophos is highly toxic to earthworms and furthermore studies on the acute and chronic toxicity with OECD soil is needed to assess the actual effect in soil.

Keywords

Ecotoxicity Paper contact test Eisenia fetida Monocrotophos LC50 Histopathology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ponge, J. F. The soil as an ecosystem. Biol. Fertil. Soil. 51, 645–648 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brito, M. G., Costa, C., Vendas, D. & Serranheira, F. Soil contamination and human health risk assessment at a former industrial site in a densely populated urban area. Proceeding: Conference on Modelling Innovation Sustainability and Technologies, Portugal (2015).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Natal–da–Luz, T., Römbke, J. & Sousa, J. P. Avoidance tests in site–specific risk assessment–influence of soil properties on the avoidance response of collembola and earthworms. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 27, 1112–1117 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Silva, P. M. C. S. in Pesticide effects on earthworms. A tropical perspective (VU Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Van den Brink, P. J. et al. in Environmental and human risk of pesticide use in Thailand and Sri Lanka (Results of a preliminary risk assessment. Alterra–report 789. MAMAS Report Series No. 3/2003) (Wageningen: Alterra, The Netherlands, 2003).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Damalas, C. A. & Eleftherohorinos, I. G. Pesticide Exposure, Safety Issues, and Risk Assessment Indicators. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Healt. 8, 1402–1419 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    US–EPA. Pesticide fact sheet No 72: monocrotophos, https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/tiff2png.cgi/91024KQL. PNG?–r+75+–g+7+D%3A%5CZYFILES%5CINDEX% 20DATA%5C86THRU90%5CTIFF% 5C00003461%5C91024KQL.TIF (1985).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anonymous. in Health implications from Monocrotophos use: a review of the evidence in India (WHO publications, Regional Office of South–East Asis: New Delhi, 2009).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Roberts, B. L. & Dorough, H. W. Relative toxicities of chemicals to the earthworm Eisenia foetida. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 3, 67–78 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rao, J. V. & Kavitha, P. Toxicity of azodrin on the morphology and acetylcholinesterase activity of the earthworm Eisenia foetida. Environ. Res. 96, 323–327 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Filipek–Mazur, B., Mazur, K. & Gondek, K. Studies on fertilizer value of vermicomposts. Part II. The effect of vermicomposts composition of orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.). Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Rolniczej, Szczecin, 211, Rolnictw. 84, 297–302 (2000).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    OECD. Organization for Economic Co–operation and Development: OECD Guideline for Testing of Chemicals. Test No. 207: Earthworm, Acute Toxicity Tests, https://www.oecd–ilibrary.org/environment/test–no–207–earthworm–acute–toxicity–tests_9789264070042–en (1984).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    OECD. Organisation for Economic Co–operation and Development: (OECD Principles of Good Laboratory Practice, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/oecd. asp (1998).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Humason, G. L. in Animal tissue techniques (W. H. Freeman and Company, USA, 1979).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zar, J. H. in Biostatistical Analysis (Prentice–Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1984).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Environmental Risk Assessment and Health Science and Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Senthil Kumar Abbiramy
    • 1
    Email author
  • Veeramani Vinitha
    • 1
  • Gunasekaran Sangeetha
    • 1
  • Mohandoss Monisha
    • 1
  1. 1.PG & Research Department of Zoology and Wildlife BiologyA. V. C. College (Autonomous)MannampandalIndia

Personalised recommendations