Strategies for reducing airborne pesticides under tropical conditions
Brazil is currently one of the largest pesticide consumers worldwide. However, a lack of scientific information regarding airborne pollution is still an issue, with tragic consequences to human health and the environment. To reduce pollution of the lower air layers, where pesticide spraying occurs, green barriers that filter the air could be an effective mitigation procedure. Modifying pulverization habits, by pulverizing in the late afternoon instead of in the morning could also reduce pesticide volatilization, while other recommendations with the purpose of lowering the pesticide amounts currently applied are likewise pursued. Data obtained about volatilization have demonstrated that, in order to reduce air pollution risks, one of the most effective preventive strategies is to ban products with high vapor pressure. Global/local stakeholders need to assume the responsibility to find the best way to reduce airborne pesticide pollution, which has increasingly shown disastrous effects as major poisons to human health and the environment.
KeywordsDrift reduction Human poisonings Pesticide air pollution Pesticide pulverization Volatilization
Financial support was from FAPERJ, PRONEX. We shall thank Dr. Aluisio Granato for the grateful comments in the text.
- Andrade Filho, A., and S.D. Souza. 2013. Anticolinesterásicos. In Toxicologia na Pratica Clinica Folium, 89–98, 2nd edn.Google Scholar
- Costa, D., T. Campos, T. Langenbach, and A. Haddad-Nudi. 2016. Aplicação e volatilização do 2,4-D na superfície de solos em diferentes horários. In Conference: XVIII Congresso Brasileiro de Mecânica dos Solos e Engenharia Geotécnica. Minas Gerais: ABMSGoogle Scholar
- FOCUS. 2008. Pesticides in air: Considerations for exposure assessment. Report prepared by the Working Group on Pesticides in Air (FOCUS Air Group).Google Scholar
- Freemark, K., and C. Boutin. 1995. Impacts of agriculture herbicide use on terrestrial wildlife in temperate landscapés: A reviews with special reference to North América Agriculture Ecosystem. Environment. 52: 57–91.Google Scholar
- Garcerá, C., C. Román, E. Moltó, R. Abad, J.A. Insa, X. Torrent, S. Planas, and P. Chueca. 2017. Comparison between standard and drift reducing nozzles for pesticide application in citrus: Part II. Effects on canopy spray distribution, control efficacy of Aonidiella aurantii (Maskell), beneficial parasitoids and pesticide residues on fruit. Crop Protection 94: 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Giles, D., P. Klassen, F. Niederholzer, and D. Downey. 2011. Smart sprayer technology provides environmental economic benefits in California Orchards. Report, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources of the University of California.Google Scholar
- Hart, K., and D. Pimentel. 2002. Public health and cost of pesticides. In Encyclopedia of Pest Managemented, ed. D. Pimentel, 677–679. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
- Hassink, J., J.A. Guth, F.J. Reischmann, R. Allen, D. Arnold, C.R. Leake, M. Skidmore, and G.L. Reeves. 2003. Vapour pressure and volatile losses of plant protection products from plants and soil. In Proceedings of the XII Symposium Pesticide Chemistry, eds. Del Rey A., A.M. Capri, E. Padovani, L., and M. Trevisan, 359–366, Piacenza, Italy.Google Scholar
- Larsson, M, K. Boye, T. Nanos, M. Kreuger, and J. Boye. 2017. https://www.slu.se/globalassets/ew/org/centrb/ckb/publikationer/postrar/poster-york—swedish-environmental-monitoring-program.pdf19).
- Pimentel, D., H. Acquay, M. Biltonen, P. Rice, M. Silva, J. Nelson, V. Lipner, S. Giordana, et al. 1993. Assessment of environment and economic impacts of pesticideuse. In The pesticide question: Environment, economics and ethics, ed. D. Pimentel, and H. Lehman, 47–84. New York: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Prada, P. 2015. Fateful harvest, why Brazil has a big appetite for risky pesticides. http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/brazil-pesticides/. Accessed 20 January 2017.
- Reimer, A.P., and L.S. Prokopy. 2012. Environmental attitudes and drift reduction behavior among commercial pesticide applicators in a U.S. agricultural landscape. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 113: 361–369.Google Scholar
- Rosas A.C.S. 2003. Avaliação da dispersão de agrotóxicos no ar – estudo de caso em Nova Friburgo. Master Thesis, CESTEH/ENSP/FIOCRUZ. Avaliação da contaminação no ar por organofosforados em São Lourenço, Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar
- Salcedo, R., C. Garcera, R. Granell, E. Molto, and P. Chueca. 2015. Description of the airflow produced by an air assisted sprayer during pesticide applications to citrus. Spanish Journal Agriculture Research. 13: 1–15.Google Scholar
- Sanusi, A., M. Millet, P. Mirabel, and H. Worthman. 2013. Comparison of atmospheric pesticide concentrations measured at three sampling sites: Local, regional and long-range transport. Science of Total Environment. 18: 263–277.Google Scholar
- Streicher, J. 1997. Air concentrations and inhalation exposure to pesticides in the agricultural health pilot study. EPA/600/Sr-97/059.Google Scholar
- Vanclooster, M., J.D. Piñeros-Garcet, J.J.T.I. Boesten, F. Van den Berg, M. Leistra, J. Smelt, N. Jarvis, S. Roulier, et al. 2003. APECOP: Effective approaches for adjustment of the pesticide risk index used in environmental policy in Flanders.Google Scholar
- Van de Zande, C., J. Michielsen, H. Stallinga, and A. De Jong. 2000. The effect of windbreak height and air assistance on exposure of surface water via spray drift. In: Proceedings of the British Crop Protection Conference-Pest and Diseases 2000, 91–96. Brighton: UK.Google Scholar
- World Bank. 2008. World development report: Agriculture for development. Washington, DC: TheWorld Bank.Google Scholar