Table of ContentsIntroductionDursbanConclusionThe use of pesticides is an increasingly controversial topic. I chose this topic due to my interest in the environment and my lack of knowledge on this particular issue. Pesticides are receiving more and more attention and their possible impacts on the environment are becoming more and more present. This essay examines the improvement, uses and effects of pesticides in our world today. The impacts on humans and the environment will be examined. The essay begins with a general introduction to pesticides and their history, as well as how they have become increasingly popular in our society today, focusing specifically on the United States. This article will mainly focus on four pesticides; DDT, Dursban, Aldrin and Neonicotinoids – all of which have been very commonly used in the past and today throughout the world. The essay examines these pesticides and what they are used for, their impacts on the environment and humans, and what has been done to reduce these problems. Ultimately, this essay concludes that pesticides have serious negative effects and that despite bans and new legislation, there are still environmental impacts that cause health problems for animals and humans, and great disruptions in ecosystems - disturbances that have a domino effect and cause their own problems. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayIntroductionHow have pesticides improved, in terms of their uses and effects on humans and the environment, in over time? Pesticides have been around and used for agricultural purposes for thousands of years. The first known use of pesticides was by the Chinese, who began using sulfur to control bacteria and fungi around 1000 BCE. Since then, much progress has been made in terms of pesticide improvement. The 1930s marked the beginning of the creation of synthetic pesticides, pesticides created by humans and not by natural substances. The initial use of synthetic pesticides in the United States began in the 1930s and became very common after World War II. By 1950, pesticides were found to increase agricultural yields well beyond pre-World War II levels, and farmers quickly turned to synthetic pesticides to control insects in their crops. Today, it is one of the most commonly used methods of insect control.[1] However, the solution to one problem can create others. This is what will be studied in this article, the problems and impacts of pesticides. Due to scientific advances and lawsuits, pesticide toys used today are very different from those used in the early and heyday of pesticides in the 1950s and mostly have a much lower environmental impact. lesser. Newer pesticides require extensive laboratory and field testing to be authorized and can take about five years to reach markets and be used on a large scale. A pesticide company must identify uses, test effectiveness, and provide data on chemical structure, production, formulation, fate, persistence, and environmental impacts, as well as licensure of the pesticide with the EPA [2]. The first significant synthetic organic pesticide that was created was a hydrocarbonchlorinated (or organochlorinated): dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane or more commonly known, DDT. DDT was discovered in 1939 by Paul Muller, a well-known Swiss chemist. In its early days, it was considered a miracle pesticide for a number of reasons[3]: 1. It was toxic to a wide range of insect pests ("broad spectrum") but appeared to have low toxicity to mammals , 2. It was persistent, because it did not break down quickly in the environment and did not need to be reapplied often, 3. It was not soluble in water, so it was not washed off nor destroyed by rains, and 4. It was inexpensive and easy to apply. DDT became very effective in killing pests. The following quote was said by Paul Muller after his discovery of DDT; “My fly cage was so toxic after a short time that even after very thorough cleaning of the cage, untreated flies, touching the walls, fell to the ground. I was only able to continue my tests after dismantling the cage, cleaning it carefully and then leaving it in the open air for about a month. »[4] This shows how effective and durable DDT was. DDT was used for multiple reasons other than protecting crops from insects, so widely used that cities even began using it as a way to control mosquitoes, gypsy moths, Japanese beetles and others insects in residential areas[5]. At the time, DDT was the most popular pesticide in the world and was used extensively worldwide, largely due to its inexpensive price for large quantities. One of the advantages of DDT was that it was not soluble in water, which was good in terms of strength. rain, but not good as the pesticide then accumulates in rivers. The buildup in rivers affected fish and crabs, especially juveniles, because DDT was toxic to them as well as insects. From there, it was really just a progression up the food chain. The birds that ate the infected fish ingested the pesticide and this in turn affected them[6]. This is also known as biomagnification, because birds can eat multiple fish per day, there is a good chance that over time they can accumulate a fair amount of DDT in their body from the multiple affected fish that they eat. A model of this accumulation of DDT up the food chain is shown below. DDT has been found to cause behavioral abnormalities and eggshell thinning in populations of bald eagles and peregrine falcons, birds that very commonly ate fish in areas where they were highly threatened. affected. The most detrimental environmental impact of DDT is eggshell thinning. As we know, birds sit on their eggs before they hatch in order to incubate them. With the thinning of the shells, this is no longer possible: the eggs would break very easily when the mother perches on them[8]. With the majority of bald eagle and peregrine falcon eggs broken, virtually none of these birds were hatching, meaning the population of these birds plunged and was on the verge of extinction in some parts of the world. In the United States, it was decided to ban all use of DDT, but in other countries, DDT is still used.[9] Many of these regions still use DDT on crops exported all over the world, including the United States [10]. With the use of this pesticide still present around the world, the ecosystem is still largely affected and modified. InIn many cases, we still don't know the long-term effects of DDT on certain animals, on the environment, or if it can harm us again. DursbanAnother pesticide still in use is Dursban. Dursban was one of the most commonly used pesticides in households, schools, hospitals and agriculture until 2000[11] and is the trademark for the pesticide chlorpyrifos from Dow AgroSciences. Chlorpyrifos is the active ingredient in Dursban and is what makes the pesticide harmful. Chlorpyrifos is one of 40 widely used organophosphate pesticides known as neurotoxic chemicals that can have very harmful effects[12]. It is the third most commonly used pesticide in homes and commerce and the thirteenth most commonly used pesticide in agriculture, with 11 million pounds applied annually in homes and commercially and 13 million pounds applied annually in agriculture[13]. Dursban has several common uses, one is for nurseries. Dursban is used on nursery-grown ornamentals to treat a variety of pests and insects. It is also approved for use on soil to control grubs during planting or before transplanting field-grown nursery stock, as well as on turf grown for seed and/or turf. Also a “broad spectrum” control pesticide, its manufacturer claims to control more than 280 harmful insects[14]. Dursban is also used for termite treatment, called Dursban TC. Dursban TC is a termiticide concentrate used to prevent or control subterranean termite infestations[15]. Another common use is as an insecticide. Dursban as an insecticide is used as general pest control around the perimeters of industrial buildings, as well as windows, decks, fences, foundations and garages.[16]. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) defines Dursban as a hazardous chemical. 17]. Experimental animal studies have suggested that infants and children are more likely than adults to be affected by low-level exposure to chlorpyrifos.[18] This susceptibility is due to the fact that young people are unable to detoxify chlorpyrifos and its metabolites as quickly, if at all[19]. Exposure to chlorpyrifos during pregnancy or childhood has been associated with low birth weight and neurological abnormalities in epidemiological studies. Slower motor development and attention problems are potential impacts of these neurological impacts [20]. Many studies have also been done on the effects of chlorpyrifos on animals. In numerous rat experiments, long-lasting neurological impacts were observed due to short-term exposures to low doses of chlorpyrifos and affected rats' emotional processing and cognition[21]. The most significant neurological changes were seen when the rats were still developing, when sex differences in the brain become established. This has been found to even reverse normal sex differences between men and women. Exposure to the pesticide also affected body weight, metabolism, and liver and chemical indicators, as if the rat suffered from pre-diabetes.[22] These changes and effects could and can cause many adverse effects that could have a serious impact on the life of the rat/animal. In 2011, the EPA estimated that in the general United States population, people consume approximately 0.009 micrograms of chlorpyrifos per kilogram of their body weight. per daydirectly from pesticide residues present on the foods they consume. Children were found to consume even greater amounts, with toddlers consuming 0.025 micrograms of chlorpyrifos per kilogram of body weight per day. In some rural areas, the EPA maximum acceptable dose of 0.3 micrograms/kg/day is reached. Before the United States banned residential use of chlorpyrifos, the national NHANES study showed that 91% of human urine contained traces of chlorpyrifos. A 2008 study found a dramatic decrease in urinary levels of chlorpyrifos metabolites when children in the general population switched from their conventional diets to organic diets, meaning they switched from foods containing chlorpyrifos residues to foods without these residues. This means that Dursban used on food is most likely causing the chlorpyrifos buildup. Certain populations of people with greater exposure to chlorpyrifos, such as people who apply pesticides, work on farms, or live in agricultural communities, have 5 to 10 times the levels of chlorpyrifos in their urine than any member of the population general. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has conducted air monitoring studies and cataloged chlorpyrifos in the air of California communities. CARB data indicate that children living in areas with high chlorpyrifos use are often exposed to levels of the pesticide that exceed levels considered acceptable by the EPA[23] and have shown that people living in these areas have higher than normal levels of chlorpyrifos in their body, which can cause a much higher chance of experiencing the side effects of the toxin. On June 8, 2000, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced an agreement it had reached with Dow AgroSciences that phased out most, but not all, uses of Dursban.[24] As of 2010, Dursban is still permitted for use in agricultural applications on turf farms, indoor and outdoor nursery ornamentals, as a termiticide, and as an insecticide in industrial facilities and other non-residential locations.[25] Aldrin is a pesticide that enters the ecosystem and the body of an insect and quickly transforms into dieldrin. It is a harmful and persistent environmental contaminant whose use the U.S. Department of Agriculture banned in 1970. However, two years later, the EPA reinstated the use of pesticides to eliminate termites. This use continued until the manufacturer voluntarily stopped production in 1987.[26] Use of the pesticide continued in East Asian countries until the late 1980s and early 1990s, when it was banned. Aldrin was widely used from the 1950s to the early 1970s on crops such as corn and cotton, and then, until 1987, against termites. Aldrin is a pesticide used to control soil insects such as termites, wireworms, rice water weevil, corn rootworm, and grasshoppers. The pesticide was commonly used to minimize termite damage to wooden structures and protect crops such as corn and potatoes. Aldrin has been observed to cause serious health problems when ingested or inhaled in significant quantities.[27] Nervous system effects, including seizures, headache, irritability, and nausea, are seen in many extremely exposed people.to the pesticide. In the past, food products grown in soils treated with Aldrin or Dieldrin were likely the major source of dieldrin residues in the adipose tissues of the general population; however, since 1970, dietary intake has shown a significant decrease[28]. Aldrin is toxic to humans; the lethal dose of Aldrin for an average-sized adult male has been estimated to be approximately 5 g, which is equivalent to 83 mg/kg body weight.[29] However, this far exceeds what is consumed on average, but even a small amount can cause adverse effects. Signs and symptoms of Aldrin are headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, followed by muscle twitching, myoclonic jerks, and convulsions. Occupational exposure to Aldrin has even been associated with a significant increase in liver and bile duct cancers. The average daily human consumption of Aldrin and Dieldrin has been calculated to be 19 µg/person in India and 0.55 µg/person in Vietnam[30]. Dairy products, such as milk and butter, and animal meats are believed to be the main sources of exposure in these areas. The acute toxicity of Aldrin for avian species varies in the order of 6.6 mg/kg, as in the case of bobwhite quail. at 520 mg/kg, for mallards. Aldrin-treated rice is believed to have caused the deaths of waterfowl, shorebirds, and passerines along the Texas Gulf Coast, both from direct poisoning through ingestion of rice treated with Aldrin and indirectly through the consumption of organisms contaminated with Aldrin. Aldrin residues were detected in all samples of birds, eggs, scavengers, predators, fish, frogs, invertebrates and soil. As aldrin is easily and quickly converted to dieldrin in the environment and is metabolized to dieldrin in animals and plants, and this is why Aldrin residues are rarely present in animals and only in very small amounts. Aldrin residues were detected in fish in Egypt, the average concentration was 8.8 µg/kg and a maximum concentration of 54.27 µg/kg. Neonicotinoids, or neonics, are a relatively new pesticide, only used in the last 20 years. Neonicotinoids are used to control a variety of pests, primarily sap-feeding insects.[31] Neonics are systemic pesticides, unlike other previously explored pesticides which are contact pesticides, meaning they remain on the surface of plant foliage and are then absorbed by the plant and transported throughout the tissues. This includes leaves, flowers, roots and stems, as well as pollen and nectar. However, neonics can be sprayed as a seed coating or soil franchise at the root or foliage of the plant. The toxin remains active in the plant for several weeks and protects it against pests for an entire season[32]. Neonicotinoids attack the nervous system of insects, targeting receptors for the enzyme nicotinic acetylcholine. The toxin binds to these receptors and causes overexcitation of the nerves and leads to paralysis and death of the insects[33]. This neural pathway is more common in insects than mammals and is therefore much more toxic to insects. Neonics also do not degenerate quickly in their environment, as older organophosphate pesticides do.[34] Neonics stay in the environment so long that imidacloprid, a type of neonic, lasts for months and/or years and even reaches groundwater. Although neonics are so powerful, they canbe applied in much lower quantities and volumes than older pesticides, in just a few grams instead of kilos per hectare. This is due to the fact that pesticides are active in very small quantities[35]. Originally, neonics were considered a healthier and safer option for humans and animals than other pesticides. The application was considered much more effective, as it targeted pests much more precisely and the pesticide did not need to be applied as often as other pesticides - and in this case, seen and respectful of the environment[36]. However, over time it has become clear that they pose serious and misunderstood threats, particularly to invertebrates. These risks are because neonics are so useful to farmers and agricultural industries; systematic actions, persistence and longevity in crops and soil, as well as potency and concentrations as low. On top of this, because they are so widely used and so present in crops, their pollen and nectar, there is an ever-increasing exposure, and therefore threat, to pollinators.[37] Neonicotinoids constitute a constantly growing market worldwide. , today highly sought after because used on more than 140 different crops[38]. Neonics can be applied in several different ways and can therefore be used on a wide variety of crops and plants. They can be applied to soils, seeds, lawns, wood and even foliage of cereals, cotton, legumes, potatoes, orchard fruits, rice and vegetables. Only five Neonics are authorized and approved for use for agricultural purposes; laclothianidin; imidacloprid; thiacloprid; and thiamethoxam. Around 90% of pesticide treatments on cereals, sugar beet and rapeseed are treated with Neonics. Potted plants, lawns, apples, pears and other fruits are also widely treated with neonics[39]. Neonicotinoids have become a growing concern for beekeepers and bee research in recent years, with many suspecting that the increase in neonicotinoids is linked to the decline in the bee population.[40] Bees are particularly sensitive to neonics due to a certain genetic vulnerability. They have more nicotinic acetylcholine enzyme receptors than most other insects and, unlike most other insect pest species, bees have few detoxification genes, meaning they are unable to eliminate the toxin from their body. Neonicotinoids are often found in pollen and their name is tar. levels sufficient to have adverse effects on the health of pollinators, including their ability to concentrate, foraging behavior, communication and larval development. Several studies have shown that exposure to the pesticide, even at low doses, had a negative impact on the immune system of bees. This made them more susceptible to being affected by parasites and infections, leading to a decline in the bee population. An example of disease is the growth of the fungal disease Nosema, which has been reported to be apparent in bee populations exposed to low doses of neonics, doses previously considered not harmful to bees.[41] These effects are most likely causing the bee population to decline, leading to negative effects on our entire ecosystem as many plants have not been pollinated as they should be. Concerns related to.