Assessment and consequences of pesticides on the health of the population of Mala

Ambrocio Teodoro Esteves Pairazaman; JACKELINE FABIOLA TARAZONA TINEO; MANUEL EMILIANO ESTEVES PAIRAZAMAN; RODOLFO LEÓN GOMEZ; Ramiro Trujillo Roman; Mauricio Raúl Escalante Cárdenas; Robert Jara Miranda; Rene Antonio Hinojosa Benavides; German Gabriel Peso Cárdenas

doi:10.12688/f1000research.140159.1

Home Browse Assessment and consequences of pesticides on the health of the population...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Assessment and consequences of pesticides on the health of the population of Mala

[version 1; peer review: 3 approved with reservations]

Ambrocio Teodoro Esteves Pairazaman ¹, JACKELINE FABIOLA TARAZONA TINEO¹, MANUEL EMILIANO ESTEVES PAIRAZAMAN², [...] RODOLFO LEÓN GOMEZ³, Ramiro Trujillo Roman⁴, Mauricio Raúl Escalante Cárdenas⁴, Robert Jara Miranda⁵, Rene Antonio Hinojosa Benavides⁶, German Gabriel Peso Cárdenas⁷

Ambrocio Teodoro Esteves Pairazaman ¹, JACKELINE FABIOLA TARAZONA TINEO¹, [...] MANUEL EMILIANO ESTEVES PAIRAZAMAN², RODOLFO LEÓN GOMEZ³, Ramiro Trujillo Roman⁴, Mauricio Raúl Escalante Cárdenas⁴, Robert Jara Miranda⁵, Rene Antonio Hinojosa Benavides⁶, German Gabriel Peso Cárdenas⁷

PUBLISHED 01 Dec 2023

Author details Author details

¹ Universidad Norbert Wiener, Lima District, Lima Region, Peru
² Universidad Nacional Toribio Rodriguez de Mendoza de Amazonas, Chachapoyas, Amazonas, Peru
³ Universidad Nacional de Huancavelica, Huancavelica, Huancavelica, Peru
⁴ Universidad Tecnologica de los Andes, Abancay, Apurimac, Peru
⁵ Universidad Cesar Vallejo, Trujillo, La Libertad, Peru
⁶ Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Huanta, Huanta, Ayacucho, Peru
⁷ Universidad Nacional de Ucayali, Ucayali, Ucayali, Peru

Ambrocio Teodoro Esteves Pairazaman
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision

JACKELINE FABIOLA TARAZONA TINEO
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

MANUEL EMILIANO ESTEVES PAIRAZAMAN
Roles: Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing

RODOLFO LEÓN GOMEZ
Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Review & Editing

Ramiro Trujillo Roman
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Mauricio Raúl Escalante Cárdenas
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

Robert Jara Miranda
Roles: Formal Analysis, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Rene Antonio Hinojosa Benavides
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

German Gabriel Peso Cárdenas
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background

In Peru, the use of pesticides is very common in the agricultural sector to protect crop varieties, which in turn causes damage to human health due to their toxic effects. The objective of this study was to assess the consequences of pesticides on the health of the population of Mala, Peru

Methods

This was a non-experimental, descriptive and cross-sectional study. A total of 315 inhabitants of the District of Mala between the ages of 18 and 50 years were evaluated. The method used was a survey and the data collection instrument was a questionnaire.

Results

The pesticide most frequently used by farmers was Malathion (43.5%), followed by Clopyrifos (17.5%), Dicrotophos (14.6%) and finally Carbofuran (14%). The most frequent main symptoms of pesticide use were nausea (17.5%) and salivation (10.2%). Exposure time ranged from 30 minutes (23.8%) to 2 hours (16.8%).

Conclusions

Malathion (43.5%) was found to be the most commonly used pesticide by farmers in Mala and the main symptom of pesticide use was headache (55.9%).

Keywords

Chlopyrifos, Pesticides, Symptomatology, Mala, Malathion, Protective Equipment

Corresponding author: Ambrocio Teodoro Esteves Pairazaman

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2023 Esteves Pairazaman AT et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Esteves Pairazaman AT, TARAZONA TINEO JF, ESTEVES PAIRAZAMAN ME et al. Assessment and consequences of pesticides on the health of the population of Mala [version 1; peer review: 3 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2023, 12:1541 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.140159.1) First published: 01 Dec 2023, 12:1541 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.140159.1) Latest published: 01 Dec 2023, 12:1541 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.140159.1)

Introduction

Around the world, a variety of pesticides are used to protect crops, which have properties that prevent them from being damaged or spoiled by food vectors and/or insects, and can remain in soil and water for years, causing toxicological effects on humans.¹ Herbicides are usually less toxic than insecticides for human health, but these harmful products can cause effects according to the dose to which the individual is exposed either by different routes: inhalation, digestive or physical contact.¹

The health impact caused by the use of pesticides in farmers is mainly due to bad practices in the handling of pesticides and the toxicity of these products during and after their use, thus generating immediate effects (acute intoxications). Statistical data was extracted for a number of years, from 2001 to 2004 in the health centres of the El Carmen and Daniel Alcides Carrión hospitals in the province of Huancayo, where no specific harmful product was found, resulting in intoxication by pesticides and other uncertain substances.² In total, 28 cases were treated in these health establishments in 2001, 37 in 2002, 43 in 2003 and 52 in 2004. We can also have long-term effects (chronic intoxications) found according to studies related to illnesses that originate according to exposure, such as testicular cancer, elevated risks of leukaemia, multiple myeloma, prostate cancer, stomach cancer, skin cancer and brain cancer.²

Several studies report that villagers are in contact with phenoxyacids and others herbicides. Overall, those who had contact with herbicides experienced poor health because of soft tissue sarcoma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.²

The contact of farmers with organophosphates causes damage to the nervous system, altering the intelligence of individuals; it also causes spontaneous abortions, neonatal death, carcinogenic effects in women and sterility in men. Exposure to pesticides is related to all these alterations.³

In some studies, they have explained the number of acute pesticide poisonings in individuals in different parts of the world. They estimate that some studies have found that acute pesticide poisonings alternate between 500,000 and 1,528,000 per year, of which 3,000 to 28,000 deaths are caused by pesticides. According to an analysis carried out on the Asian continent, the damage caused by pesticides ranges from 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 and the number of deaths is 40,000 per year.⁴

The International Organisation of Consumers’ Unions reported that every 4 hours a farmer dies in different growing regions from pesticide poisoning, causing more than 10,000 deaths, and another 375,000 are poisoned by these harmful pesticides.⁴

In addition, other researchers report that 2 to 3% of farmers in developing countries tend to be harmed by product poisoning, and that 10 to 12% of these incidents are lethal.⁴

During this pandemic period the farming population needs to be more informed about the issue of pesticides and pesticides, so the research was carried out in order to inform the farming population and health professionals and to identify the pesticide most used by farmers, what the main symptoms are, the time of exposure and compliance with protection standards.⁵

Methods

The research method was deductive, as the information was based on descriptive data, and also included assessment and analysis of the health consequences of pesticides.⁶ The approach was quantitative, as numerical values were used to study changes during the study.⁷ The work corresponds to applied research.⁸ The design was non-experimental, descriptive and cross-sectional.⁹

Participants

The population was made up of the inhabitants of the District of Mala, Lima, which had a total of 1737 inhabitants, according to the registry of the municipality of Mala.

The sample consisted of 315 inhabitants; this calculation was made using the formula for finite or known populations:

n = \frac{N * Z_{α}^{2} * p * q}{e^{2} * (N - 1) + Z_{α}^{2} * p * q}

N = population = 1737

Z = Confidence level = 1.96

p = Probability in favour = 50%

q = Probability against = 50%

e = Sampling error = 5%

n = \frac{1737 * 1.96^2 * 0.5 * 0.5}{{0.05}^{2} (1737 - 1) + {1.96}^{2} * 0.5 * 0.5} = 314.78 = 315

The following inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to this sample:

Inclusion:

• People working directly in rural agricultural areas.
• They must be farmers of legal age: between 18 and 50 years old.

Exclusion:

• Adults over 50 years old or under 18 years old.
• Persons not wishing to participate in the research.
• People who are not involved in rural agricultural activities in the area.

Data collection technique and instrument

The technique used was the survey and the instrument was a questionnaire which was applied to farmers in rural areas working with pesticides, which served to extract the necessary information for the study.

The instrument was structured to collect demographic data, types of pesticides used, signs and symptoms presented by these harmful products, in order to identify the health consequences of these chemical compounds.

The questionnaire was made from various theories and bibliographies that were researched for this study. In order to check its validity, it was put through expert judgment and a pilot test was conducted where reliability was measured. It should be noted that the instrument did not undergo any change after the pilot test was applied.

The instrument consists of 18 questions whose answer options were nominal and different for each question.

Validation

The instrument was validated by the expert judgement of the Norbert Wiener Private University.

Reliability

To assess the reliability of the instrument, a pilot test was carried out with 30 people to whom the instrument was applied, whose responses were subjected to the Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability test (α), with the result of α = 0.708, which is an acceptable reliability according to the scale described by Chaves and Rodríguez.¹⁰ These surveys applied for the pilot test were not considered within the total sample surveyed.

Data collection procedure

The research was carried out in the District of Mala in rural areas where farmers work. It is known that the most important traditional activity in the district of Mala is agriculture due to the area in which it is located, which benefits from the extensive valley irrigated by the river that crosses the area. Therefore, the choice of the place was at the discretion of the researchers and in addition to this, to provide important information to the same people who work in the crops and thus can have documented information on the effects that are presented by the use of pesticides.

First, all the villagers who were doing agricultural work were evidenced, this was identified in person and visually, once this was defined the inclusion and exclusion criteria were taken into account for approach.

Each participant was approached in their own work area and in some cases it was agreed that the data collection would take place after their workday.

It began with a series of questions to the potential respondent, where they were assessed for compliance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The respondent was then informed about the informed consent form, where each respondent received the document in physical form, read it and signed it. Once the respondent had accepted, the survey was carried out, and the interviewer was close by in case the farmer had any doubts about any of the questions.

The application of the instrument and data collection was carried out at the beginning of February, culminating in the last week of March 2022. Processing was carried out in April of the same year.

Data processing and analysis

Once the application of the instrument was completed, the information collected was transferred to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, where it was sorted and filtered. It was verified that all the information was correct and in an orderly manner it was transferred to the SSPS program (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) in its version 25, for its subsequent analysis.

Ethics committee approval

The research project was approved by Resolution N° 030-2022/DFFB/UPNW on 18 January 2022 by the Dean of the Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry of the Norbert Wiener Private University.

Ethical aspects

With respect to data confidentiality, from the moment data collection began, the confidentiality of the participants was maintained. The surveys were handled anonymously and only by the researcher for the development and completion of the study. Participants provided written informed consent for their participation.

Results

Table 1 shows that 26,7% of the farmers surveyed were between the ages of 18 to 25 years, while 33,3% were between 26 to 35 years and 40% were between 36 to 50 years. With regard to gender, 88.3% were male and 11,7% were female. Regarding the level of education, 51,7% had only primary education, 46,7% had secondary education and only 1,6% had higher education.

Table 1. Socio-demographic data of the surveyed farmers.

		n	%
Age	18 to 25 years old	84	26,7
	26 to 35 years old	105	33,3
	36 to 50 years old	126	40,0
Sex	Female	37	11,7
Sex	Male	278	88,3
Level of education	Primary	163	51,7
	Secondary	147	46,7
	Higher education	5	1,6
Total		315	100,0

Table 2 shows that the most used pesticide by farmers was Malathion (43,5%), followed by Chlopyrifos (17,5%), Dicrotophos (14,6%) and Carbofuran (14%). Carbaryl (9,5%) was the least used pesticide along with other pesticides (1%).

Table 2. Most commonly used pesticides by farmers in Mala.

		Frequency	Percentage
Most commonly used pesticides	Carbofuran	44	14,0
	Carbaryl	30	9,5
	Malation	137	43,5
	Chlopyrifos	55	17,5
	Dicrotophos	46	14,6
	Otros	3	1,0
	Total	315	100,0

Table 3 shows the main symptoms in the farmers of Mala due to the use of pesticides, the most frequent being headache (55,9%), followed by nausea (17,5%) and salivation (10,2%), Less frequent symptoms were colic (6%), vomiting (5,4%), dizziness (2,5%), diarrhea (1,6%) and the least common symptoms were blurred vision (0,6%) and cramps (0,3%).

Table 3. Main symptoms in farmers in Mala due to pesticide use.

		Frequency	Percentage
Main symptoms of pesticide use	Blurred vision	2	0,6
	Salivation	32	10,2
	Nausea	55	17,5
	Vomiting	17	5,4
	Diarrhea	5	1,6
	Colic	19	6,0
	Cramps	1	0,3
	Headache	176	55,9
	Dizziness	8	2,5
Total		315	100,0

Table 4 shows that the most frequent exposure time to pesticides by farmers was 1 hour (40,3%), followed by 30 minutes (23,8%) and 2 hours (16,8%), But there were cases where they indicated exposure times of 5 hours (0,3%), 4 hours (4,1%), 3 hours (7,3%) and 10 minutes (7,3%).

Table 4. Time of exposure to pesticides by Mala farmers.

		Frequency	Percentage
Time of exposure to pesticides	5 hours	1	0,3
	4 hours	13	4,1
	3 hours	23	7,3
	2 hours	53	16,8
	1 hour	127	40,3
	30 minutes	75	23,8
	10 minutes	23	7,3
Total		315	100,0

Table 5 shows the pesticide application equipment, where it was found that 65,4% indicated that they used the back sprayer as a means of application, 31,1% the atomiser, 3,2% the tablet and lastly 0,3% the spiral. With regard to the protective equipment used by the farmers when using pesticides, 63,2% of them had a disposable mask as an indispensable element, followed by the use of a uniform (6,7%), but 5,1% indicated that they only used everyday clothes. Among the least used protective equipment were respirators (6,7%) and others (0,6%), Finally, 0,3% reported not using any of the above-mentioned items.

Table 5. Application equipment and protection elements by farmers.

		Frequency	Percentage
Pesticide application equipment	Atomiser	98	31,1%
	Spiral	1	0,3%
	Tablet	10	3,2%
	Back sprayer	206	65,4%
	Other	0	0,0%
Elements of protection	Leather shoes	0	0,0%
	Hat	0	0,0%
	Gloves	0	0,0%
	Everyday clothes	16	5,1%
	Disposable mask	199	63,2%
	Uniform	76	24,1%
	Respirator	21	6,7%
	Other	2	0,6%
	None	1	0,3%
	Total	315	100,0%

Table 6 shows that the frequency of pesticide use by farmers in Mala was mostly monthly (46,3%), followed by every 15 days (18,1%), between 2 to 5 months (14,6%) and three times a week (10,5%), There was also use twice a week (5,4%), daily (4,1%) and in some cases once a week (1%), which was the least frequently reported among the respondents.

Table 6. Frequency of pesticide use by farmers in Mala.

		Frequency	Percentage
Frequency in numbers of days	Daily	13	4,1
	Once a week	3	1,0
	Twice a week	17	5,4
	Three times a week	33	10,5
	Every 15 days	57	18,1
	Monthly	146	46,3
	Between 2 to 5 months	46	14,6
Total		315	100,0

Discussion

The study on “Assessment and consequences of pesticides on the health of the population of Mala” has certain limitations that require consideration. The choice of surveys and analysis of the villagers may introduce biases because many of them may present much more serious future complications, which are not yet impacting their health and this may be due to various factors such as quality of pesticides, working hours, among others. Also, the geographical restriction to Mala makes it difficult to generalize the results, while selection bias and lack of detailed data may influence accuracy. Despite these limitations, the study seeks to maximize the validity of the results and stresses the need to interpret the findings in context, encouraging future complementary research in the same district and also in other areas where the main activity is agriculture and thus to have a more accurate picture of the results.

It was identified that the most used pesticide by farmers was Malathion (43.5%), followed by Chlopyrifos (17.5%). This differs with what was found by Porta¹¹ where he mentions in his research that 48.3% of the respondent’s state that Tamaron^® (Chlopyrifos) is one of the most used pesticides.

Regarding the main symptoms of pesticide use in farmers in Mala, the most frequently reported was headache (55,9%), followed by nausea (17,5%), salivation (10,2%), colic (6%), vomiting (5,4%), dizziness (2,5%), diarrhoea (1,6%) and the least common symptoms were blurred vision (0,6%) and cramps (0,3%). These results are like those found by Montoro¹² who mentions that in the city of Concepción, 58% of the farmers reported having suffered discomfort immediately after the application of pesticides, of which 46% reported symptoms such as headaches, 40% dizziness and 23% nausea, among other symptoms such as body aches, blurred vision, skin allergy and vomiting. In the case of Chupaca, 60% indicated that they had experienced discomfort after the application of pesticides. Among the symptoms they mentioned were: 53% headache, 38% dizziness, 33% nausea, 28% blurred vision, among other symptoms such as body aches, skin allergy, chills and fainting.¹² And in the work of Huanhuayo¹³ it is reported that the symptoms presented by pesticide poisoning were: 16% presented skin irritation; 12% had dizziness and vomiting; 11% presented headache and nausea; 10% had trembling of the body and blurred vision; and 9% felt tearing and muscle weakness. These data allow us to establish the causes of pesticide poisoning.

It was identified that the most frequent exposure time to pesticides among farmers was 1 hour (40,3%), followed by 30 minutes (23,8%) and 2 hours (16,8%). These results are like Urrutia¹⁴ mentions in his research work that farmers mostly use pesticides four to six times during the process of tomato cultivation, in the proportion of 50,0 %; two to four times for 25,0% of farmers and 12,5 % one to two times and others respectively. This is detrimental to health, as the longer the exposure time, the greater the damage to health.

Regarding safety measures for protection against pesticides, 63,2% reported usingd disposable masks and uniforms (6,7%) as forms of protection and the most used pesticide application equipment was a back pump (65,4%). In the study carried out by Fernández¹⁵ it was found that 27,22% manipulate pesticides in a greater way, which means that the greater the manipulation, the greater the damage to the health of the inhabitants, and according to the survey 54,44% do not have personal protective equipment against pesticides. As far as safety clothing is concerned, the farmers use little protection against these toxic compounds during their working day.

Conclusions

It was determined that the pesticide most used by farmers in Mala was Malathion (43,5%). Second, the main symptom of pesticide use was headache (55,9%). Third, that farmers are mostly exposed within a period of 1 hour (40,3%). Fourth, the most commonly used application equipment was the back sprayer (65,4%) and the most used protective equipment was the disposable mask (63,2%) and the use of a uniform (6,7%).

Data availability

Underlying data

Zenodo. Pesticide use and its consequences on the health of farmers in Mala. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7700786.¹⁶

This project contains the following underlying data:

• DATA.csv
• RELIABILITY DATA.sav

Extended data

Zenodo. Pesticide use and its consequences on the health of farmers in Mala. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7700786.¹⁶

This project contains the following extended data:

• Data collection instrument.docx

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the farmers of the Mala district for taking the time to participate in the research, without their support the study would not have been possible.

This research was previously published on Universidad Privada Norbert Wiener’s repository as a thesis (https://repositorio.uwiener.edu.pe/handle/20.500.13053/7284).

References

1. OMS: Residuos de plaguicidas en los alimentos.2021. [acceso septiembre 2021]. Reference Source
2. Montoro Y, Moreno R, Gomero L, et al.: Características de uso de plaguicidas químicos y riesgos para la salud en agricultores de la sierra central del Perú. Rev. perú. med. exp. salud publica. 2009 Oct [citado 2021 Nov 05]; 26(4): 466–472. Reference Source
3. Chanco P, Corilloclla C, Vega E: Nivel de colinesterasa eritrocitaria y la exposición de los expendedores de plaguicidas organofosforados de la provincia de Huancayo–Junín agosto–diciembre 2016.2016. [acceso octubre 2021]. Reference Source
4. García J: Intoxicaciones agudas con plaguicidas: costos humanos y económicos. Rev Panam Salud Publica. dic. 1998. [acceso octubre 2021]; 4(6): 383–387. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Reference Source
5. Organización Mundial de la Salud: Residuos de plaguicidas en los alimentos.15 de septiembre de 2022. Reference Source
6. Ñaupas H, Valdivia M, Palacios J, et al.: Metodología de la investigación. 5ta edición.Colombia: Ediciones de la U; 2018.
7. Hernández-Sampieri R, Mendoza C: Metodología de la investigación. Las rutas cuantitativa, cualitativa y mixta. Grupo editorial Mc Graw Hill Education; 2018.
8. Cabezas E, Andrade D, Torres J: Introducción a la metodología de la investigación científica. Ecuador: Comisión Editorial de la Universidad de las Fuerzas Armadas ESPE.2018.
9. Hernández A, Ramos R, Placencia B, et al.: Metodología de la investigación científica. Editorial Área de Innovación y Desarrollo, S.L.2018.
10. Chaves E, Rodríguez L: Análisis de confiabilidad y validez de un cuestionario sobre entornos personales de aprendizaje (PLE). REP. 2018; 13(1): 06–71. Reference Source
11. Porta J: Prevalencia de intoxicaciones producidas por el uso de plaguicidas en la población agrícola del distrito de Huacrapuquio-Huancayo enero-octubre 2018.2021. [acceso octubre 2021]. Reference Source
12. Montoro Y, et al.: Características de uso de plaguicidas químicos y riesgos para la salud en agricultores de la sierra central del Perú. Revista Peruana de Medicina Experimental y Salud Pública. 2009; 26(4): 466–472. 2009. [acceso febrero 2022]. Reference Source
13. Huanhuayo GGC, et al.: Uso de Plaguicidas Químicos en el cultivo de Papa (Solanum tuberosum L), su relación con Medio Ambiente y la Salud. Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar. 2021; 5(2): 1482–1503. 2021. [acceso febrero 2022]. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
14. Urrutia Mendoza MU: Problemática en salud y el ambiente del uso de plaguicidas en el cultivo del tomate en Limatambo-Cusco 2019.2021. [acceso febrero 2022]. Reference Source
15. Fernández M, Ruiz C: Manipulación de plaguicidas e impacto en la salud de agricultores del Olivar Santa Rosa De Quives, Canta Lima.2021. [acceso octubre 2021]. Reference Source
16. Pairazaman ATE, Pairazaman MEE, Gomes RL, et al.: Pesticide use and its consequences on the health of farmers in Mala. [Dataset]. Zenodo. 2023. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 01 Dec 2023