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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Urska Kosi & Paula Relard, 2024. "Are firms (getting) ready for the corporate sustainability reporting directive?," Sustainability Nexus Forum, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 1-14, December.

    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. Kyriaki Remoundou & Drichoutis Andreas & Phoebe Koundouri, 2010. "Warm glow in charitable auctions: Are the WEIRDos driving the results?," DEOS Working Papers 1028, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    3. 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.
    4. Berning, Joshua & Campbell, Ben, 2017. "Consumer Preference and Market Simulations of Food and Non-Food GMO Introductions," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252733, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    5. Bakucs, Lajos Zoltan & Ferto, Imre, 2010. "Expected Impacts Of Biotechnology On Food Safety In Central And Eastern European Countries," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 187980, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).
    6. 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.
    7. Carolina González & Nancy Johnson & Matin Qaim, 2009. "Consumer Acceptance of Second‐Generation GM Foods: The Case of Biofortified Cassava in the North‐east of Brazil," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 604-624, September.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Adalja, Aaron & Hanson, James & Towe, Charles & Tselepidakis, Elina, 2015. "An Examination of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Local Products," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 44(3), pages 1-22, December.
    11. White, Robin R. & Brady, Michael, 2014. "Can consumers’ willingness to pay incentivize adoption of environmental impact reducing technologies in meat animal production?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 41-49.
    12. Jochen Hartl & Roland Herrmann, 2009. "Do they always say no? German consumers and second‐generation GM foods," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(5), pages 551-560, September.
    13. Kaneko, Naoya & Chern, Wen S., 2006. "Identification of Consumer Segments and Its Implication on the Willingness-to-Pay Distribution: The Case of Demand for Non-Genetically Modified Vegetable Oil in the United States," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21194, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. 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.
    15. Bonroy, Olivier & Lemarié, Stéphane, 2012. "Downstream labeling and upstream price competition," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 347-360.
    16. 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.
    17. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    18. 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.
    19. Mattia C. Mancini & Kent Kovacs & Eric Wailes & Jennie Popp, 2016. "Addressing the Externalities from Genetically Modified Pollen Drift on a Heterogeneous Landscape," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-18, October.
    20. 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.

    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.