Next Article in Journal
Deployment of a Novel Organic Acid Compound Disinfectant against Common Foodborne Pathogens
Previous Article in Journal
Exposure to Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers and Phthalates in China: A Disease Burden and Cost Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Toxics
Volume 10
Issue 12
10.3390/toxics10120767
toxics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
Correction published on 11 July 2023, see Toxics 2023, 11(7), 601.
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Relationship between Pesticide Standards for Classification of Water Bodies and Ecotoxicity: A Case Study of the Brazilian Directive

by
Esmeralda Pereira de Araújo
1,
Eloisa Dutra Caldas
2,* and
Eduardo Cyrino Oliveira-Filho
3,*
1
Faculty of Planaltina—FUP, University of Brasilia—UnB, Federal District, Planaltina 73345-010, Brazil
2
Toxicology Laboratory, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Brasília—UnB, Federal District, Brasília 70910-900, Brazil
3
Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation—Embrapa Cerrados, Federal District, Planaltina 73310-970, Brazil
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Toxics 2022, 10(12), 767; https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10120767
Submission received: 29 October 2022 / Revised: 25 November 2022 / Accepted: 5 December 2022 / Published: 8 December 2022 / Corrected: 11 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental Criteria and Standards)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The objective of this study was to evaluate if the maximum values (MVs) for pesticides in surface freshwater included in CONAMA directive 357/2005 are safe for aquatic biota, comparing them with ecotoxicology data published in the literature. The terms “aquatic toxicity”, “chronic” “acute”, “LC50”, “EC50”, “NOEL”, “NOEC” and the name of each pesticide were used for searches on the research platforms. Data from 534 tests reported in 37 published articles and three ecotoxicological databases were included in this study; 24% of the tests were carried out with producer organisms, 34% with primary consumers and 42% with secondary consumers. Microcrustaceans of the Daphnia genus and the fishes Pimephales promelas and Oncorhynchus mykiss were the organisms most used. Atrazine, alachlor and metolachlor were the most investigated pesticides. Atrazine and alachlor are approved in Brazil, with atrazine ranking fourth among the most used pesticides in the country. The results indicated that of the 27 pesticides included in the standard directive, 16 have a risk quotient (RQ) higher than the level of concern for at least one ecotoxicological parameter and may not protect the aquatic biota. The insecticide malathion, used in various agricultural crops in Brazil, was the one that presented the highest RQs (3125 and 3,125,000 for freshwaters classified as 1/2 and 3, respectively), related to a LC50 (96 h) of 0.000032 µg/L in Chironomus ramosus. The results indicate that CONAMA directive 357/2005 should be updated in line with the current use of pesticides in the country, and the MVs should be re-evaluated so that they do not represent toxicity for the aquatic biota.

1. Introduction

The environmental behavior of pesticides, especially in relation to their transport and stability in water bodies, can have impact on human health and on the environment [1,2]. Toxic pesticide levels in aquatic systems may eliminate aquatic species, reduce biodiversity and compromise the functioning of ecosystems [3]. Aiming to provide protection, the regulatory jurisdictions of different countries establish limit values for pesticides in matrices such as soil, drinking water and agricultural commodities [4]. However, the regulation of these contaminants in surface freshwater is still limited in most countries [5]. Pesticide standards for surface freshwater are necessary in order to maintain the protection of the aquatic ecosystem and of human health against possible toxicological effects.
Directive 2013/39/EU of the European Union establishes environmental quality standards (EQS) for priority substances and other pollutants, including pesticides, in surface water, and it also establishes biota EQS for substances that are not very soluble in water and that accumulate in the organisms [6]. In the United States, the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs establishes Aquatic Life Benchmarks that are specific for each biota [7]. In Brazil, CONAMA directive No. 357, from 17 March 2005, determines the quality parameters, including the establishment of maximum values (MV) for pesticides in surface freshwater classes 1/2 and 3, which are destined for multiple uses (Table S1). Classes 1 and 2 can be destined for the protection of aquatic biota, but this may not be their predominant use [8]. For example, class 2 water can also be used for supplying human consumption, primary-contact recreation, aquiculture and fishing. Even so, in accordance with the Directive and independently of its uses, class 2 water may not have characteristics that represent a chronic toxic effect on the biota. On the other hand, class 3 water does not include protection of aquatic biota among its uses, although the water within this class cannot exert an acute toxic effect on organisms. However, there are few water bodies that have been approved for inclusion in a determined class [9], and in this situation all freshwater is considered class 2 [8]. In other words, most Brazilian surface freshwater is class 2.
The toxic effects of pesticides on biota are evaluated in Brazil during the registration of new pesticides, using the data from ecotoxicological tests with non-target organisms [10], which could fit in a prospective approach, pre-registration [3]. Environmental data are used during the re-evaluation of the pesticide, which could be considered a retrospective approach. For aquatic organisms, the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) requests studies with algae, microcrustaceans and fish, and the results are extrapolated for use in the whole taxon. Considering the trophic levels, some of the model organisms used in tests are the algae Raphidocelis subcapitata and Scenedesmus subspicatus (producer organisms), the microcrustaceans of the Daphnia genus (primary consumer) and the fish Danio rerio (secondary consumer) [11].
Although ecotoxicological studies are carried out under laboratory-controlled conditions and may not reflect the biotic and abiotic conditions in aquatic ecosystems [12,13], they are used to derive concentration levels that are safe or can cause toxicity for the biota. The studies have acceptable levels of uncertainty, and are used in the decisions making process by some regulatory agencies [13,14,15]. However, this is not the case in CONAMA directive 357/2005, which does not consider the evaluation conducted by IBAMA. Furthermore, the basis for the establishment of MVs and how the compounds were selected are not publicly available [16].
Bearing in mind that the use of pesticides has grown in Brazil, as well as worldwide [17,18], and that the number of authorized substances has also increased in the country [19], it is important to consider the potential impact on the aquatic biota arising from the use of these products. In addition, the presence in water of organochloride pesticides that are already banned in most countries (persistent organic pollutants, POPs) can also represent a toxic effect on aquatic organisms. Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate if the maximum values (MVs) for pesticides in surface freshwater found in the Brazilian regulations (CONAMA directive 357/2005) are safe for aquatic biota, comparing them with ecotoxicology data published in the literature to calculate risk quotients (RQ).

2. Materials and Methods

In order to carry out this study, research was done in the Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar databases, using the descriptors “aquatic toxicity”, “chronic” “acute”, “LC50”, “EC50”, “NOEL”, “NOEC” and the name of each pesticide listed in Table 1. Selection criteria were studies conducted with surface freshwater aquatic organisms and pesticides included in the CONAMA directive. Additionally, data on the ecotoxicity of these substances were searched in the Pesticide Properties Database [20], NORMAN Ecotoxicology Database [21] and Aquatic Life Benchmarks [7], which cover a large range of organisms and pesticides and have been used by other authors [22,23].
To evaluate whether the maximum pesticide values in surface water (MV) established by CONAMA Directive 357/2005 are safe for aquatic organisms, the risk quotient (RQ) for each pesticide was estimated by dividing its MV by the relevant toxicological endpoint (chronic or acute) (RQ = ML/endpoint) [25]. The endpoints to estimate the acute risk were LC50 (lethal concentration) and EC50 (effective concentration); the endpoints to estimate the chronic risk were LOEC (lowest observed effect concentration), NOAEC (no observed adverse effect concentration), NOEC (no observed effect concentration), LOEC (lowest observed effect concentrations), PNOEC (predicted no effect concentration) or MATC (maximum acceptable toxicant concentrations). Risk may exist when the RQ is higher than the Level of Concern (LOC) as established by the EPA [25], which is 0.5 for acute high risk and 1 for chronic risk to aquatic animals, and 1 for acute risk to plants.
The organisms used in the tests were classified according to trophic levels (producer, primary consumer and secondary consumer) in the aquatic ecosystem. The aquatic organisms most used in the tests were also identified, as well the quantitative measure of tests carried out for each pesticide.

3. Results and Discussion

The data included in this study were obtained from 37 papers [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62] and three databases [7,20,21] (Supplementary Material). The papers were retrieved from 20 scientific journals, mainly Environmental Contamination Toxicology and Chemistry (six papers) and Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety (five papers) and were published in the period of 1981 to 2021. The number of journals in the first quartile of quality were: three of the 18 journals in Web of Science database, eight out of 19 journals in Scopus. Journals retrieved from Google Scholar have h5 index ranging from 12 (Annales de Limnologie-International Journal of Limnology) to 225 (Science of the Total Environment). All the studies were conducted in a laboratory setting, but this information is not included in the three databases, which are updated online.
Out of the total of 534 tests with aquatic organisms included in the studies, 24% were carried out with producing organisms, 34% with primary consumers and 42% with secondary consumers. The producers form the base of the aquatic food chain and are food for the primary consumers, which play an important cycling role in the environment and are food for the secondary consumers, which are the vertebrate organisms that form the aquatic ecosystem [11]. To confirm the toxic effect of a substance for regulatory purposes, it is recommended that an evaluation be carried out of with at least three species that represent the aquatic ecosystem, and they should ideally come from different trophic levels of the food chain [11,63]. However, many studies are not done for a regulatory purpose, and some evaluated the toxicity of one or more pesticides towards only one species [31,40,41,47,48]. Very few studies, however, are conducted with species that are representatives of the Brazilian ecosystems.
From the set of 534 tests, 82% (439) classified the organisms at genus or species level. Some species from the genera Najas sp. and Anabaena sp., and 14 other species (10 producers, 2 primary consumers and 2 secondary consumers) are native in Brazil [64,65,66,67]. About 21% of the studies used the genus Daphnia and the species Daphnia magna (crustaceans), indicating that this group is the model most often used, followed by the fish species Pimephales promelas (9%) and Oncorhynchus mykiss (8%) (Figure 1). A review of European laboratory protocols for the ecotoxicity of systemic pesticides and microbial toxins in genetically modified plants also found these organisms as the most often considered in the directives [68].
Figure 2 shows that most of the ecotoxicity tests were conducted with atrazine (10%; the majority with producers), alachlor (9%; the majority with producers and secondary consumers) and metolachlor (7%; the majority with producers). In a review of 146 studies on pesticides in surface freshwater, Araújo et al. [5] showed that, historically, these pesticides are among the most investigated in water worldwide, and that in general atrazine was also the active ingredient detected at the highest concentrations. Atrazine, the fourth most sold active ingredient in Brazil [69], and alachlor are registered in the country for pre- and/or post-emergence use in a variety of crops [24], while the use of metolachlor was prohibited in 2010 [70]. Table 1 shows that the environmental classification for the pesticides approved in Brazil varies from I (extremely hazardous) for atrazine, 2,4-D, glyphosate, malathion and trifluraline, to IV (slightly hazardous) for malathion, depending on the product formulation [19]. It should be noted that, in addition to atrazine and alachlor, only six of the 27 pesticides included in CONAMA 357/2005 are still approved for use in the country (carbaryl, 2,4-D, glyphosate, malathion, simazine and trifluraline), and 12 are considered POPs (Table 1).
Table 2 shows the 16 pesticides that have a RQ higher than the LOC for at least one organism tested, indicating that the biota may not be protected when present in an aquatic environment with concentrations at the legal levels. Although the MVs in the directive for water quality in Brazil were established to classify different water uses (classes) and not specifically for the protection of the biota, the results of this study indicate that these levels should be reviewed.
Considering the trophic levels, the group of primary consumers is the one that shows a RQ higher than 1 (Table 2). This result may have arisen because the representatives of the genus Daphnia (crustaceans) were the organisms most used in tests (Figure 1). Indeed, the pesticides that presented the greatest toxicity were the insecticides malathion and endosulfan, with LC50 (96 h) of 0.000032 (RQ of 3,125,000 for class 3 water) and 0.00036 µg/L (RQ of 611), respectively, for the larvae of the aquatic insect Chironomus ramosus [52]. Malathion has also the highest chronic RQ for invertebrates and Daphnia magna (1666.7; Table 2).
Table
Table 2. Pesticides listed in CONAMA directive 357/05, for which the risk quotient is higher than the level of concern (LOC) for at least one tested organism. LOC = 0.5 for acute risk to aquatic animals; LOC = 1 for chronic risk to aquatic animals and 1 for acute risk to plants [7].
Table 2. Pesticides listed in CONAMA directive 357/05, for which the risk quotient is higher than the level of concern (LOC) for at least one tested organism. LOC = 0.5 for acute risk to aquatic animals; LOC = 1 for chronic risk to aquatic animals and 1 for acute risk to plants [7].
PesticideRisk Quotient Class 1,2/3 (µg/L)Endpoint: Concentration (µg/L)Tested OrganismReference
Alachlor3/-EC50 (72 h): 6.69Raphidocelis subcapitata a[26]
2/-EC50 (96 h): 10Raphidocelis subcapitata a[27]
2/-EC50 (7 d)-biomass: 10Lemna minor a[20]
12.2/-EC50 (<10 d): 1.64Nonvascular plants a[7]
8.7/-EC50 (<10 d): 2.3Vascular plants a[7]
Aldrin-/3NOEC-ratio of ovigerous to non-ovigerous females: 0.01Brachionus calyciflorus b[31]
-/1.8LC50 (96 h): 0.017Pimephales promelas c[21]
Dieldrin5/30LOEC-population growth rate: 0.001Brachionus calyciflorus b[31]
5/30NOEC-ratio of ovigerous to non-ovigerous females: 0.001Brachionus calyciflorus b[31]
-/3LOEC-ratio of ovigerous to non-ovigerous females: 0.01Brachionus calyciflorus b[31]
Atrazine2/2EC50 (<10 d): <1Nonvascular plants a[7]
Carbaryl-/1.2NOEC-resting egg production: 60Brachionus calyciflorus b[37]
-/3.5NOEC-resting egg hatching rate: 20Brachionus calyciflorus b[37]
-/1.2LOEC-resting egg hatching rate: 60Brachionus calyciflorus b[37]
-/41.2EC50 or LC50 (48 or 96 h): 1.7Invertebrates b[7]
-/140NOAEC: 0.5Invertebrates b[7]
-/10.9EC50 (48 h): 6.4Daphnia pulex b[20]
-/12.3LC50 (96 h): 5.7Americamysis bahia b[20]
-/11.7NOAEC: 6Fish c[7]
Chlordane-/2.4LC50 (96 h): 0.127Neocaridina denticulate b[43]
-/1.7NOEC (14 d)-survival: 0.18Ceriodaphnia dubia b[44]
-/1.7NOEC (14 d)- number of offspring per female: 0.18Ceriodaphnia dubia b[44]
-/1.7NOEC (21 d)- number of offspring per female: 0.18 Daphnia magna b[44]
-/4.3LC50 (48 h)-trans: 0.07Daphnia b[21]
-/7.5LC50 (96 h)-trans: 0.04Pimephales promelas c[21]
2,4-D-/1LOEC: 29 Hyalella meinerti b[48]
-/1NOEC: <29Hyalella meinerti b[48]
1.2/9.3LC50 (48 h): 3.22Daphnia b[21]
1.5/11.6LC50 (96 h): 2.59Pimephales promelas c[21]
Demeton-/1.3EC50 (48 h) d: 10.4Daphnia pulex b[20]
-/1.6LC50 (48 h) d1: 8.62Daphnia b[21]
-/3.2LC50 (96 h) d1: 4.43Pimephales promelas c[21]
-/3.2LC50 (48 h) d2: 4.44Daphnia b[21]
DDT-/1EC50 (48 h) e: 1Bosmina longirostris b[20]
Endosulfan5.6/22NOAEC: 0.01Invertebrates b[7]
0.6/2.2LC50 (96 h): 0.1Fish c[7]
2.4/9.6NOAEC: 0.023Fish c[7]
155.6/611.1LC50 (96 h): 0.00036Chironomus ramosus b[52]
112/440NOEC (28 d): 0.0005Cyprinodon variegatus c[20]
Endrin-/1.1LC50 (48 h): 0.19Daphnia b[21]
2/100LC50 (96 h): 0.002Pimephales promelas c[21]
-/1.7NOEC (21 d): 0.12Cyprinodon variegatus c[20]
Lindane-/2EC50 or LC50 (48 or 96 h): 1Invertebrates b[7]
-/1.2LC50 (96 h): 1.7Fish c[7]
-/0.7LC50 (96 h): 2.9Oncorhynchus mykiss c[20]
Malathion1/1020.4EC50 or LC50 (48 or 96 h): 0.098Invertebrates b[7]
1.7/1666.7NOAEC: 0.06Invertebrates b[7]
-/111.1LC50 (48 h): 0.9Daphnia magna b[57]
-/4.9LC50 (48 h): 20.32Daphnia b[21]
-/142.9EC50 (48 h): 0.7Daphnia magna b[20]
1.7/1666.7NOEC (21 d): 0.06Daphnia magna b[20]
-/66.7LC50 (96 h): 1.5Americamysis bahia b[20]
-/24.4LC50 (96 h): 4.1Fish c[7]
-/11.6NOAEC: 8.6Fish c[7]
3125/3,125,000LC50 (96 h): 0.000032Chironomus ramosus b[52]
-/22.3LC50 (96 h): 4.48Pimephales promelas c[21]
-/5.6LC50 (96 h): 18Oncorhynchus mykiss c[20]
-/1.1NOEC (21 d): 91Oncorhynchus mykiss c[20]
Metolachlor1.3/-EC50 (<10 d): 8Nonvascular Plants a[7]
10/-NOAEC: 1Invertebrates b[7]
Metoxichlor-/0.7LC50 (48 h): 30Daphnia b[21]
-/14.3EC50 or LC50 (48 or 96 h): 1.4Invertebrates b[7]
-/25.6EC50 (48 h): 0.78Daphnia magna b[20]
-/20NOEC (21 d): 1Daphnia magna b[20]
-/1.3LC50 (96 h): 15Fish c[7]
Parathion-/92.1LC50 (48 h): 0.38Daphnia magna b[57]
-/46.7LC50 (48 h): 0.75Daphnia b[21]
-/14EC50 (48 h): 2.5Daphnia magna b[20]
-/350NOEC (21 d): 0.1Daphnia magna b[20]
-/318.2LC50 (96 h): 0.11Americamysis bahia b[20]
d: day; h: hour; LC50: lethal concentration; EC50: effective concentration; LOEC: lowest observed effect concentration; NOAEC: no observed adverse effect concentration; NOEC: no observed effect concentration; LOEC: lowest observed effect concentrations. a Producer organism; b Primary consumer; c Secondary consumer; d Demeton; d1 Isomer S; d2 Isomer O; e Degradation product of DDE. All ecotoxicological studies were conducted in a laboratory setting, except for Refs. [7,20,21], where this information was not available.
Malathion was the seventh most commonly sold pesticide in Brazil in 2020 (15,702.11 ton) [69] and is registered for use on 23 crops, including vegetables, fruits and cereals [24]. Due to its persistence in the environment, the organochlorine endosulfan was prohibited in countries that are signatories of the Stockholm Convention, is classified as a POP [71] and its monitoring in water bodies still takes place in many countries [8,72]. In directive 2013/39/EU of the European Union, the endosulfan annual average are 0.005 and 0.0005 µg/L for inland surface waters and other surface waters, respectively, and the maximum allowable concentration are 0.01 and 0.004 µg/L, respectively [6]. These limits are more restrictive than the CONAMA 357/2005 MVs, but are still above the LC50 for Chironomus ramosus larvae (Table 2).
Various studies evaluated the levels of pesticides in surface freshwaters in Brazilian states, finding maximum concentrations that were equal to or lower than the MV established by the CONAMA directive (Table 1), with one exception (2,4-D for class 1/2). Pires et al. [73] detected glyphosate (2.3 μg/L) in Pará, Severo et al. [74] found atrazine (2 μg/L) and 2,4-D (30 μg/L, MV of 4 μg/L) in Rio Grande do Sul, Souza et al. [75] found atrazine (0.26 μg/L), Vieira et al. [76] detected atrazine (0.2 μg/L) and malathion (0.05 μg/L) in Paraná and Machado et al. [77] confirmed the occurrence of atrazine (0.32 μg/L) in São Paulo. However, the maximum concentrations detected for atrazine, 2,4-D, and malathion [74,75,76,77] are higher than the ecotoxicological parameters included in this study (Table 2) and may represent a toxic effect on the biota. This also shows the importance of considering the data on ecotoxicity in the Brazilian legislation for pesticides in surface water.
The need for a legislation revision identified in this study is corroborated by Brovini et al. [78] using monitoring data and the RQ approach. According to the authors, although most of the environmental concentrations were below the MLs, they were enough to pose a high risk for the aquatic ecosystems. In addition, using monitoring data, Albuquerque et al. [16] observed the potential risk to aquatic life for 59% of the pesticides with the occurrence data in Brazil, and the highest RQs were found for insecticides, which agrees with the present work.

4. Conclusions

Of the 27 pesticides in the Brazilian directive for the classification of surface freshwater (CONAMA 357/2005), 16 have RQs higher than the LOC for at least one of the tested organisms, indicating that the MVs are not safe for the biota. Many of these pesticides, including the persistent organochlorines, have been banned in Brazil and are considered POPs; however, the herbicides alachlor, atrazine, 2,4-D and glyphosate, as well as the insecticides carbaryl and malathion, are still authorized in the country. Thus, it is necessary to review the MVs established in the legislation, so that the objectives for the uses of water classes 1/2 and 3 are preserved, in addition to the protection of aquatic ecosystems.
Furthermore, in addition to the 12 POPs, seven pesticides included in the Brazilian directive are no longer registered in the country. This indicates a necessary revision of the legislation, taking into account the pesticides that are currently most used and most found in water bodies in the country. In this context, this study may guide similar work in other countries and can help in the management of standard directives related to the uses of surface freshwaters, as well as in managing the protection and/or maintenance of aquatic ecosystems.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6304/10/12/767/s1, Table S1: Brazilian surface freshwater classes and their respective uses, in accordance with CONAMA standard directive 357/2005 [8]. Table S2: Pesticides listed in CONAMA directive 357/05, for which the risk quotient is higher than the level of concern (LOC) for at least one tested organism. LOC = 0.5 for acute risk of aquatic animals; LOC = 1 for chronic risk of aquatic animals and 1 for acute risk of plants [7]

Author Contributions

E.P.d.A. wrote the first draft of the manuscript, which was reviewed by E.C.O.-F. and E.D.C. All authors approved the final version of the article. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

University of Brasilia (DPG/UNB No. 0004/2021).

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior–Brazil (CAPES) for the scholarship (No. 88882.384507/2019-01) granted to the first author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Oliver, D.P.; Kookana, R.S.; Anderson, J.S.; Cox, J.W.; Waller, N.; Smith, L.H. Off-Site Transport of Pesticides in Dissolved and Particulate Forms from Two Land Uses in the Mt. Lofty Ranges, South Australia. Agric. Water Manag. 2012, 106, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Caldas, E.D. Toxicological Aspects of Pesticides. In Sustainable Agrochemistry: A Compendium of Technologies; Vaz, S., Jr., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 197–230. [Google Scholar]
  3. Solomon, K.R.; Brock, T.C.M.; Zwart, D.; Dyer, S.D.; Posthuma, L.; Richards, S.M.; Sanderson, H.; Sibley, P.K.; van den Brink, P.J. Extrapolation in the Context of Criteria Setting and Risk Assessment. In Extrapolation Practice for Ecotoxicological Effect Characterization; Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: Dublin, Ireland, 2008; pp. 1–410. ISBN 8504691500. [Google Scholar]
  4. Li, Z.; Jennings, A.A. Ranking System for National Regulatory Jurisdictions Based on Pesticide Standard Values in Major Exposures. AIMS Environ. Sci. 2017, 4, 540–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Araújo, E.P.; Caldas, E.D.; Oliveira-Filho, E.C. Pesticides in Surface Freshwater: A Critical Review. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2022, 194, 452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. European Commission. Directive 2013/39/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 August 2013 Amending Directives 2000/60/EC and 2008/105/EC as Regards Priority Substances in the Field of Water Policy Text with EEA Relevance; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2013; pp. 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  7. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). Aquatic Life Benchmarks and Ecological Risk Assessments for Registered Pesticides. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/aquatic-life-benchmarks-and-ecological-risk#ref_1 (accessed on 29 May 2022).
  8. MMA Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Brasil Resolução CONAMA N° 357 de 18 de Março de 2005. Dispõe Sobre a Classificação Dos Corpos de Água e Diretrizes Ambientais Para o Seu Enquadramento, Bem Como Estabelece as Condições e Padrões de Lançamento de Efluentes, e Dá Outras Providências; MMA Ministério do Meio Ambiente: Brasília, Brasil, 2005; pp. 58–63. [Google Scholar]
  9. ANA (Agência Nacional de Águas e Saneamento Básico). Conjuntura Dos Recursos Hídricos No Brasil. 2021. Available online: https://relatorio-conjuntura-ana-2021.webflow.io/ (accessed on 30 September 2022).
  10. Brasil Instituto Brasileiro Do Meio Ambiente e Dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis. Portaria No 84, de 15 de Outubro de 1996. Estabelece Procedimentos a Serem Adotados Junto Ao Ibama, Para Efeito de Registro e Avaliação Do Potencial de Periculosidade Ambiental—(PPA) de Agrotóxicos, Seus Componentes e Afins, e Institui o Sistema Permanente Da Avaliação e Controle Dos Agrotóxicos, Segundo Disposições Do Decreto No 98.816 Em Seu Art. 2o; Brasil Instituto Brasileiro Do Meio Ambiente e Dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis: Brasília, Brasil, 1996; pp. 21358–21366.
  11. Oliveira-Filho, E.C. Capítulo 8: Avaliação Da Toxicidade. In Princípios de Toxicologia Ambiental; Sisinno, C.L.S., Oliveira-Filho, E.C., Eds.; Interciência: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2013; pp. 1–216. [Google Scholar]
  12. Rebelo, R.M.; Caldas, E.D. Avaliação de Risco Ambiental de Ambientes Aquáticos Afetados Pelo Uso de Agrotóxicos. Quim. Nova 2014, 37, 1199–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Costa, C.R.; Olivi, P.; Botta, C.M.R.; Espindola, E.L.G. A Toxicidade Em Ambientes Aquáticos: Discussão e Métodos de Avaliação. Quim. Nova 2008, 31, 1820–1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ronco, A.; Báez, M.C.D.; Granados, Y.P. Conceptos Generales. In Ensayos Toxicológicos y Métodos de Evaluación de Calidad de Aguas; Castillo, G.M., Ed.; IMTA: Progreso, Mexico; IDCR: Ottawa, Canada, 2004; pp. 17–22. [Google Scholar]
  15. Umbuzeiro, G.A.; Kummrow, F.; Rei, F.F.C. Toxicologia, Padrões de Qualidade de Água e a Legislação. INTERFACEHS—Rev. Gestão Integr. Em Saúde Trab. Meio Ambiente 2010, 5, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  16. Albuquerque, A.F.; Ribeiro, J.S.; Kummrow, F.; Nogueira, A.J.A.; Montagner, C.C.; Umbuzeiro, G.A. Pesticides in Brazilian Freshwaters: A Critical Review. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 2016, 18, 779–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Pesticides Use Statistical Databases. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/RP/visualize (accessed on 9 January 2020).
  18. IBAMA (Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis). Consolidação de Dados Fornecidos Pelas Empresas Registrantes de Produtos Técnicos, Agrotóxicos e Afins, Conforme Art. 41 Do Decreto 4.074/2002. Available online: http://www.ibama.gov.br/phocadownload/qualidadeambiental/relatorios/2019/grafico_do_historico_de_comercializacao_2000-2019.pdf (accessed on 30 September 2022).
  19. MAPA (Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento). Sistema de Agrotóxicos Fitossanitários—Agrofit. Available online: https://agrofit.agricultura.gov.br/agrofit_cons/principal_agrofit_cons (accessed on 14 January 2022).
  20. PPDB (Pesticide Properties DataBase). Pesticide Properties DataBase. Available online: http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/ppdb/en/index.htm (accessed on 29 May 2022).
  21. NORMAN (Network of Reference Laboratories, ReseArch. Centres and Related Organisations for Monitoring of Emerging Environmental Substances). NORMAN Ecotoxicology Database. Available online: https://www.norman-network.com/nds/susdat/ (accessed on 29 May 2022).
  22. Zhang, Y.; Qin, P.; Lu, S.; Liu, X.; Zhai, J.; Xu, J.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, G.; Liu, X.; Wan, Z. Occurrence and Risk Evaluation of Organophosphorus Pesticides in Typical Water Bodies of Beijing, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 1454–1463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Barbieri, M.V.; Peris, A.; Postigo, C.; Moya-Garcés, A.; Monllor-Alcaraz, L.S.; Rambla-Alegre, M.; Eljarrat, E.; López de Alda, M. Evaluation of the Occurrence and Fate of Pesticides in a Typical Mediterranean Delta Ecosystem (Ebro River Delta) and Risk Assessment for Aquatic Organisms. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 274, 115813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. ANVISA (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Monografias de Agrotóxicos Em Vigência). Monografias de Agrotóxicos Em Vigência. Available online: https://www.gov.br/anvisa/pt-br/acessoainformacao/dadosabertos/informacoes-analiticas/monografias-de-agrotoxicos (accessed on 27 August 2022).
  25. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). Technical Overview of Ecological Risk Assessment: Risk Characterization. Available online: https://epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/forms/contact-us-about-pesticide-science-and (accessed on 27 August 2022).
  26. Souissi, Y.; Bouchonnet, S.; Bourcier, S.; Kusk, K.O.; Sablier, M.; Andersen, H.R. Identification and Ecotoxicity of Degradation Products of Chloroacetamide Herbicides from UV-Treatment of Water. Sci. Total. Environ. 2013, 458, 527–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Fairchild, J.F.; Ruessler, D.S.; Carlson, A.R. Comparative Sensitivity of Five Species of Macrophytes and Six Species of Algae to Atrazine, Metribuzin, Alachlor, and Metolachlor. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1998, 17, 1830–1834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ivey, C.D.; Besser, J.M.; Ingersoll, C.G.; Wang, N.; Rogers, D.C.; Raimondo, S.; Bauer, C.R.; Hammer, E.J. Acute Sensitivity of the Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp, Branchinecta Lynchi (Anostraca; Branchinectidae), and Surrogate Species to 10 Chemicals. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2017, 36, 797–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Howe, G.E.; Gillis, R.; Mowbray, R.C. Effect of Chemical Synergy and Larval Stage on the Toxicity of Atrazine and Alchlor to Amphibian Larvae. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1998, 17, 519–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Peebua, P.; Kruatrachue, M.; Pokethitiyook, P.; Singhakaew, S. Histopathological Alterations of Nile Tilapia, Oreochromis Niloticus in Acute and Subchronic Alachlor Exposure. J Environ. Biol. 2008, 29, 325–331. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  31. Huang, L.; Xi, Y.; Zha, C.; Wen, X. Responses in the Population Growth and Reproduction of Freshwater Rotifer Brachionus Calyciflorus to Four Organochlorine Pesticides. Ann. Limnol. 2013, 49, 79–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Campagna, A.F.; Eler, M.N.; Fracácio, R.; Rodrigues, B.K.; Verani, N.F. The Toxic Potential of Aldrin and Heptachlor on Danio Rerio Juveniles (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae). Ecotoxicology 2007, 16, 289–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Satyanarayan, S.; Bejankiwar, R.S.; Chaudhari, P.R.; Kotangale, J.P.; Satyanarayan, A. Impact of Some Chlorinated Pesticides Onthe Haematology of the Cyprinus Carpio and Puntius Ticto. J. Environ. Scien. 2004, 16, 631–634. [Google Scholar]
  34. Werner, I.; Nagel, R. Stress Proteins HSP60 and HSP70 in Three Species of Amphipods Exposed to Cadmium, Diazinon, Dieldrin and Fluoranthene. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 1997, 16, 2393–2403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Schuytema, G.S.; Nebeker, A.V.; Griffis, W.L.; Wilson, K.N. Teratogenesis, Toxicity, and Bioconcentration in Frogs Exposed to Dieldrin. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1991, 21, 332–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Della Vechia, J.F.; Cruz, C.; Silva, A.F.; Cerveira, W.R.; Garlich, N. Macrophyte Bioassay Applications for Monitoring Pesticides in the Aquatic Environment. Planta Daninha. 2016, 34, 597–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lu, Z.; Zhao, B.; Yang, J.; Snell, T.W. Effects of Atrazine and Carbaryl on Growth and Reproduction of the Rotifer Brachionus Calyciflorus Pallas. J. Freshw. Ecol. 2012, 27, 527–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. He, H.; Yu, J.; Chen, G.; Li, W.; He, J.; Li, H. Acute Toxicity of Butachlor and Atrazine to Freshwater Green Alga Scenedesmus Obliquus and Cladoceran Daphnia Carinata. EcoToxicol. Environ. Saf. 2012, 80, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Phyu, Y.L.; Warne, M.S.J.; Lim, R.P. Toxicity and Bioavailability of Atrazine and Molinate to the Freshwater Shrimp (Paratya Australiensis) under Laboratory and Simulated Field Conditions. EcoToxicol. Environ. Saf. 2005, 60, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Velisek, J.; Kouba, A.; Stara, A. Acute Toxicity of Triazine Pesticides to Juvenile Signal Crayfish (Pacifastacus Leniusculus). Neuroendocrinol. Lett. 2013, 34, 31–36. [Google Scholar]
  41. Saka, M.; Tada, N.; Kamata, Y. Chronic Toxicity of 1,3,5-Triazine Herbicides in the Postembryonic Development of the Western Clawed Frog Silurana Tropicalis. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 147, 373–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. KreutzI, L.C.; Barcellos, L.J.G.; Silva, T.O.; Anziliero, D.; Martins, D.; Lorenson, M.; Marteninghe, A.; Silva, L.B. Acute Toxicity Test of Agricultural Pesticides on Silver Catfish (Rhamdia Quelen) Fingerlings. Ciência Rural. 2008, 38, 1050–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Huang, D.J.; Chen, H.C. Effects of Chlordane and Lindane on Testosterone and Vitellogenin Levels in Green Neon Shrimp (Neocaridina Denticulata). Int. J. Toxicol. 2004, 23, 91–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Manar, R.; Vasseur, P.; Bessi, H. Chronic Toxicity of Chlordane to Daphnia Magna and Ceriodaphnia Dubia: A Comparative Study. Environ. Toxicol. 2012, 27, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Manar, R.; Bessi, H.; Vasseur, P. Reproductive Effects and Bioaccumulation of Chlordane in Daphnia Magna. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2009, 28, 2150–2159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Silva, A.F.; Cruz, C.; Neto, A.N.; Pitelli, R.A. Ecotoxicidade de Herbicidas Para a Macrófita Aquática (Azolla Caroliniana). Planta Daninha. 2012, 30, 541–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sanford, M.; Washuck, N.; Carr, K.; Prosser, R.S. Pulsed Exposure of the Macrophyte Lemna Minor to Herbicides and the Mayfly Neocloeon Triangulifer to Diamide Insecticides. Chemosphere 2021, 273, 128582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Silva Pinto, T.J.; Moreira, R.A.; Silva, L.C.M.; Yoshii, M.P.C.; Goulart, B.V.; Fraga, P.D.; Rolim, V.L.S.; Montagner, C.C.; Daam, M.A.; Espindola, E.L.G. Toxicity of Fipronil and 2,4-D Formulations (Alone and in a Mixture) to the Tropical Amphipod Hyalella Meinerti. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 38308–38321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Farah, M.A.; Ateeq, B.; Ali, M.N.; Sabir, R.; Ahmad, W. Studies on Lethal Concentrations and Toxicity Stress of Some Xenobiotics on Aquatic Organisms. Chemosphere 2004, 55, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Holcombe, G.W.; Phipps, G.L.; Fiandt, J.T. Effects of Phenol, 2,4-Dimethylphenol, 2,4-Dichlorophenol, and Pentachlorophenol on Embryo, Larval, and Early-Juvenile Fathead Minnows (Pimephales Promelas). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1982, 11, 73–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Phipps, G.L.; Holcombe, G.W.; Fiandt, J.T. Acute Toxicity of Phenol and Substituted Phenols to the Fathead Minnow. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1981, 26, 585–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Majumdar, T.N.; Gupta, A. Acute Toxicity of Endosulfan and Malathion on Chironomus Ramosus (Insecta: Diptera: Chironomidae) from North Cachar Hills, Assam, India. J. Environ. Biol. 2009, 30, 469–470. [Google Scholar]
  53. Carriger, J.F.; Hoang, T.C.; Rand, G.M.; Gardinali, P.R.; Castro, J. Acute Toxicity and Effects Analysis of Endosulfan Sulfate to Freshwater Fish Species. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2011, 60, 281–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hall, R.J.; Swineford, D.M. Acute Toxicities of Toxaphene and Endrin to Larvae of Seven Species of Amphibians. Toxicol. Lett. 1981, 8, 331–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Schuytema, G.S.; Nebeker, A.V.; Griffis, W.L. Toxicity of Guthion® and Guthion® 2S to Xenopus Laevis Embryos. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1994, 27, 250–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Nebeker, A.V.; Schuytema, G.S.; Griffis, W.L.; Cataldo, A. Impact of Guthion on Survival and Growth of the Frog Pseudacris Regilla and the Salamanders Ambystoma Gracile and Ambystoma Maculatum. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1998, 35, 48–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ren, Z.; Zha, J.; Ma, M.; Wang, Z.; Gerhardt, A. The Early Warning of Aquatic Organophosphorus Pesticide Contamination by On-Line Monitoring Behavioral Changes of Daphnia Magna. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2007, 134, 373–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Ferrari, A.; Venturino, A.; D’Angelo, A.M.P. Time Course of Brain Cholinesterase Inhibition and Recovery Following Acute and Subacute Azinphosmethyl, Parathion and Carbaryl Exposure in the Goldfish (Carassius Auratus). EcoToxicol. Environ. Saf. 2004, 57, 420–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Fitzmayer, K.M.; Geiger, J.G.; Avyle, M.J. van den Effects of Chronic Exposure to Simazine on the Cladoceran, Daphnia Pulex. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1982, 11, 603–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Sayim, F. Toxicity of Trifluralin on the Embryos and Larvae of the Red-Bellied Toad, Bombina Bombina. Turk. J. Zool. 2010, 34, 479–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Poleksic, V.; Karan, V. Effects of Trifluralin on Carp: Biochemical and Histological Evaluation. EcoToxicol. Environ. Saf. 1999, 43, 213–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Weir, S.M.; Yu, S.; Salice, C.J. Acute Toxicity of Herbicide Formulations and Chronic Toxicity of Technical-Grade Trifluralin to Larval Green Frogs (Lithobates Clamitans). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2012, 31, 2029–2034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. European Commission. Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment Chapter R.10: Characterisation of Dose [Concentration]-Response for Environment Guidance for the Implementation of REACH; European Commission: Brussels, Brazil, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  64. REFLORA.(Resgate Histórico e Herbário Virtual para o Conhecimento e Conservação da Flora Brasileira) Flora e Funga Do Brasil. Available online: http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/ (accessed on 19 November 2022).
  65. Forzza, R.C.; Leitman, P.M.; Costa, A.; de Carvalho, A.A., Jr.; Peixoto, A.L.; Walter, B.M.T.; Bicudo, C.; Zappi, D.; da Costa, D.P.; Lleras, E.; et al. Catálogo de Plantas e Fungos Do Brasil; Instituto de Pesquisa Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2010; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  66. TCBF. (Taxonomic Catalog of the Brazilian Fauna). Available online: http://fauna.jbrj.gov.br/fauna/listaBrasil/PrincipalUC/PrincipalUC.do?lingua=en (accessed on 19 November 2022).
  67. GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility). Available online: https://www.gbif.org/ (accessed on 19 November 2022).
  68. Bundschuh, R.; Bundschuh, M.; Otto, M.; Schulz, R. Food-Related Exposure to Systemic Pesticides and Pesticides from Transgenic Plants: Evaluation of Aquatic Test Strategies. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2019, 31, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. IBAMA (Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis). Os 10 Ingredientes Ativos Mais Vendidos-2020. Available online: http://www.ibama.gov.br/agrotoxicos/relatorios-de-comercializacao-de-agrotoxicos#hist-comercializacao (accessed on 25 August 2022).
  70. ANVISA (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária). Resolução—RE N 1967, de 18 de Julho de 2019; Diário Oficial da União: Brasília, Brasil, 2019.
  71. UN Environment Programme. Stockholm Convention Stockholm Convention: On Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs); UN Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  72. European Commission Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on Environmental Quality Standards in the Field of Water Policy, Amending and Subsequently Repealing Council Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and Amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. 2008; 84–97.
  73. Pires, N.L.; Passos, C.J.S.; Morgado, M.G.A.; Mello, D.C.; Infante, C.M.C.; Caldas, E.D. Determination of Glyphosate, AMPA and Glufosinate by High Performance Liquid Chromatography with Fluorescence Detection in Waters of the Santarém Plateau, Brazilian Amazon. J. Environ. Sci. Health B 2020, 55, 794–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Severo, E.S.; Marins, A.T.; Cerezer, C.; Costa, D.; Nunes, M.; Prestes, O.D.; Zanella, R.; Loro, V.L. Ecological Risk of Pesticide Contamination in a Brazilian River Located near a Rural Area: A Study of Biomarkers Using Zebrafish Embryos. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 190, 110071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Souza, L.F.C.B.; Montagner, C.C.; Almeida, M.B.; Kuroda, E.K.; Vidal, C.; Freire, R.L. Determination of Pesticides in the Source and Drinking Waters in Londrina, Paraná, Brazil. Semin. Cienc. Agrar. 2019, 40, 1153–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Vieira, M.G.; Steinke, G.; Arias, J.L.O.; Primel, E.G.; Cabrera, L.C. Evaluation of Pesticide Contamination in the Water Sources of Southwest Parana Cities. Rev. Virtual Química 2017, 9, 1800–1812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Machado, C.S.; Alves, R.I.S.; Fregonesi, B.M.; Tonani, K.A.A.; Martinis, B.S.; Sierra, J.; Nadal, M.; Domingo, J.L.; Segura-Muñoz, S. Chemical Contamination of Water and Sediments in the Pardo River, São Paulo, Brazil. Procedia. Eng. 2016, 162, 230–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Brovini, E.M.; Deus, B.C.T.; Vilas-Boas, J.A.; Quadra, G.R.; Carvalho, L.; Mendonça, R.F.; de Pereira, R.O.; Cardoso, S.J. Three-Bestseller Pesticides in Brazil: Freshwater Concentrations and Potential Environmental Risks. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 771, 144754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Toxics 10 00767 g001 550
Figure 1. Freshwater species most used in the ecotoxicological studies with pesticides included in CONAMA standard directive 357/05. a Producer organism; b Primary consumer; c Secondary consumer.
Figure 1. Freshwater species most used in the ecotoxicological studies with pesticides included in CONAMA standard directive 357/05. a Producer organism; b Primary consumer; c Secondary consumer.
Toxics 10 00767 g001
Toxics 10 00767 g002 550
Figure 2. (A) Percentage of tests conducted with the pesticides listed in the tests shown in CONAMA standard directive 357/05. (B–D) Percentage of tests conducted with the pesticides in producer (P), primary consumer (PC) and secondary consumer organisms (SC).
Figure 2. (A) Percentage of tests conducted with the pesticides listed in the tests shown in CONAMA standard directive 357/05. (B–D) Percentage of tests conducted with the pesticides in producer (P), primary consumer (PC) and secondary consumer organisms (SC).
Toxics 10 00767 g002
Table
Table 1. Pesticides included in CONAMA standard directive 357/05 for surface freshwater: registration situation in Brazil or persistent organic pollutant (POP) and maximum value concentrations according to the water use classification.
Table 1. Pesticides included in CONAMA standard directive 357/05 for surface freshwater: registration situation in Brazil or persistent organic pollutant (POP) and maximum value concentrations according to the water use classification.
Pesticide aCurrent Situation b,cMaximum Value, µg/L a
Class 1/2Class 3
AlachlorRegistered: Environmental class II c20-
AtrazineRegistered: Environmental class I–III c22
CarbarylRegistered: Environmental class II c0.0270
2,4-DRegistered: Environmental class I–III c430
GlyphosateRegistered: Environmental class I–III c65280
MalathionRegistered: Environmental class I–IV c0.1100
SimazineRegistered: Environmental class II–III c2-
TrifuralineRegistered: Environmental class I–II c0.2-
2,4,5-TP (fenoprop)Not registered1010
MetolachlorNot registered10-
MethoxychlorNot registered0.0320
Demeton (demeton-O, demeton-S)Not registered0.114
Gution (azinphos methyl)Not registered0.0050.005
ParathionNot registered0.0435
2,4,5–TNot registered22
AldrinPOP0.0050.03
Chlordane (cis, trans)POP0.040.3
DDT (p,p’-DDT, p,p’-DDE, p,p’-DDD)POP0.0021
2,4-DichlorophenolPOP0.3-
DieldrinPOP0.0050.03
Endosulfan (I, II, sulphate)POP0.0560.22
EndrinPOP0.0040.2
Heptachlor +heptachlor epoxidePOP0.000039/0.010.03
HexachlorobenzenePOP0.00029/0.0065-
Lindane (γ-HCH)POP0.022
PentachlorophenolPOP3/99
ToxaphenePOP0.00028/0.010.21
a Brazil [8]; b ANVISA [24] and c MAPA [19]; Environmental classification—I: extremely hazardous, II: highly hazardous, III; moderately hazardous; IV: slightly hazardous [19]; POP=persistent organic pollutant, United Nations Stockholm Convention (http://chm.pops.int/TheConvention/ThePOPs/ListingofPOPs/tabid/2509/Default.aspx (accessed on 24 November 2022)).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

de Araújo, E.P.; Caldas, E.D.; Oliveira-Filho, E.C. Relationship between Pesticide Standards for Classification of Water Bodies and Ecotoxicity: A Case Study of the Brazilian Directive. Toxics 2022, 10, 767. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10120767

AMA Style

de Araújo EP, Caldas ED, Oliveira-Filho EC. Relationship between Pesticide Standards for Classification of Water Bodies and Ecotoxicity: A Case Study of the Brazilian Directive. Toxics. 2022; 10(12):767. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10120767

Chicago/Turabian Style

de Araújo, Esmeralda Pereira, Eloisa Dutra Caldas, and Eduardo Cyrino Oliveira-Filho. 2022. "Relationship between Pesticide Standards for Classification of Water Bodies and Ecotoxicity: A Case Study of the Brazilian Directive" Toxics 10, no. 12: 767. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10120767

APA Style

de Araújo, E. P., Caldas, E. D., & Oliveira-Filho, E. C. (2022). Relationship between Pesticide Standards for Classification of Water Bodies and Ecotoxicity: A Case Study of the Brazilian Directive. Toxics, 10(12), 767. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10120767

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop