1 / 28

S. MURALIDHARAN & V. DHANANJAYAN

PERSISTENT ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE RESIDUES IN FISHES OF INLAND WETLAND OF SOUTH INDIA. S. MURALIDHARAN & V. DHANANJAYAN. SÁLIM ALI CENTRE FOR ORNITHOLOGY AND NATURAL HISTORY (An autonomous centre aided by the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India)

claus
Download Presentation

S. MURALIDHARAN & V. DHANANJAYAN

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PERSISTENT ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE RESIDUES IN FISHES OF INLAND WETLAND OF SOUTH INDIA S. MURALIDHARAN & V. DHANANJAYAN SÁLIM ALI CENTRE FOR ORNITHOLOGY AND NATURAL HISTORY (An autonomous centre aided by the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India) Anaikatty P.O., Coimbatore - 641 108. INDIA

  2. Wetlands in India are increasingly facing several anthropogenic pressures. Survey of 140 major sites across various agro-climatic zones identified anthropogenic interference as the main source of wetland degradation (Anon.1993). The current wetland loss rate in India can lead to serious consequences, where 74% of the human population is rural (World Development Report, 1994) and many of these people are wetland resource dependent. Although growing human population, large scale changes in land use, burgeoning development projects and the improper use of watersheds are all responsible for decline of wetland resources, significant losses have created due to industrial and agricultural operations.

  3. Pesticide consumption pattern in various states of India

  4. Pesticides are the ubiquitous contaminants Fishes, Birds and Humans are the worst victims

  5. India is now both the largest manufacturer and consumer of pesticides in South Asia. Despite the proliferation of different types of pesticides, organochlorine such as HCH and DDT still account for two thirds of the total consumption in the country because of their low cost and versatility in action against various pests. About 70% of the pesticides used in agricultural fields reach adjoining water bodies through rain or irrigation (Ridgway et al., 1978) or by their direct use in the water bodies for control of aquatic weeds (Li, 1975). These chemicals are toxic to many aquatic organisms. Few studies have indicated the presence of pesticide residues in fishes (Amaraneni and Pillala 2001), foodstuffs (Kannan et al., 1992) and birds (Muralidharan 1993, Senthilkumar et al. 2001).

  6. Some surveys are also available in northern and central India, but information regarding situation in fishes of inland wetlands is very rare. Fish are long-living animals accumulating toxicants integrating over time and space which turn resulting organochlorine toxicity in human being (Kumari et al 2001). To prioritize Indian wetlands for conservation action, documenting the contamination status of fish is an essential tool.

  7. OBJECTIVES Assess the contamination profile of fishes of inland wetlands of South India 2. Generate a data base to prioritize conservation measures 3. Evaluate the possible toxic impact on the consumers (man).

  8. Fishes - Ideal indicators? • Hierarchy in food chain • Accumulative capacity • Nutritional abundance • Sampling convenience • Tissue levels reflect current and past exposures

  9. STATES INCLUDED FOR THIS STUDY Karanataka Tamil Nadu Andhra Pradesh

  10. Collection method

  11. Transportation of the fish samples to lab

  12. List of Wetlands included in this study

  13. SPECIES OF FISHES RECEVIED FROM WETLANDS OF ANDHRA PRADESH

  14. SPECIES OF FISHES RECEVIED FROM WETLANDS OFTAMIL NADU

  15. SPECIES OF FISHES RECEVIED FROM WETLANDS OFKARNATAKA

  16. Laboratory procedures On receipt of fish, Physical measurements and other details were recorded on a datasheet. Tissues are separated and stored at –20°C forchemical analyses Alpha HCH Beta HCH Gamma HCH Delta HCH Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Endosulfan 1 Endosulfan 2 Endosulfan sulfate p,p’- DDE p,p’- DDT p,p’- DDD Dieldrin

  17. Alpha HCH Beta HCH Gamma HCH Delta HCH Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Endosulfan 1 Endosulfan 2 Endosulfan sulfate p,p’- DDE p,p’- DDT p,p’- DDD Dieldrin ANALYSIS

  18. RESULTS Total organochlorine residues (ppm)-Andhra Pradesh WETLANDS SPECIES

  19. Total organochlorine residues (ppm) -Tamil Nadu RESULTS Con.. WETLANDS SPECIES

  20. Total organochlorine residues (ppm) - Karnataka WETLANDS SPECIES

  21. Variation in total organochlorine residues

  22. How safe are the fishes for human consumption ? If a person consumes 250 g of fish per week, what would be the Daily Dietary Intake of organochlorine pesticide? Impact on the consumers?

  23. SUITABILITY FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION

  24. Allowable Daily Intake (ADI) Limits for pesticide [ug/person(60Kg)] Pesticide Concentration in ug Statutory agencies Total DDT Total HCH Dieldrin Endosulfan Heptachlor epoxide 300 18 6 450 60 FAO/WHO 1971 Health Canada, 1996 (IARC)* FAO/WHO 1971 FAO/WHO 1971 * International Agency for Research on Cancer

  25. Inference • Residues of one or more persistent pesticides were detected in fishes (100 %) from all wetlands • HCH isomers were detected about 80 % of the fishes • Heptachlor epoxide (78%) • Endosulfan (66%) • DDT and its homologs (p,p’-constituents) were measured in 76 % of fishes

  26. These pesticides are termed as endocrine disruptors, known to elicit their adverse effects by mimicking or antagonizing natural hormones in the body which are responsible for maintaining and controlling the normal development. • Although, pesticide concentrations measured in fishes from Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu are safe for human consumption if the same concentrations continue to exit, in long run they will exert toxic effects.

  27. Acknowledgments We are grateful to UNDP MOEF SACON and State co-coordinators Save Wetlands Ensure Future

  28. TAMIL NADU Dr. M.Arunachalam Alwarkurichi Dr T Badhri Narayanan Madurai - 625 020 Dr. Robert B. Grubh Nagarcoil -629003 Dr.K.Thiyagesan Mayiladuthurai - 609 305 Mr Daniel Wesley, H Tiruchirapalli – 620017 Dr.K. Sampath, Chidambaram 608 001. Dr. RJ. Ranjit Daniels, Chennai – 600061 Mr. Preston Ahimaz, Chennai 600 018. Dr. V. Kalaiarasan, Chennai 600 022. Dr. V. Krishnamurthy Chennai 600 114 Dr. S. Balachandran, Kanyakumari Dt. KARNATAKA Naveein, O.C Bangalore – 560 046. Mr. K. Manu, Mandya Dist. Vijay Mohan Raj, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Gadag, Mr. Gurunath Desai, 31, Ashok Nagar, K. Raghothama Rao, SEEK Foundation, Bangalore 560 019, Mr. S. Sreevatsa, Bustard Nature Club, Raichur 584 101. Mr. Manjunath Hegde, Hosabale 577 434, Mr. Ameen Ahmed, Wildlife Aware Nature Club, Tumkur 572 101. Mr. P.D.Sudarshan, Soil Health Centre, Uttara Kannada District. ANDHRA PRADESH Aasheesh Pittie Hyderabad 500034 Dr V. Vasudeva Rao Hyderabad 500030 Dr B.V. Seshagiri Rao Bhimavaram 534202 Siraj A. Taher Hyderabad 500034 Mr. S. Sreevatsa, Raichur 584 101. Rajeev Mathew Hyderabad 500082 K. Mrutyumjaya Rao Kakinada Sushil Kapadia Hyderabad 500082 Dr C. Srinivasulu Hyderabad 500007 S. Ashok Kumar Hyderabad 500033 Dr V. Santharam Madanapalli Kiran K. Hyderabad Rajashekar Secunderabad 500017 • State –coordinators • Mr S A Hussain (Karnataka) • Mr Aasheesh Pittie (Andhra Pradeh • Dr RJ Ranjit Daniels(Tamil Nadu) Thank you

More Related