Transcript Slide 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
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.
N
E
M
P
Bi
ha
As r
sa
m
TN
AP
Pu
n
H jab
ar
ya
na
G
M
ah ujar
ar at
as
ht
ra
Ka W
rn B
a
R tak
aj
as a
th
an
U
P
Pesticide consumption pattern in various states of India
8
6
4
2
0
Pesticides are the ubiquitous contaminants
Fishes, Birds and Humans are the worst
victims
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).
Some surveys are also available in northern and
central India, but information regarding situation in
fishes of inland wetlands is very rare. Fish are longliving 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.
OBJECTIVES
1. 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).
Fishes - Ideal indicators?
• Hierarchy in food chain
• Accumulative capacity
• Nutritional abundance
• Sampling convenience
• Tissue levels reflect current
and past exposures
STATES INCLUDED FOR THIS STUDY
Collection method
Transportation of the fish samples to lab
List of Wetlands included in this study
Tamil Nadu
Andhra Pradesh
Karanataka
Alwarkurichi
Kolleru West Godhavari
Krishnaraj Sagar Reservoir
Ariyakulam
Chinna tumbalam tank
Tailur kere
Avalpoodurai
Nandalur tank
Salagaon village tank
Gundur big tank
Draksha Rama
Bannur
Kappalure
Uppalapadu Guntur
Tumkur
Koothapar big tank
Jataprole
Rarandur Kere
Kunnathur Madurai
Kazipet tank
Nagavalli Amanikere
Mappedu
Mandhyal Tank
Mandakhalli-kere
Palli karanai Marsh
Jankam pet
Karigala Kere
R.S. Mangalam
Samundar talab
Suchindaram
Heche
Sulur
Cauvery river stretch
Vaduvoor
Marchalli kere
Vandiyur tank
Vembanur
Chembarambakam
SPECIES OF FISHES RECEVIED FROM WETLANDS
OF ANDHRA PRADESH
S.No.
Name of the species
No. of Individuals
1
Clarias batrachus
9
2
Labeo rohita
20
3
Anabas testudineus
6
4
Catla catla
13
5
Tilapia mossambica
9
6
Cyprinus carpio
9
7
Channa striatus
8
8
Channa orientalis
5
9
Heteropneustes fossilis
8
10
Cirrhinus mrigala
6
Total
93
SPECIES OF FISHES RECEVIED FROM WETLANDS OF
TAMIL NADU
S.No. Fish
Count
1
Hypophythalmiethys molitrix
10
2
Mystus vittatus
19
3
Tilapia mossambica
67
4
Cirrhinus mrigala
10
5
Heteropneustes fossilis
11
6
Labeo rohita
12
7
Channa orientalis
12
8
Channa punctatus
25
9
Anabas testudineus
15
10
Channa striatus
30
Total
211
SPECIES OF FISHES RECEVIED FROM WETLANDS OF
KARNATAKA
S. No.
Name of the species
No. of individuals
1
Anguilla bicolor bicolor
21
2
Catla catla
11
3
Channa striatus
11
4
Cirrhinus mrigala
6
5
Clarias batrachus
9
6
Cyprinus carpio
20
7
Heteropneustes fossilis
11
8
Labeo rohita
19
9
Tilapia mossambica
26
Total
134
Laboratory procedures
On receipt of fish,
Physical measurements
and other details were
recorded on a datasheet.
Tissues are separated and
stored at –20°C for
chemical 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
ANALYSIS
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
ha
nn
a
st
io
rp
ca
ca
bi
m
tla
ca
eu
s
in
ria
nn
tu
a
op
or
s
ne
ie
n
us
ta
te
lis
C
s
irr
fo
hi
nu ssi
lis
s
m
rig
al
a
er
et
H
C
ha
C
us
rin
sa
at
la
C
ta
hi
us
ch
ro
ud
st
os
m
yp
C
a
pi
la
te
be
o
ra
ba
t
a
nn
hi
ba
l
am
nk
ta
nk
nk
ta
ru
Ta
ur
m
tu
da
l
al
et
ip
le
ol
e
Concentration in ppm
0.04
Ti
ba
s
na
La
s
ria
SPECIES
A
la
C
C
an
N
az
dh
y
M
an
K
K
du
ol
pr
ta
Ja
t
pe
pa
am
a
am
R
al
a
pp
U
nk
Ja
ha
ks
ra
D
RESULTS
Total organochlorine residues (ppm)-Andhra Pradesh
0.05
WETLANDS
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
et
H
na
tu
s
s
ne
u
ria
st
lis
tu
s
ta
di
tu
te
s
pu
nc
nt
a
ta
ro
hi
s
a
ili
al
ca
bi
rig
ie
ix
tu
s
fo
ss
or
an
na
ch
s
ba
a
tta
m
m
o
be
a
nn
nn
ha
C
ha
C
La
te
s
us
ne
op
s
sa
vi
itr
ol
m
0.08
A
er
nu
hi
ir r
C
os
m
s
s
tu
th
y
ys
a
pi
M
ic
lm
SPECIES
Ti
la
ht
ha
op
yp
H
un Kap
du pa
r b lu
ig re
Va ta
du nk
vo
R
.S
. M S or
u
A ang lur
lw a
ar la
ku m
M
K Va a rich
un n p
d p i
K nat iyu ed
oo h
u
th ur r ta
ap M nk
a ad
A r b ur
va ig ai
l
t
Su poo an
d
ch u k
Pa
in ra
lli Ar da i
ka iy ra
ra ak m
na ula
C
Concentration in ppm
he V i M m
m em ars
ba b h
rm an
Th S bak ur
er ing am
oo an
r c al
om lur
pl
ex
G
Concentration in ppm
Total organochlorine residues (ppm) -Tamil Nadu
RESULTS Con..
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
WETLANDS
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
SPECIES
pn
eu
st
es
C
fo
irr
ss
hi
ili
nu
s
s
m
C
rig
yp
al
rin
a
us
ca
rp
io
C
at
la
C
ca
ha
tla
nn
Ti
a
la
st
pi
ria
a
tu
m
s
os
sa
C
m
la
ria
bi
ca
s
ba
tr
ac
hu
A
L
ng
ab
s
ui
eo
lla
ro
bi
hi
co
ta
lo
rb
ic
ol
or
et
er
o
H
M
an
H
ec
ag da
k
av
ha he
al
lli
li
A -ke
m
r
an e
ik
K
er
ris
T
Sa
hn um e
la
a
ga ra kur
jS
o
C
au n v ag
ar
il
ve
ry lag
e
riv
ta
nk
Sa er
m str
un
e
da tch
rt
al
ab
B
a
Ta nn
ur
il
R
ar ur
an ke
du re
M
ar r K
ch
e
al re
ka
li
rig ke
Concentration in ppm
re
al
a
K
er
e
N
Concentration in ppm
Total organochlorine residues (ppm) - Karnataka
0.1
0.08
0.06
WETLANDS
0.04
0.02
0
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Variation in total organochlorine residues
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?
SUITABILITY FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION
Name of the
pesticide
C.punctatus
C.striatus
C.mrigala
H. fossilis
L.rohita
BHC
3.13
4.68
3.21
0.57
4.77
DDT
0.61
1.11
1.23
0.82
0.38
Dieldrin
0.03
0.00
0.14
0.07
0.12
Heptachlor
0.94
0.11
0.50
1.15
0.66
Chloridane
0.65
1.91
0.09
0.78
0.19
Endrin
2.88
2.21
0.52
7.01
0.45
Allowable Daily Intake (ADI) Limits
for pesticide [ug/person(60Kg)]
Pesticide
Concentration
in ug
Statutory
agencies
Total DDT
300
FAO/WHO 1971
Total HCH
18
Dieldrin
Health Canada,
1996
6
Endosulfan
Heptachlor
epoxide
450
60
(IARC)*
FAO/WHO 1971
FAO/WHO 1971
* International Agency for Research on Cancer
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
 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.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to
UNDP
MOEF
SACON
and
State co-coordinators
KARNATAKA
TAMIL NADU
ANDHRA PRADESH
Dr V. Santharam
Madanapalli
Naveein, O.C
Bangalore – 560 046.
Dr. M.Arunachalam
Alwarkurichi
Aasheesh Pittie
Hyderabad 500034
Mr. K. Manu,
Mandya Dist.
Dr T Badhri Narayanan
Madurai - 625 020
Dr V. Vasudeva Rao
Hyderabad 500030
Vijay Mohan Raj,
Deputy Conservator of
Forests, Gadag,
Dr. Robert B. Grubh
Nagarcoil -629003
Dr B.V. Seshagiri Rao
Bhimavaram 534202
Dr.K.Thiyagesan
Mayiladuthurai - 609 305
Siraj A. Taher
Hyderabad 500034
Mr Daniel Wesley, H
Tiruchirapalli – 620017
Mr. S. Sreevatsa,
Raichur 584 101.
Dr.K. Sampath,
Chidambaram 608 001.
1.
Mr. S. Sreevatsa,
Bustard Nature Club,
Raichur 584 101.
Rajeev Mathew
Hyderabad 500082
Mr S A Hussain
(Karnataka)
Dr. RJ. Ranjit Daniels,
Chennai – 600061
K. Mrutyumjaya Rao
Kakinada
2.
Mr Aasheesh Pittie
(Andhra Pradeh
Mr. Manjunath Hegde,
Hosabale 577 434,
Mr. Preston Ahimaz,
Chennai 600 018.
Sushil Kapadia
Hyderabad 500082
3.
Dr RJ Ranjit
Daniels(Tamil Nadu)
Mr. Ameen Ahmed,
Wildlife Aware Nature Club,
Tumkur 572 101.
Dr. V. Kalaiarasan,
Chennai 600 022.
Dr C. Srinivasulu
Hyderabad 500007
Dr. V. Krishnamurthy
Chennai 600 114
S. Ashok Kumar
Hyderabad 500033
Mr. Gurunath Desai,
31, Ashok Nagar,
K. Raghothama Rao,
SEEK Foundation,
Bangalore 560 019,
Mr. P.D.Sudarshan,
Soil Health Centre,
Uttara Kannada District.
Dr. S. Balachandran,
Kanyakumari Dt.
Kiran K.
Hyderabad
Rajashekar
Secunderabad 500017
State –coordinators