comsumption risk assessment of pesticides...

COMSUMPTION RISK ASSESSMENT OF PESTICIDES

CONTAMINATION IN CHILI FROM FARM TO FORK

WATTASIT SIRIWONG1,2,*, Sutisar Ooraikul3,4, Sumana Siripattanakul4,5,

Srilert Chotpantarat4,6, and Mark Robson2,7

1 College of Public Health Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

2 Thai Fogarty ITREOH Center, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

3 International Postgraduate Programs in Environmental Management, Graduate School, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

4 National Center of Excellence for Environmental and Hazardous Waste Management (NCE-EHWM), Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

5 Faculty of Engineering, and NCE-EHWM, Ubon Ratchathani University, Ubonratchathani, Thailand

6 Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

7 School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, Rutgers University, New Jersey, USA

The 3rd International Conference

on Public Health among Greater

Mekong Sub-Regional Countries 9 August 2011

Chilli consumption

2

The Ministry of Public Health reported “ Thai’s chilli consumption as approximately 5 g/day or 1 teaspoon. ”

Thai people, especially Northeasterners,

like chilli spiciness and prefer using the chilli

as an ingredient in their daily cooking.

Photo by: http://www.google.co.th/imghp?hl=th&tab=wi

The chilli growing farmers have to use many loads of pesticides

both pre- and post- harvest to control chilli pests, protect the crops from

disease and meet high production of targets.

Literature review

3Photo by: Norkaew, Robson, Siriwong and Taneepanichskul, 2010

(Aksornsri, 2005; Nokaew, 2009)

Chilli-growing farmers had “Low knowledge, Less concern and Fair practices”

Literature review

4Photo by: Siriwong et al., 2009-2010 Pesticide survey at Ubonrachthani province, North-eastern Thailand

Pesticide usage at Hua Rua sub-district, Ubonratchathani

Literature review

5

Saowanee Norkaew (2009) interviewed the 330 chilli-growing farmers at Hua Rua.

Organophosphate pesticides (OPPs)

are the most widely used in chilli farming area at Hua Rua

Pesticide Uses

6

Literature reviews

7Photo by: Norkaew, Robson, Siriwong and Taneepanichskul, 2010

Questionnaire based pesticide usage (February 2011)

Chlorpyrifos (podium 600), Profenofos (Selecon), EPN, Abamectin

Mixed more than 2 types of pesticide

Sprayed pesticide every 7 days by using potable pump

Applied over the recommendation dose

Collected chilli after 6 – 7 days of pesticide spraying.

Pesticide residues

8

Hua Rua survey, February 2011

The chilli are directly brought from the planting farms.

Pesticide residue

on Chilli

Does the consumer get risk ?

9

Yes or No ?

Hypothesis

10

“ Local people in a chilli farming area in Hua Rua sub-district,

Ubonratchathani province, Thailand are at risk of organophosphate

pesticide residue from their consumption. ”

Objective

11

To assess the human health risks associated with the consumption of

organophosphate pesticides residues of local people living in Hua Rua sub-

district, Ubonratchathani province, Thailand.

To analyze the residues of organophosphate pesticides in chilli products.

To compare the level of organophosphate pesticides residues on chilli with

the national and international Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs).

12

Research Methodology

Analytical technique for determination of OPPs in chilli“QuEChERS method”

Questionnaire based dietary survey

Photo by: QuEChERS, 2010.

13

Sampling SitesThe 11 sampling sites at Hua Rua Sub-districts, Ubonratchathani Province

October 2010 – February 2011

• Chilli sampling were conducted on February 2011.

• Thirty-three chilli samples (n = 33) were collected from 11 chilli farm areas in

Hua Rua after pesticide spraying 7 days.

• The collected chilli were maintained below 4°C during transportation

• OPPRs in chilli were extracted by using QuEChERS method and analyzed by

GC-FPD.

15

Chilli Sampling

16

Questionnaire based dietary survey

• Interview randomly for local people who consume chilli

in Hua Rua area

• Face-to-face interview

• The questionnaire consists of 3 parts:

1. General Information: age, gender, body weight, occupation,

education level

3. Health information: signs and symptoms

2. Consumption behavior: exposure information, intensity (how

much), frequency (how often) and duration (how long)

Questionnaire

17

Photo by: Ooraikul, S., 2010

The questionnaire-based

socio-demographic and

dietary survey

October – December 2010

Methodology: Face-to-face interview

Mean age (range 15-79 years) 47 ± 14

Sex

Female

Male

65

45

59.1

40.9

Mean weight (range 35-86 kg) 57 ± 10

CharacterizationHua Rua Sub-district, Ubonratchathani

Number (n = 110) Percentage (%)

The questionnaire-based socio-demographic and dietary survey

110 local people at Hua Rua were participant

Dietary Survey

Occupation

Agriculturist / Farmer

Student

Business owner

Government officer / Officer

86

11

7

6

78.2

10.0

6.4

5.5

19

Education

≥ Elementary school

Secondary school

Bachelor’s degree

Diploma

83

20

4

3

75.5

18.2

2.7

3.6



Dietary Survey

20

Dietary Survey



The source of chilli usage

Own chilli farm; Used pesticide

Own chilli farm; No pesticide usage

Local market; Used pesticide

Local market; Organic farm

72

20

16

2

65.5

18.2

14.5

1.8

Washing chilli before cooking

Never

Sometime

Always

11

18

81

10.0

16.4

73.6

21



Spicy level (Chilli quantity)

Very spicy (≥ 7 chilli/menu)

Moderate spicy (6-4 chilli/menu)

Less spicy (1-3 chilli/plate)

No

39

51

20

0

35.5

46.4

18.2

0

Average chilli consumption (g/day) 18 ± 15*

* 1 Chilli 1.32 g

The average daily chilli consumption of local people in Hua Rua was 18 g/day

more than 3 times the average of general Thai (5 g/day).

Dietary Survey

22

Step 1: Preparation and Extraction step

Step 2: Cleanup step

Step 3: Analysis

Photo by: QuEChERS, 2010

Pesticide Concentration Analysis: QuEChERS

Column: DB-1701 (30.0 m, 0.25 mm i.d., 0.25 μm film)

Detector: Flame Photometric Detector (FPD)

Inj. Temp: 220°C

Det Temp: 250°C

Carrier Gas: He

Splitless: 0.75 minutes

Inj. Volume: 1 µl

23

1. Dichlorvos

2. Acephate

3. Omethoate

4. Demeton-S-

methyl

5. Dimethoate

6. Tolclofos-methyl

7. Pirimiphos-

methyl

8. Malathion

9. Chlorpyrifos

10. Methidathion11. Prothiofos

12. Profenofos

13. Ethion

OPPRs analysis: GC-FPD

Organophosphate pesticide

LODs = 0.01 µg/mL

OPPRs analysis

Chlorpyrifos

Profenofos

24

OPPRs were identifiedby GC- FPD.

Chlorpyrifos concentration

25

0.65

0.75

0.72

0.17

0.36

0.41

1.27

1.38

1.01

0.51

0.65

0.90< 0.01< 0.01< 0.01< 0.01< 0.01< 0.01< 0.01< 0.01< 0.01

0.40

0.45

0.41< 0.01< 0.01< 0.01< 0.01< 0.01< 0.01

0.33

0.26

0.40

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

mg/kg

sample no.chlorpyrifos concentration

MRLs of chlorpyrifos 0.5 mg/kg

The levels of 9 chlorpyrifos contaminated chilli samples exceeded MRL

(< 0.01 – 1.38 mg/kg)

MRL reference: Codex Alimentarius, 2010

Profenofos concentration

26

6.29

5.79

5.49

0.81

0.74

1.13

5.33

5.08

4.77

1.08

1.17

1.49

1.44

1.94

1.18

4.89

3.34

2.51

2.55

2.05

1.51

2.09

1.83

2.14

3.80

4.83

3.28

0.52

0.68

0.90

2.03

2.40

2.60

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

mg/kg

sample no.

profenofos concentration

26

MRLs of profenofos 5 mg/kg

The levels of 5 profenofos contaminated chilli samples exceeded MRL

(0.52 – 6.29 mg/kg)

MRL reference: Codex Alimentarius, 2010

27

Human Health Risk Assessment

Analytical technique for

determination of OPPs in chilli“QuEChERS method”

Questionnaire survey

Photo by: QuEChERS, 2010.

Human Health

Risk Assessment


Hazard identification

Dose-response Assessment

Exposure Assessment

Risk Characterization

28

1. Hazard Identification

“Major OPPs toxicological effects are an irreversible

inhibition of acetylcholinesterase enzyme (AChE)in the nervous system”


Chlorpyrifos and Profenofos are classified as

non-carcinogenic pesticide

ChlorpyrifosProfenofos

Organophosphate Pesticides (OPPs)

29

Photo by: http://www.epa.gov/IRIS/


2. Dose-Response Assessment

Oral reference dose of Chlorpyrifos (RfD)

= 0.003 mg/kg-day (US EPA, 1988)

Oral reference dose of Profenofos (RfD)

= 0.0001 mg/kg-day (Jaipieam, 2009)

30

Where,

ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kgday)

C = Pesticide concentration (mg/kg) Obtained from OPPs Analysis

AT = Averaging time (day); For non-carcinogenic effects, AT = ED in days

IR = Intake rate (kg chilli/day)

EF = Exposure frequency (days/year) Obtained from interview

ED = Exposure duration (years)

BW = Body weight (kg)

• Profenofos and chlorpyrifos are classified as non-carcinogen pesticide

• Average Daily Dose (ADD) is the expression of average exposures of substances

which have non-carcinogenic effect. (US EPA)

ADD = C × IR × EF × EDBW × AT


3. Exposure Assessment

1.07

10.10

24.20

8.00

45.90

110.00

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

Mean 95th Maximun

ADD Chlorpyrifos

ADD Profenofosx 10-4 mg/kg/day

Average Daily Dose (ADD)

31

• Profenofos and chlorpyrifos are classified as non-carcinogen pesticide

• Reference dose (RfD) is the criterion in non-carcinogenic risk characterization.

Where,

HQ 1 Acceptable level (no concern)

HQ 1 Adverse non-carcinogenic effect concern (risk)

Evaluation of non-carcinogenic toxicity of Individual risk computes by

using the hazard quotient (HQ). (US EPA)

4. Risk Characterization


HQ = Exposure = ADDRfD RfD

32

HQ Chlopyrifos

33

0.00010.036

0.337

0.807

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Minimum Mean 95th Maximum

Acceptable level

HQ chlorpyrifos

HQ Profenofos

34

0.09

8.00

45.90

110.00

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120


HQ Profenofos

Acceptable level

RME

Maximum

High Risk

1

0.0001

0.036

0.337

0.807

0.0912

8.008

45.9

110

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100


HQ chlorpyrifos

35

Acceptable level



High Risk

Oral Rfd-Chlorpyrifos = 0.003 mg/kg-day

Oral Rfd-Profenofos = 0.0001 mg/kg-day

Conclusion

36

Health Risk Assessment

Chlorpryifos is not concern

Profenofos is at risk

Profenofos, Chlorpyrifos

Non-carcinogenic pesticide

AchE inhibition effect

ADD-Chlorpyrifos = 1.07 x 10-4 mg/kg-day

ADD-Profenofos = 8.00 x 10-4 mg/kg-day

Risk Management

1. Hazard identification

2. Dose-response Assessment

3. Exposure Assessment


THANK YOU

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CPHS, Chulalongkorn University

Thai Fogarty ITREOH Center (ITREOH: D43 TW007849-01)

The Higher Education Research Promotion and National Research University Project of

Thailand, Office of the Higher Education Commission (AS581A)

The 90th Anniversary of the Chulalongkorn University Fund

(Ratchadaphiseksomphot Endowment Fund)

University of Health Sciences, Ministry of Health, Laos

comsumption risk assessment of pesticides...

Documents