IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jcltec/v4y2022i4p66-1102d948237.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Water Pollution and Agriculture Pesticide

Author

Listed:
  • Samira Mosalaei Rad

    (Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, Western University, London, ON N6A 5B9, Canada)

  • Ajay K. Ray

    (Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, Western University, London, ON N6A 5B9, Canada)

  • Shahzad Barghi

    (Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, Western University, London, ON N6A 5B9, Canada)

Abstract

The agricultural industry uses substantial amounts of water (the highest in the world) mostly for irrigation purposes. Rapid population growth and, consequently, growing demand for food have increased the use of pesticide to have higher yield for crops and other agricultural products. Wastewater generated as a result of excessive use of pesticides/herbicides in agricultural industry is becoming a global issue specifically in developing countries. Over 4,000,000 tons of pesticides are currently used in the world annually and high concentrations above their threshold limits have been detected in water bodies worldwide. The generated wastewater (contaminated with pesticides) has negative impacts on human health, the ecosystem, and the aquatic environment. Recently, biodegradable and biocompatible (including plant-based) pesticides have been introduced as green and safe products to reduce/eliminate the negative impacts of synthetic pesticides. Despite positive advantages of biopesticides, their use is limited due to cost and slow interaction with pests compared to chemical pesticides. Pesticides may also react with water and constituents of soil resulting in formation of intermediates having different physical and chemical properties. Diffusion, dispersion, and permeation are main mechanisms for transfer of pesticides in soil and water. Pesticides may degrade naturally in nature; however, the time requirement can be very long. Many mathematical models have been developed to simulate and estimate the final fate of pesticides in water resources. Development of new technologies and environmentally friendly pesticides to reduce water contamination is becoming increasingly important.

Suggested Citation

  • Samira Mosalaei Rad & Ajay K. Ray & Shahzad Barghi, 2022. "Water Pollution and Agriculture Pesticide," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-15, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jcltec:v:4:y:2022:i:4:p:66-1102:d:948237
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-8797/4/4/66/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-8797/4/4/66/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leticia Gallego-Valero & Encarnación Moral-Parajes & Isabel María Román-Sánchez, 2021. "Wastewater Treatment Costs: A Research Overview through Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-14, April.
    2. Lusk, Jayson L. & Jamal, Mustafa & Kurlander, Lauren & Roucan, Maud & Taulman, Lesley, 2005. "A Meta-Analysis of Genetically Modified Food Valuation Studies," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(1), pages 1-17, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. H. Eggert & M. Greaker, 2011. "Trade, GMOs and Environmental Risk: Are Current Policies Likely to Improve Welfare?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(4), pages 587-608, April.
    2. Stéphan Marette & John Beghin & Anne‐Célia Disdier & Eliza Mojduszka, 2023. "Can foods produced with new plant engineering techniques succeed in the marketplace? A case study of apples," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(1), pages 414-435, March.
    3. Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas & Lusk, Jayson & Magnier, Alexandre, 2018. "The price of non-genetically modified (non-GM) food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 38-50.
    4. GianCarlo Moschini, 2008. "Biotechnology and the development of food markets: retrospect and prospects," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 35(3), pages 331-355, September.
    5. Bernard Ruffieux & Anne Rozan & Stéphane Robin, 2008. "Mesurer les préférences du consommateur pour orienter les décisions des pouvoirs publics : l'apport de la méthode expérimentale," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 182(1), pages 113-127.
    6. Adalja, Aaron & Hanson, James & Towe, Charles & Tselepidakis, Elina, 2015. "An Examination of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Local Products," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(3), pages 253-274, December.
    7. Asche, Frank & Larsen, Thomas A. & Smith, Martin D. & Sogn-Grundvåg, Geir & Young, James A., 2015. "Pricing of eco-labels with retailer heterogeneity," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 82-93.
    8. Delmond, Anthony R. & McCluskey, Jill J. & Yormirzoev, Mirzobobo & Rogova, Maria A., 2018. "Russian consumer willingness to pay for genetically modified food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 91-100.
    9. Rousu, Matthew C. & Monchuk, Daniel C. & Shogren, Jason F. & Kosa, Katherine M., 2005. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for "Second-Generation" Genetically Engineered Products and the Role of Marketing Information," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 1-11, December.
    10. Julianna M. Butler & Christian A. Vossler, 2018. "What is an Unregulated and Potentially Misleading Label Worth? The case of “Natural”-Labelled Groceries," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 70(2), pages 545-564, June.
    11. Wachenheim, Cheryl & Hovde, Scott & Hearne, Robert & Nganje, William, 2015. "Identifying Market Preferences for High Selenium Beef," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 46(3), pages 1-18, October.
    12. Craig F. Berning & Brian E. Roe, 2017. "Assessing the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard of 2016: Can Americans Access Electronic Disclosure Information?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, May.
    13. Bernard, John C. & Zhang, Chao & Gifford, Katie, 2006. "An Experimental Investigation of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Non-GM Foods When an Organic Option Is Present," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 35(2), pages 1-12, October.
    14. Matsumoto, Shigeru, 2006. "Consumers' Valuation of GMO Segregation Programs in Japan," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(1), pages 201-211, April.
    15. Stranieri, S. & Baldi, L., 2015. "Fresh-cut salad and shelf life date extension: a segmentation of Italian consumers," 2015 International European Forum (144th EAAE Seminar), February 9-13, 2015, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 206215, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    16. Celine Michaud & Daniel Llerena & Iragael Joly, 2013. "Willingness to pay for environmental attributes of non-food agricultural products: a real choice experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 40(2), pages 313-329, March.
    17. Mirzobobo Yormirzoev & Ramona Teuber & Daniil Baranov, 2018. "Is Tajikistan a Potential Market for Genetically Modified Potatoes?," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(1), pages 216-226.
    18. Hu, Wuyang, 2007. "A Choice Model with Systematic Structures in Decision Weights," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 32(3), pages 1-14, December.
    19. Oluwatobi Mary Owojori & Chioma Sylvia Okoro & Nicholas Chileshe, 2021. "Current Status and Emerging Trends on the Adaptive Reuse of Buildings: A Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-17, October.
    20. Kemper, Nathan & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr. & Popp, Jennie & Bazzani, Claudia, 2016. "The Effects of Honesty Oath and Consequentiality in Choice Experiments," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235381, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jcltec:v:4:y:2022:i:4:p:66-1102:d:948237. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.