Next Article in Journal
The Panoramic View of Ecuadorian Soil Nutrients (Deficit/Toxicity) from Different Climatic Regions and Their Possible Influence on the Metabolism of Important Crops
Next Article in Special Issue
Potential Role of Lipase Activity on the Internal Exposure Assessment of Glycidol Released from Its Fatty Acid Esters
Previous Article in Journal
Occupational Exposure to Metal Engineered Nanoparticles: A Human Biomonitoring Pilot Study Involving Italian Nanomaterial Workers
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of Toxic Effects Induced by Sub-Acute Exposure to Low Doses of α-Cypermethrin in Adult Male Rats
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Toxics
Volume 11
Issue 2
10.3390/toxics11020122
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Pesticide Exposure over DNA Damage in Farmers from Los Reyes, Michoacan in Mexico

by
Rafael Valencia-Quintana
1,†,
Mirta Milić
2,*,†,
Stefano Bonassi
3,4,
Maria Antonieta Ochoa-Ocaña
5,
Victoria Campos-Peña
6,
Maria Guadalupe Tenorio-Arvide
7,
Guillermo Alejandro Pérez-Flores
1 and
Juana Sánchez-Alarcón
1,*
1
Laboratorio “Rafael Villalobos-Pietrini” de Toxicología Genómica y Química Ambiental, Facultad de Agrobiología, Universidad Autónoma de Tlaxcala, CA Genética y Ambiente UATLX-CA 223, Red Temática de Toxicología de Plaguicidas, Tlaxcala 90120, Mexico
2
Mutagenesis Unit, Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health, Ksaverska Cesta 2, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
3
Department of Human Sciences and Quality of Life Promotion, San Rafaele University, 00166 Rome, Italy
4
Unit of Clinical and Molecular Epidemiology, IRCCS San Rafaele Pisana, 00166 Rome, Italy
5
Unidad Académica de Estudios Regionales, Coordinación de Humanidades, UNAM, Jiquilpan 59510, Mexico
6
Experimental Laboratory of Neurodegenerative Diseases, National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery Manuel Velasco Suárez, Mexico City 14269, Mexico
7
Centro de Investigación en Ciencias Agrícolas, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla 72570, Mexico
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Toxics 2023, 11(2), 122; https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics11020122
Submission received: 30 December 2022 / Revised: 19 January 2023 / Accepted: 21 January 2023 / Published: 26 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biological Risk Monitoring of Exposure to Chemical Pollutants and/or Physical Agents)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In the municipality of Los Reyes, Michoacán, in Mexico, several economic activities coexist; however, the most relevant is agriculture. It stands out as an agro-industrial center and commercial enclave in the region, suitable for the cultivation of sugar cane; however, currently fruit growing takes first place with blackberry, raspberry and blueberry, followed by avocado, peach, strawberry and other crops. A large quantity and variety of pesticides are applied to crops, consequently the population is at constant risk. This study aimed to evaluate whether pesticides are a factor in genetic damage to agricultural workers from Los Reyes, Michoacán, using alkaline comet assay. Fifty-nine residents participated (41 workers and 18 controls). Results included confounding factors (alcohol consumption, smoking habit, gender, age, BMI, etc.) indicated a non-significant statistical difference between two groups, with higher DNA damage values in workers that was higher than the values expected in a normal healthy unexposed population. It seems that the control measures, safe handling of pesticides and quality standards, required by the producers so that their products can be exported, have resulted in less damage, despite workers’ activity, but higher damage than the reference values still requires regular surveillance of those exposed. The use of protective equipment or measures can reduce the risk of damage, so it is also necessary to promote their service and comply with labor regulations for agricultural workers.

1. Introduction

In the municipality of Los Reyes, Michoacan, in Mexico, several economic activities coexist; however, the most relevant is agriculture. It stands out as an agro-industrial center and commercial enclave in the region, with suitable land for the cultivation of sugar cane. However, fruit growing comes first with blackberry, raspberry and blueberry, followed by avocado, peach, strawberry and other crops. In their attempt to increase the productivity and yield of their crops, farmers have resorted to the use of pesticides [1], with the purpose of controlling pests and diseases. To this day, they are the most effective form of protecting these crops [2]. Nevertheless, given pesticides’ toxic properties [3], despite their benefits, these substances represent a risk to both the environment and to humans.
As in most developing countries, farmers in Mexico need more knowledge of the risk to health derived from the mishandling of pesticides during their preparation and spraying in crop fields. Both poor handling and application practices of pesticides cause occupational and/or environmental exposure to these agents [4,5] that can enter exposed individuals through different routes (inhalation, topical and ingestion). They can affect the functioning of various organs and/or systems (nervous, endocrine, reproductive and immune, among others) [6]. The use of pesticides has also been associated with genetic damage [2,7,8,9]. Though most biomonitoring and genotoxicity research have been done in advanced nations, they are most relevant to emerging nations. In Mexico, around 7 million people work in agriculture and it is estimated that 25.4% of its population may be directly exposed to pesticides. Despite this, few studies have been developed in Mexico and in some cases their results have been contradictory [8]. Thus, the purpose of the present study is to estimate the possible effects caused by exposure to complex mixtures of pesticides in agricultural workers despite strict standards of protection and hygiene in the handling of pesticides in the Municipality of Los Reyes, State of Michoacán, in Mexico, through the analysis of genetic damage using the comet assay or single-cell alkaline electrophoresis assay in whole blood.

2. Materials and Methods

All chemicals and materials were from Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, MI, USA, unless another source is mentioned.

2.1. Sample Collection and Study Population

This research was approved by the State Research Ethics Committee of the Tlaxcala State Bioethics Commission (CI-CEI-01/2018). The participants signed an informed consent form and responded to a structured inquiry form to gather information on socio-demographic features, confounding discriminatory factors, details of pesticide management, use of personal protective measures (PPM) and medication.
Fifty-nine individuals from Los Reyes municipality in the state of Michoacan, Mexico, with an age range of 18–72 years, were considered in this research and were divided into two groups, i.e., 41 agricultural workers and 18 individuals as a control group from the same geographic area. Control group was without exposure to any genotoxic agent, nor labor activity related to agriculture. The lower number of subjects in the control group is due to a higher proportion of subjects who decided not to sign the informed consent. Furthermore, some subjects after the entry interview no longer satisfied the inclusion criteria (mainly due to agricultural work). The lower proportion of men in the control group is mostly due to the difficulty in finding subjects unexposed and not working in agriculture, a condition most likely for women.
One sample of total blood was collected from each farmer or control subject into vacutainers tube, with EDTA as an anticoagulant (4 mL).

2.2. Comet Assay

In the procedure described by Speit and Rothfuss (2012) [10], comet assay in alkaline conditions was performed with whole blood, with EDTA as an anticoagulant. Minimum Information for Reporting Comet Assay rules (MIRCA) were applied with some modifications [11]. Zeiss microscope connected with Comet Assay IV image analysis system (Instem, London, UK) was used. Additional details of methodology can be found in a previous study [9].

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, standard error), independent samples Student’s t and χ2 to evaluate the data of sociodemographic features, and Yate’s correction tests were used. For comet assay parameters, statistical analysis was performed by Mann Whitney U test.

3. Results

3.1. Sociodemographic Features of the Study Groups

The control group comprised 18 subjects between 21 and 85 years (43.56 ± 4.02 (mean age ± standard deviation (SD)). The farmers group included 41 exposed subjects aged between 23 and 73 years (40.98 ± 2.24). Demographic features of the populations studied (control and farmers) are shown in Table 1. There were no differences in age distribution between the control and the exposed group (t = 0.60, df = 57.0, p = 0.55), nor for BMI and gender (female t = 0.42, df = 18, p = 0. 68; male t = 1.37, df = 17, p = 0.17). Comparing proportional frequencies of smokers and non-smokers between groups, there were statistically significant differences (χ2 = 13.42, df = 1, p = 0.0002), with more smokers in the control group, and interestingly the same data was reported for alcohol intake. Most volunteers described the use of personal protective measures (90%).
Farmers were regularly in contact with insecticides (81%), fungicides (11%) and herbicides (8%); in particular exposure to organophosphates (35%), carbamates (15%), pyrethroids (15%), organochlorines (12%) and others (23%) was reported. The activities reported by the exposed group included spraying, cultivating and harvesting, which were carried out by all of them, often causing exposure to mixtures of pesticides (Table 2). According to the WHO (2020), USEPA (2018) and IARC (2020) [12,13,14], these compounds are categorized from slightly to highly hazardous. Four of these have been classified in Group 2A (probably carcinogenic to humans) (aldrin metabolite, diazinon, glyphosate and malathion), two classified in Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic to humans) (mancozeb and parathion) and one classified in Group 3 (may not be carcinogenic to humans) (dicofol) by IARC. On the other hand, the WHO categorizes these compounds as extremely hazardous (oxamyl and parathion), highly dangerous (abamectin, azinphos-ethyl, carbofuran, cyfluthrin, methamidophos and methomyl), moderately hazardous (acephate, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, dicofol, dimethoate, endosulfan, imidacloprid, lambda-cyhalothrin, paraquat, permethrin, pyrethrin and zeta-cypermethrin) and slightly hazardous (diuron, glyphosate, malathion and thiabendazole).

3.2. Comet Assay

Table 3 shows the results of primary DNA damage. In the exposed group, the values of tail length, intensity, moment and Olive moment were 22.89 ± 1.29 µm, 12.55 ± 1.23%, 1.44 ± 0.25 and 1.02 ± 0.34, respectively. Values in control group were 20.58 ± 1.04 µm, 9.51 ± 0.83%, 0.90 ± 0.10 and 0.80 ± 0.09, respectively. Values in the exposed group showed slight increases; however, the differences found were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). In the same way, when the exposed group was divided based on duration of work (<6 and > 6 years), use of protective equipment (PPM), age (<35 and >35 years), gender and smoking and drinking habits, no significant differences were found (p > 0.05) in the comet parameters between different groups of variables tested. However, it is valuable to mention that our group previously established reference comet assay values for healthy, cancer free, cancer prone and deceased (in future) values that are mostly used only for tail intensity parameter and, according to those values, the exposed group still has higher values than expected in a normal healthy population, pointing out that these exposed groups still need regular surveillance [15,16].

4. Discussion

To increase productivity and avoid losses due to pests, farmers resort to the application of pesticides. For this reason, pesticides have become a factor in food security. However, their use can affect non-target organisms, including humans, due to their indiscriminate and uncontrolled use [17]. Many health problems have been correlated to pesticide contact [18] and DNA damage. In some countries, like Mexico, there is a lack of information on actual human exposure to different pesticides [19] and effects at the genetic level in populations occupationally exposed to these compounds [8].
Pesticide exposure represents a high risk. An integral approach for exposure assessment is human biomonitoring (HBM) [20]. Genotoxic assessment to determine health risks from occupational contact to complex mixtures of these compounds in humans has proven to be a valuable and achievable means [21,22].
Different pesticides, including organochlorines, organophosphorus, carbamates and pyrethroids, are the most commonly used in developing countries [23]. These groups represent 77% of the compounds used in Los Reyes, Michoacán, Mexico.
The comet assay can assess occupational exposure to pesticides [24]. This bioassay was conducted in the present work to evaluate DNA damage in agricultural workers from Los Reyes Michoacán in Mexico. The parameters considered were the comet tail length, the intensity, the moment and the Olive moment, which are the most frequently used [21], Tail intensity is generally accepted as the most reliable endpoint to measure DNA damage with the comet assay. Nevertheless, in explorative studies like the present one, alternative endpoints may report different results and open alterative headways to explore, searching for specific mechanisms of specific exposures [15,16].
The results showed a slightly higher level of DNA damage than in those who do not perform these tasks. However, this difference was not statistically significant.
As in the present study, Pastor et al. (2001) [25] found no differences in the frequencies of cytogenetic damage between exposed and control individuals in both buccal cells and peripheral blood lymphocytes, in farmers exposed to pesticides, using the micronuclei test.
Contrary to this, other studies have reported an increment in DNA injury induced by exposure to pesticides [2,21,22,26,27,28]. In these cases, a low awareness of pesticide risk has been assumed [29].
Still, we need to mention that, according to our newest results, although the workers’ groups did not have significantly higher DNA damage values, they still had higher values than those established for the healthy population, even reaching the values of the group with genomic damages but cancer free (tail intensity up to 9% for normal population, up to 12.4% for cancer free population, around 17% for cancer prone and above 18% for deceased population from mortality registry) [15,16]. This points to the fact that workers should have, in the future, further regular surveillance, and awareness of using protective equipment in most (90%) should be encouraged as results demonstrate in this study (in the shape of slightly higher DNA damage values).
The single cell gel electrophoresis assay has been applied in environmental and occupational human assessment, in studies on genotoxicity due to exposure to potentially mutagenic agents, at the clinical level, because of lifestyle, or due to the interaction between diet and antioxidant consumption on carcinogenesis, analysis of irradiated foods in ecotoxicology, radiation biology, environmental genotoxicity and genetic toxicology [30].
The specific manifestation of pesticides’ effects and their intensity depend on the type of pesticide, its concentration, the exposure time and individual susceptibility to other factors [3,31]. It is noteworthy that not all people exposed to genotoxic agents respond similarly. While some people can present carcinogenesis processes, others are resistant to the activity of the harmful substance. This is the result of the great interindividual variability that lies in the ability to inactivate or activate potentially genotoxic and carcinogenic compounds, which is probably influenced by the polymorphisms of the genes that encode the enzymes of the xenobiotic metabolism [32] of phase I (activation) and phase II (inactivation), in addition to influencing the responsiveness of the nucleotide repair cleavage system [33]. Different studies have managed to identify genotypes associated with an increased risk of cancer due to exposure to genotoxic agents [6].
Some studies with exposed populations to pesticides find genetic damage, while others show negative results [25]. The reason for these controversial results may be that these types of studies are difficult to repeat because each exposed population presents very particular characteristics, from the different climatic conditions of the region in which they live, to lifestyle and the use of various mixtures of pesticides. In Los Reyes, Michoacán, Mexico, the farmers monitored used 26 different pesticides; the most frequently mentioned were three organophosphates (malathion (16%), parathion (15%) and paraquat (11%)) and a pyrethroid (lambda-cyhalothrin (8%)), one of these being extremely dangerous (parathion), two moderately complex (paraquat and lambda-cyalothrin) and one slightly dangerous (malathion), according to the WHO classification (WHO 2020) [12]. The level of exposure to these pesticides in Los Reyes, Michoacán, is potentially significant and data on its genotoxicity is available (malathion [34,35], parathion [36,37,38], paraquat [39,40], lambda-cyhalothrin [41,42]); however, information on genotoxic effects of complex mixtures is lacking [25].
Due to the lack protective measures during the application of pesticides farmworkers are at a high risk of damage [22,43,44,45]. Personal protective equipment (PPE) has been considered a vital safety shield against pesticide-related health risks [46]. According to the information provided by the farmers who participated in this project, most of them use some protection such as gloves, masks, goggles, or overalls (90%). The results found in this study agree with those reported by Pastor et al. (2001) [25] in workers that used more than one protective measure, where they statistically insignificant differences were reported in the frequencies of DNA damage between control and individuals exposed to complex mixtures of pesticides. Although this may explain the lack of cytogenetic damage in agricultural workers from Los Reyes, Michoacán in Mexico, it cannot be affirmed that the pesticides did not induce any adverse effect. In this particular case, no significant increase in cytogenetic damage was found when assessed by the comet assay in lymphocytes. However, as in other agricultural regions [47], an increase in the incidence of cancers of different types has been reported in Los Reyes, Michoacán, Mexico and the population has associated it with exposure to pesticides (personal information). Even in the absence of other signs of acute toxicity, cancer risk may rise significantly among exposed farmworkers [48]. The higher risk of developing cancer in agricultural workers exposed to pesticides has been supported by different epidemiological studies [22,49]. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified parathion, malathion, glyphosate and diazinon as probable human carcinogens [50,51], which the participants in this study used.
In addition to the use of ecotoxicity, cytotoxicity and genotoxicity tests with the aim of assessing the potential risks from contact with pesticides at different levels of biological organization [52], the application of new molecular approaches to contribute to the elucidation of possible mechanisms through which pesticides induce different diseases, including cancer, is recommended. Deregulation of miRNAs expression (let-7, miR-9, miR-21, miR-30, miR-126 miR-155, miR-181, miR-223, miR-363 and miR-320), has been evaluated to be a leading biomarker in evaluating the response to pesticide exposure [53]. Some of these miRNAs are essential for cellular proliferation, differentiation and transformation or are targets of tumor repressors and have an essential role in cancer development [53,54]. Improving understanding of miRNA deregulation by pesticide contact will permit their proposal as biomarkers, which could improve knowledge of the molecular toxicity of pesticides.

5. Conclusions

It is important to promote the use of protection measures, as well as compliance with labor regulations, for risk prevention in agricultural workers, which minimize the risks of exposure to pesticides.
It is essential to conduct biomonitoring studies to determine and guarantee good working conditions for farmers, as well as providing greater awareness of the use of PPE.
In order to evaluate the association between occupational exposure to pesticides and the incidence of DNA damage, or their effects on miRNA profiles in agricultural workers, it is necessary to identify novel biomarkers of occupational pesticide exposure, so other systematic studies are needed.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.V.-Q., M.M., S.B., M.A.O.-O., V.C.-P., M.G.T.-A., G.A.P.-F. and J.S.-A.; Formal analysis, R.V.-Q., M.M., S.B., G.A.P.-F. and J.S.-A.; Funding acquisition, R.V.-Q.; Investigation, R.V.-Q., M.M., S.B., M.A.O.-O., V.C.-P., M.G.T.-A., G.A.P.-F. and J.S.-A.; Methodology, R.V.-Q., M.M., S.B., M.A.O.-O., V.C.-P., M.G.T.-A., G.A.P.-F. and J.S.-A.; Writing-original draft, R.V.-Q., M.M., S.B., V.C.-P., M.G.T.-A. and J.S.-A.; Writing-review and editing, R.V.-Q., M.M., S.B., M.A.O.-O., V.C.-P., M.G.T.-A., G.A.P.-F. and J.S.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Support from National Council of Science and Technology (CONACyT) through FORDECYT-PRONACES, formerly FOINS-CONACyT (project title: biomarkers of genetic damage and health risk due to the use of pesticides in food production), with key FORDECYT-PRONACES, FOINS 2016-01 3203.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the State Research Ethics Committee of the Tlaxcala State Bioethics Commission (CI-CEI-01/2018).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Written informed consent has been obtained from the patient(s) to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge support from National Council of Science and Technology (CONACyT) through of FORDECYT-PRONACES, formerly FOINS-CONACyT (project title: biomarkers of genetic damage and health risk due to the use of pesticides in food production), with key FORDECYT-PRONACES, FOINS 2016-01 3203. We would also like to thank to Makso Herman and Ana Rosa Flores-Márquez for her technical assistance.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Damalas, C.A.; Koutroubas, S.D. Farmers’ exposure to pesticides: Toxicity Types and ways of prevention. Toxics 2016, 4, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Bolognesi, C. Genotoxicity of pesticides: A review of human biomonitoring studies. Mutat. Res. 2003, 543, 251–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Kim, K.H.; Kabir, E.; Jahan, S.A. Exposure to pesticides and the associated human health effects. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 575, 525–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Latif, Y.; Sherazi, S.T.H.; Bhanger, M.I.; Nizamani, S. Evaluation of pesticide residues in human blood samples of agro professionals and non-agro professionals. Am. J. Anal. Chem. 2012, 3, 587–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Macfarlane, E.; Carey, R.; Keegel, T.; El-Zaemay, S.; Fritschi, L. Dermal exposure associated with occupational end use of pesticides and the role of protective measures. Saf. Health Work 2013, 4, 136–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Costa, C.; Teixeira, J.P.; Silva, S.; Roma-Torres, J.; Coelho, P.; Gaspar, J.; Alves, M.; Laffon, B.; Rueff, J.; Mayan, O. Cytogenetic and molecular biomonitoring of a Portuguese population exposed to pesticides. Mutagenesis 2006, 21, 343–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gómez-Arroyo, S.; Díaz-Sánchez, Y.; Meneses-Pérez, M.A.; Villalobos-Pietrini, R.; León-Rodríguez, J.D. Cytogenetic biomonitoring in a Mexican floriculture worker group exposed to pesticides. Mutat. Res. 2000, 466, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sánchez-Alarcón, J.; Milić, M.; Kašuba, V.; Tenorio-Arvide, M.G.; Montiel-González, J.M.R.; Bonassi, S.; Valencia-Quintana, R. A systematic review of studies on genotoxicity and related biomarkers in populations exposed to pesticides in Mexico. Toxics 2021, 9, 272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Valencia-Quintana, R.; López-Durán, R.M.; Milić, M.; Bonassi, S.; Ochoa-Ocaña, M.A.; Uriostegui-Acosta, M.O.; Pérez-Flores, G.A.; Gómez-Olivares, J.L.; Sánchez-Alarcón, J. Assessment of cytogenetic damage and cholinesterases’ activity in workers occupationally exposed to pesticides in Zamora-Jacona, Michoacan, Mexico. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Speit, G.; Rothfuss, A. The comet assay: A sensitive genotoxicity test for the detection of DNA damage and repair. Methods Mol. Biol. 2012, 920, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Møller, P.; Azqueta, A.; Boutet-Robinet, E.; Koppen, G.; Bonassi, S.; Milić, M.; Gajski, G.; Costa, S.; Teixeira, J.P.; Costa Pereira, C.; et al. Minimum Information for Reporting on the Comet Assay (MIRCA): Recommendations for describing comet assay procedures and results. Nat. Protoc. 2020, 15, 3817–3826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. WHO. The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020; Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/332193/9789240005662-eng.pdf?ua=1 (accessed on 6 December 2022).
  13. USEPA. Chemicals Evaluated for Carcinogenic Potential Office of Pesticide Programs; Annual Cancer Report; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; p. 44. Available online: http://npic.orst.edu/chemicals_evaluated.pdf (accessed on 6 December 2022).
  14. IARC. IARC Monographs on the Identification of Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans, Agents Classifed by the IARC Monographs; IARC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020; Volume 1–125, Available online: https://monographs.iarc.fr/agents-classified-by-the-iarc/ (accessed on 6 December 2022).
  15. Milić, M.; Ceppi, M.; Bruzzone, M.; Azqueta, A.; Brunborg, G.; Godschalk, R.; Koppen, G.; Langie, S.; Møller, P.; Teixeira, J.P.; et al. The hCOMET project: International database comparison of results with the comet assay in human biomonitoring. Baseline frequency of DNA damage and effect of main confounders. Mutat. Res. Rev. Mutat. Res. 2021, 787, 108371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Bonassi, S.; Ceppi, M.; Møller, P.; Azqueta, A.; Milić, M.; Neri, M.; Brunborg, G.; Godschalk, R.; Koppen, G.; hCOMET project; et al. DNA damage in circulating leukocytes measured with the comet assay may predict the risk of death. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 16793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Esimbekova, E.N.; Kalyabina, V.P.; Kopylova, K.V.; Lonshakova-Mukina, V.I.; Antashkevich, A.A.; Torgashina, I.G.; Lukyanenko, K.A.; Kratasyuk, V.A. The effects of commercial pesticide formulations on the function of in vitro and in vivo assay systems: A comparative analysis. Chemosensors 2022, 10, 328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kim, S.K.; Oh, H.J.; Oh, S.S.; Koh, S.B. Pesticide exposure in relation to the incidence of abnormal glucose regulation: A retrospective cohort study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Bruinen de Bruin, Y.; Franco, A.; Ahrens, A.; Morris, A.; Verhagen, H.; Kephalopoulos, S.; Dulio, V.; Slobodnik, J.; Sijm, D.T.H.M.; Vermeire, T.; et al. Enhancing the use of exposure science across EU chemical policies as part of the European Exposure Science Strategy 2020–2030. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2022, 32, 513–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zare Jeddi, M.; Hopf, N.B.; Louro, H.; Viegas, S.; Galea, K.S.; Pasanen-Kase, R.; Santonen, T.; Mustieles, V.; Fernandez, M.F.; Verhagen, H.; et al. Developing human biomonitoring as a 21st century toolbox within the European exposure science strategy 2020–2030. Environ. Int. 2022, 168, 107476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Canales-Aguirre, A.; Padilla-Camberos, E.; Gómez-Pinedo, U.; Salado-Ponce, H.; Feria-Velasco, A.; De Celis, R. Genotoxic effect of chronic exposure to DDT on lymphocytes, oral mucosa and breast cells of female rats. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2011, 8, 540–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Hutter, H.P.; Khan, A.W.; Lemmerer, K.; Wallner, P.; Kundi, M.; Moshammer, H. Cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of pesticide exposure in male coffee farmworkers of the Jarabacoa Region, Dominican Republic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Ali, T.; Ismail, M.; Asad, F.; Ashraf, A.; Waheed, U.; Khan, Q.M. Pesticide genotoxicity in cotton picking women in Pakistan evaluated using comet assay. Drug Chem. Toxicol. 2018, 41, 213–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Liao, W.; McNutt, M.A.; Zhu, W.G. The comet assay: A sensitive method for detecting DNA damage in individual cells. Methods 2009, 48, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Pastor, S.; Gutiérrez, S.; Creus, A.; Cebulska-Wasilewska, A.; Marcos, R. Micronuclei in peripheral blood lymphocytes and buccal epithelial cells of Polish farmers exposed to pesticides. Mutat. Res. 2001, 495, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Benedetti, D.; Nunes, E.; Sarmento, M.; Porto, C.; Dos Santos, C.E.; Dias, J.F.; da Silva, J. Genetic damage in soybean workers exposed to pesticides: Evaluation with the comet and buccal micronucleus cytome assays. Mutat. Res. 2013, 752, 28–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Abdul Hamid, Z.; Mohd Zulkifly, M.F.; Hamid, A.; Lubis, S.H.; Mohammad, N.; Ishak, I.; Mohd Saat, N.Z.; Othman, H.F.; Ghazali, A.R.; Mohd Rafaai, M.J.; et al. The association of nuclear abnormalities in exfoliated buccal epithelial cells with the health status of different agricultural activities farmers in Peninsular Malaysia. Genes Environ. 2016, 38, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Marcelino, A.F.; Wachtel, C.C.; Ghisi, N.C. Are our farm workers in danger? Genetic damage in farmers exposed to pesticides. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Salvi, R.M.; Lara, D.R.; Ghisolfi, E.S.; Portela, L.V.; Dias, R.D.; Souza, D.O. Neuropsychiatric evaluation in subjects chronically exposed to organophosphate pesticides. Toxicol. Sci. 2003, 72, 267–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Wasson, G.R.; McKelvey-Martin, V.J.; Downes, C.S. The use of the comet assay in the study of human nutrition and cancer. Mutagenesis 2008, 23, 153–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Hayat, K.; Afzal, M.; Aqueel, M.A.; Ali, S.; Khan, Q.M.; Ashfaq, U. Determination of insecticide residues and their adverse effects on blood profile of occupationally exposed individuals. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 163, 382–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Heuser, V.D.; Erdtmann, B.; Kvitko, K.; Rohr, P.; da Silva, J. Evaluation of genetic damage in Brazilian footwear-workers: Biomarkers of exposure, effect, and susceptibility. Toxicology 2007, 232, 235–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gillet, L.C.; Schärer, O.D. Molecular mechanisms of mammalian global genome nucleotide excision repair. Chem. Rev. 2006, 106, 253–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hernández-Toledano, D.S.; Estrada-Muñiz, E.; Vega, L. Genotoxicity of the organophosphate pesticide malathion and its metabolite dimethylthiophosphate in human cells in vitro. Mutat. Res. Genet. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen 2020, 856–857, 503233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Olakkaran, S.; Kizhakke Purayil, A.; Antony, A.; Mallikarjunaiah, S.; Hunasanahally Puttaswamygowda, G. Oxidative stress-mediated genotoxicity of malathion in human lymphocytes. Mutat. Res. Genet. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen 2020, 849, 503138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Edwards, F.L.; Tchounwou, P.B. Environmental toxicology and health effects associated with methyl parathion exposure—A scientific review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2005, 2, 430–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Edwards, F.L.; Yedjou, C.G.; Tchounwou, P.B. Involvement of oxidative stress in methyl parathion and parathion-induced toxicity and genotoxicity to human liver carcinoma (HepG2) cells. Environ. Toxicol. 2013, 28, 342–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Patnaik, R.; Padhy, R.N. Evaluation of geno-toxicity of methyl parathion and chlorpyrifos to human liver carcinoma cell line (HepG2). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2016, 23, 8492–8499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Silva, A.M.; Silva, S.C.; Soares, J.P.; Martins-Gomes, C.; Teixeira, J.P.; Leal, F.; Gaivão, I. Ginkgo biloba L. leaf extract protects HepG2 cells against paraquat-induced oxidative DNA damage. Plants 2019, 8, 556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Barrón-Cuenca, J.; de Oliveira Galvão, M.F.; Ünlü Endirlik, B.; Tirado, N.; Dreij, K. In vitro cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of single and combined pesticides used by Bolivian farmers. Environ. Mol. Mutagen 2022, 63, 4–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Celik, A.; Mazmanci, B.; Camlica, Y.; Cömelekoğlu, U.; Aşkin, A. Evaluation of cytogenetic effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on Wistar rat bone marrow by gavage administration. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2005, 61, 128–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Naravaneni, R.; Jamil, K. Evaluation of cytogenetic effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on human lymphocytes. J. Biochem. Mol. Toxicol. 2005, 19, 304–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bull, S.; Fletcher, K.; Boobis, A.R.; Battershill, J.M. Evidence for genotoxicity of pesticides in pesticide applicators: A review. Mutagenesis 2006, 21, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Gesesew, H.A.; Woldemichael, K.; Massa, D.; Mwanri, L. Farmers knowledge, attitudes, practices and health problems associated with pesticide use in rural irrigation villages, Southwest Ethiopia. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0162527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Okoffo, E.D.; Mensah, M.; Fosu-Mensah, B.Y. Pesticide exposure and the use of personal protective equipment by cocoa farmers in Ghana. Environ. Syst. Res. 2016, 5, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Sookhtanlou, M.; Allahyari, M.S. Farmers’ health risk and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) during pesticide application. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2021, 28, 28168–28178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Polidoro, B.A.; Dahlquist, R.M.; Castillo, L.E.; Morra, M.J.; Somarriba, E.; Bosque-Pérez, N.A. Pesticide application practices, pest knowledge, and cost-benefits of plantain production in the Bribri-Cabécar Indigenous Territories, Costa Rica. Environ. Res. 2008, 108, 98–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Hutter, H.P.; Poteser, M.; Lemmerer, K.; Wallner, P.; Shahraki Sanavi, S.; Kundi, M.; Moshammer, H.; Weitensfelder, L. Indicators of genotoxicity in farmers and laborers of ecological and conventional banana plantations in Ecuador. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Silva, A.C.d.; Camponogara, S.; Viero, C.M.; Menegat, R.P.; Dias, G.L.; Miorin, J.D. Socioeconomic profile of Rural Workers cancer sufferers. Rev. Pesqui. Cuid. Fundam. Online 2016, 8, 4891–4897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Guyton, K.Z.; Loomis, D.; Grosse, Y.; El Ghissassi, F.; Benbrahim-Tallaa, L.; Guha, N.; Scoccianti, C.; Mattock, H.; Straif, K.; International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group, IARC, Lyon, France. Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate. Lancet Oncol. 2015, 16, 490–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). Some Organophosphate Insecticides and Herbicides: Tetrachlorvinphos, Parathion, Malathion, Diazinon and Glyphosate; IARC Working Group: Lyon, France, 2017; Volume 112, pp. 321–412. ISBN 978-92-832-0178-6. [Google Scholar]
  52. Belaid, A.; Methneni, N.; Nasri, E.; Bchir, S.; Anthonissen, R.; Verschaeve, L.; Le Tilly, V.; Lo Turco, V.; Di Bella, G.; Ben Mansour, H.; et al. Endocrine disruption, cytotoxicity, and genotoxicity of an organophosphorus insecticide. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Valencia-Quintana, R.; Bahena-Ocampo, I.U.; González-Castañeda, G.; Bonilla, E.; Milić, M.; Bonassi, S.; Sánchez-Alarcón, J. miRNAs: A potentially valuable tool in pesticide toxicology assessment-current experimental and epidemiological data review. Chemosphere 2022, 295, 133792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Bahena-Ocampo, I.U.; González-Castañeda, G.; Bonilla-González, X.; Sánchez-Alarcón, J.; Valencia Quintana, R. Evaluación de la expresión de miR-133a-3p, miR-181a-5p y miR-223-3p como posibles marcadores séricos de exposición a plaguicidas. BAG J. Basic Appl. Genet. 2021, 32, 241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the control and the exposed group.
Table 1. Characteristics of the control and the exposed group.
CharacteristicsControl GroupExposed Group
n1841
Gender (M/F) (%)6/12(33.33/66.67)33/8(80.49/19.51)
Age (years, mean ± SD) (range)43.56 ± 4.02(21-85)40.98 ± 2.24(23–73)
BMI (kg/m2, mean ± SD) (range)25.73 ± 0.81(20.79-32.44)29.09 ± 0.94(14.52–41.73)
Exposure time (in years, mean ± SD) (range)NA7.07 ± 0.51(1 ≥ 10)
Smoking
Smokers, n (%)7(38.89)6(14.63)
Non-smokers, n (%)11(61.11)35(85.37)
Alcohol intake
yes, n (%)7(38.89)6(14.63)
no, n (%)11(61.11)35(85.37)
PPM, n (%)NA37 of 41(90)
n-number of subjects, M-male, F-female, SD-standard deviation, BMI-body mass index, PPM-personal protective measures (equipment and procedure), NA-not applicable.
Table
Table 2. List of the more frequent pesticides used by the exposed group and their hazard classification.
Table 2. List of the more frequent pesticides used by the exposed group and their hazard classification.
PCCCompoundIUPAC NameWHOUSEPA/IARC
ICarbamateCarbofuran (Furadan)2,2-Dimethyl-2,3-dihydro-1-benzofuran-7-yl methylcarbamateIbNLC/NE
Methomyl (Lannate)(E,Z)-methyl N-{[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy}ethanimidothioateIbGroup E/NE
Oxamyl (Vydate)Methyl 2-(dimethylamino)-N-[(methylcarbamoyl)oxy]-2-oxoethanimidothioateIaGroup E/NE
GlycosideAbamectin (Agrimec)Mix of: (10E,14E,16E)-(1R,4S,5′S,6S,6′R,8R,12S,13S,20R,21R,24S)-6′-[(S)-sec-butyl]-21,24-dihydroxy-5′,11,13,22-tetramethyl-2-oxo-(3,7,19-trioxatetracyclo [15.6.1.14,8.020,24]pentacosa-10,14,16,22-tetraene)-6-spiro-2′-(5′,6′-dihydro-2′H-pyran)-12-yl 2,6-dideoxy-4-O-(2,6-dideoxy-3-O-methyl-α-L-arabino-hexopyranosyl)-3-O-methyl-α-L-arabino-hexopyranoside and (10E,14E,16E)-(1R,4S,5′S,6S,6′R,8R,12S,13S,20R,21R,24S)-21,22-dihydroxy-6′-isopropyl-5′,11,13,22-tetramethyl-2-oxo-(3,7,19-trioxatetracyclo [15.6.1.14,8.020,24] pentacosa-10,14,16,22-tetraene)-6-spiro-2′-(5′,6′-dihydro-2′H-pyran)-12-yl 2,6-dideoxy-4-O-(2,6-dideoxy-3-O-methyl-α-L-arabino-hexopyranosyl)-3-O-methyl-α-L-arabino-hexopyranoside.IbNE/NE
ImideImidacloprid(EZ)-1-(6-cloro-3-piridilmetil)-N-nitroimidazolidin-2-ilidenoaminaIIGroup E/NE
OrganochlorineAldrin1,2,3,4,10,10-Hexachloro-1,4,4a,5,8,8a-hexahydro-1,4:5,8-dimethanonaphthaleneOGroup B2/Group 2A
Dicofol (Kelthane)2,2,2-trichloro-1,1-bis(4-chlorophenyl)ethanolIIGroup C/Group 3
Endosulfan6,7,8,9,10,10-Hexachloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro- 6,9-methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepine-3-oxideIINLC/NE
OrganophosphateAcephate (Orthene)N-(Methoxy-methylsulfanylphosphoryl)acetamideIIGroup C /NE
Azinphos-ethyl (Gusathion)O,O-Diethyl S-[(4-oxo-1,2,3-benzotriazin-3(4H)-yl)methyl] phosphorodithioate1bNE/NE
Chlorpyrifos (Lorsban)O,O-Diethyl O-3,5,6-trichloropyridin-2-yl phosphorothioateIIGroup E/NE
DiazinonO,O-Diethyl O-[4-methyl-6-(propan-2-yl)pyrimidin-2-yl] phosphorothioateIINLC /Group 2A
DimethoateO,O-dimethyl S-[2-(methylamino)-2-oxoethyl] dithiophosphateIIGroup C/NE
MalathionDiethyl 2-[(dimethoxyphosphorothioyl)sulfanyl]butanedioateIIISEC/Group 2A
Methamidophos (Tamaron or Tramophos)O,S-Dimethyl phosphoramidothioateIbNLC/NE
Parathion (Folidol)O,O-Diethyl O-(4-nitrophenyl) phosphorothioateIaGroup C/Group 2B
PyrethrinPyrethrin(Z)-(S)-2-metil-4-oxo-3-(penta-2,4-dienil)ciclopent-2-enil (1R,3R)-2,2- dimetil-3-(2-metilprop-1-enil)ciclopropancarboxilatoIINLC/NE
PyrethroidsCyfluthrin (Baytroid)(RS)-α-ciano-4-fluoro-3-fenoxibencil (1RS,3RS;1RS,3SR)-3-(2,2- diclorovinil)-2,2-dimetilciclopropanocarboxilatoIbNLC/NE
Lambda-cyhalothrin (Karate)(R)-α-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl (1S)-cis-3-[(Z)-2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropenyl]-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and (S)-a-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl (1R)-cis-3-[(Z)-2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropenyl]-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylateIIGroup D/NE
Permethrin3-fenoxibencil (1RS,3RS,1RS,3SR)-3-(2,2-diclorovinil)-2,2- dimetilciclopropancarboxilatoIISEC/NE
Zeta-cypermethrin (Mustang Max)Mix of (S)-α-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl (1RS,3RS;1RS,3SR)-3-(2,2-dichlorovinyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylateIINLC/NE
HOrganophosphateParaquat1,1′-Dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium dichlorideIIGroup C/NE
PhosphonomethylglycineGlyphosateN-(fosfonometil)glicina-isopropilamina (1:1) o isopropilaminio N-(fosfonometil)glicinatoIIINLC/Group 2A
FBenzimidazoleThiabendazole (Tecto-60)2-(tiazol-4-il) benzimidazolIIISEC/NE
CarbamateMancozeb (Manzate)Zinc;manganese(2±);N-[2-(sulfidocarbothioylamino)ethyl]carbamodithioateUGroup B/Group 2B
UreicDiuron3-(3,4-Diclorofenil)-1,1-dimetilureaIIIKnown/Likely carcinogen/NE
I-insecticides, H-herbicides, F-fungicides, P-pesticides, CC-chemical class, NE-not evaluated, WHO classification: Ia = Extremely hazardous; Ib = Highly hazardous; II = Moderately hazardous; III = slightly hazardous; U = Unlikely to present acute hazard in normal use; FM = Fumigant, not classified; O = Obsolete as pesticide, not classified (WHO 2020). USEPA Cancer Classification: NLC, Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans; SEC, Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenicity; Group B2 Probable Human Carcinogen; Group C Possible Human Carcinogen; Group D--Not Classifiable as to Human Carcinogenicity; Group E Evidence of Non-carcinogenicity for Humans (USEPA 2018). IARC: Group 1, Carcinogenic to humans; Group 2A, Probably carcinogenic to humans; Group 2B, Possibly carcinogenic to humans; Group 3, Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans (IARC 2020) [12,13,14].
Table
Table 3. Human biomonitoring of agricultural workers from Los Reyes in Michoacan Mexico, with Comet assays.
Table 3. Human biomonitoring of agricultural workers from Los Reyes in Michoacan Mexico, with Comet assays.
Assay/ParametersControl Group (n = 18)Exposed Group (n = 41)Level of Significance (p)
Tail Length20.58 ± 1.0422.89 ± 1.290.271
Tail Intensity9.51 ± 0.8312.55 ± 1.240.262
Tail Moment0.90 ± 0.101.44 ± 0.250.169
Olive Tail Moment0.80 ± 0.091.02 ± 0.340.220
Values represent Mean ± SE. Statistical analysis was done by Mann Whitney U test.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Valencia-Quintana, R.; Milić, M.; Bonassi, S.; Ochoa-Ocaña, M.A.; Campos-Peña, V.; Tenorio-Arvide, M.G.; Pérez-Flores, G.A.; Sánchez-Alarcón, J. Effect of Pesticide Exposure over DNA Damage in Farmers from Los Reyes, Michoacan in Mexico. Toxics 2023, 11, 122. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics11020122

AMA Style

Valencia-Quintana R, Milić M, Bonassi S, Ochoa-Ocaña MA, Campos-Peña V, Tenorio-Arvide MG, Pérez-Flores GA, Sánchez-Alarcón J. Effect of Pesticide Exposure over DNA Damage in Farmers from Los Reyes, Michoacan in Mexico. Toxics. 2023; 11(2):122. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics11020122

Chicago/Turabian Style

Valencia-Quintana, Rafael, Mirta Milić, Stefano Bonassi, Maria Antonieta Ochoa-Ocaña, Victoria Campos-Peña, Maria Guadalupe Tenorio-Arvide, Guillermo Alejandro Pérez-Flores, and Juana Sánchez-Alarcón. 2023. "Effect of Pesticide Exposure over DNA Damage in Farmers from Los Reyes, Michoacan in Mexico" Toxics 11, no. 2: 122. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics11020122

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