Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:11:22.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Paraquat: toxicology and impacts of its ban on human health and agriculture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2019

Jin-Won Kim
Affiliation:
Researcher, Crop Protection Division, National Institute of Agricultural Sciences, RDA, Wanju-gun, Jeollabuk-do, Korea
Do-Soon Kim*
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Plant Science, Research Institute of Agriculture and Life Sciences, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Seoul National University, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, Korea
*
Author for correspondence: Do-Soon Kim, Department of Plant Science, Research Institute of Agriculture and Life Sciences, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Seoul National University, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul08826, Korea. Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Paraquat was the most successful nonselective herbicide in Korea due to its rapid herbicidal activity. However, its high mammalian toxicity, frequent self-poisoning incidents, and a lack of effective antidotes led to a paraquat ban in Korea in 2012. Therefore, this review was conducted to revisit the toxicological profile of paraquat and to investigate the impacts of the paraquat ban on human health and agriculture in Korea. A review of toxicological information reconfirmed that paraquat is highly acutely toxic to humans, and ingestion, inhalation, or dermal administration of the herbicide can cause severe clinical signs and inevitably lead to death by respiratory failure. In Korea, the paraquat ban immediately decreased the suicide rate due to pesticides (mainly paraquat) by 46.1%, resulting in a 10% decrease of the total suicide rate. However, this also led to an increase in suicide attempts with other poisons such as carbon monoxide, suggesting that suicide attempts and rates of suicide by poisoning depend on not only the toxicity of the poison but also the accessibility of the poisoning agents. In agriculture, paraquat was quickly replaced by other nonselective herbicides such as glufosinate and glyphosate. Thus, the paraquat ban did not have a significant impact on agricultural practices but influenced the nonselective herbicide market; the use of glufosinate was higher than use of glyphosate due to glufosinate’s rapid herbicidal activity, which is similar to that of paraquat. Though the paraquat ban can be considered as a national strategy to lower suicide rates, the increase in suicide attempts with other poisons suggests that multilateral efforts are required for not only keeping suicidal agents away from people but also minimizing motives for suicide.

Type
Symposium
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: William Vencill, University of Georgia

References

Coats, GE, Funderburk, HH Jr, Lawrence, JM, Davis, DE (2006) Factors affecting persistence and inactivation of diquat and paraquat. Weed Res 6:5866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, JW, Gage, JC (1966) Absorption and excretion of diquat and paraquat in rats. Brit J Industr Med 23:133136Google ScholarPubMed
Dinis-Oliveira, RJ, Duarte, JA, Sanchez-Navarro, A, Remiao, F, Bastos, ML, Carvalho, F (2008) Paraquat poisonings: mechanisms of lung toxicity, clinical features and treatment. Crit Rev Toxicol 38:1371CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[EC] European Commission (2003) Review Report for the Active Substance Paraquat, SANCO/10382/2002-final. Brussels: Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/evaluation/existactive/list_paraquat.pdf. Accessed: August 15, 2019Google Scholar
Gawarammana, IB, Buckley, NA (2011) Medical management of paraquat ingestion. Brit J Clin Pharmacol 72:745757CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gil, HW, Hong, JR, Jang, SH, Hong, SY (2014) Diagnostic and therapeutic approach for acute paraquat intoxication. J Korean Med Sci 29:14411449CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gil, HW, Kang, MS, Yang, JO, Lee, EY, Hong, SY (2008) Association between plasma paraquat level and outcome of paraquat poisoning in 375 paraquat poisoning patients. Clin Toxicol 46:515518CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heylings, JR, Farnworth, MJ, Swain, CM, Clapp, MJ, Elliot, BM (2007) Identification of an alginate-based formulation of paraquat to reduce the exposure of the herbicide following oral ingestion. Toxicology 241:110CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hood, AEM, Jameson, HR, Cotterell, R (1963) This technique involved destruction of pastures by herbicides such as paraquat as a substitute for ploughing. Nature 197:381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huggins, DR, Reganold, JP (2008) No-till: the quiet revolution. Scientific American, July 2008, 7077CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[KEMI] Kemikalieinspektionen (2006) Paraquat. Annex: Notification of Final Regulatory Action on Paraquat, Sweden. Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, Chemical Review Committee, Fifth meeting, Rome, March 23–27, 2009. UNEP/FAO/RC/CRC.5/8. Information submitted in 2006. http://www.pic.int/Portals/5/download.aspx?d=UNEP-FAO-RC-FRA-NOTIF-Paraquat-4685147-Sweden-20060206.En.pdf. Accessed: August 15, 2019Google Scholar
Kim, J, Shin, SD, Jeong, S, Suh, GJ, Kwak, YH (2017) Effect of prohibiting the use of paraquat on pesticide-associated mortality. BMC Public Health 17:858CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knipe, DW, Chang, SS, Dawson, A, Eddleston, M, Konradsen, F, Metcalfe, C, David, G (2017) Suicide prevention through means restriction: impact of the 2008–2011 pesticide restrictions on suicide in Sri Lanka. PLoS ONE 12:e0172893CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ko, DR, Chung, SP, You, JS, Cho, S, Park, Y, Chun, B, Moon, J, Kim, H, Kim, YH, Kim, HJ, Lee, KW, Choi, SC, Park, J, Park, JS, Kim, SW, et al. (2017) Effects of paraquat ban on herbicide poisoning-related mortality. Yonsei Med J 58:859866CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[KCPA] Korea Crop Protection Association (2006) Agrochemical Year Book 2006. Seoul: Korea Crop Protection Association. Pp 210215Google Scholar
[KCPA] Korea Crop Protection Association (2011) Agrochemical Year Book 2011. Seoul: Korea Crop Protection Association. Pp 264271Google Scholar
[KCPA] Korea Crop Protection Association (2016) Agrochemical Year Book 2016. Seoul: Korea Crop Protection Association. Pp 330337Google Scholar
[HIRA] Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (2011) More Koreans seek treatment for depression, bipolar disorder. Chosun Ilbo (English edition), June 3, 2011. http://english.chosun.com. Accessed: August 15, 2019Google Scholar
Kwon, JK, Chun, H, Cho, S (2009) A closer look at the increase in suicide rates in South Korea from 1986–2005. BMC Public Health 9:72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, EY, Hwang, KY, Yang, JO, Hong, SY (2002) Predictors of survival after acute paraquat poisoning. Toxicol Ind Health 18:201206CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, JW, Hwang, IW, Kim, JW, Moon, HJ, Kim, KH, Park, S, Gil, HW, Hong, SY (2015) Common pesticides used in suicide attempts following the 2012 paraquat ban in Korea. J Korean Med Sci 30:15171521CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lock, EA, Wilks, MF (2001) Paraquat. Pages 15591603in Krieger, R, ed. Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology. 2nd ed. San Diego: Academic PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lock, EA, Wilks, MF (2010) Paraquat. Pages 17671823in Krieger, RI, ed. Hayes’ Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology. 3rd ed. London, UK: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Lythgoe, RE, Howard, EF (1995) Paraquat: Excretion and Tissue Retention of a Single Oral Dose (1mg/kg) in the Rat following Repeat Dosing. Unpublished report no. CTL/P/4685 from Zeneca Central Toxicology Laboratory. Submitted to WHO by Syngenta. GLP: USEPA 40 CFR 160, 40 CFR 792, UKDH (1989), Japan MAFF 59 NohSan 3850; compatible with OECD 1982. Guideline USEPA 85-1Google Scholar
Myung, W, Lee, GH, Won, HH, Fava, M, Mischoulon, D, Nyer, M, Kim, DK, Heo, JY, Jeon, HJ (2015) Paraquat prohibition and change in the suicide rate and methods in South Korea. PLoS ONE 10:e0128980CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[OECD] Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2011) Health at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/health_glance-2011-en. Accessed: August 15, 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seok, SJ, Gil, HW, Jeong, DS, Yang, JO, Lee, EY, Hong, SY (2009) Paraquat intoxication in subjects who attempt suicide: why they chose paraquat. Korean J Intern Med 24:245251Google ScholarPubMed
Smith, LL (1987) Mechanism of paraquat toxicity in lung and its relevance to treatment. Hum Toxicol 6:3136CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suntres, ZE (2002) Role of antioxidants in paraquat toxicity. Toxicology 180:6577CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vale, JA, Meredith, TJ, Buckley, BM (1987) Paraquat poisoning: clinical features and immediate general management. Hum Toxicol 6:4147CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watts, M (2011) Paraquat. Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific. Pp 1–43. http://www.thaipan.org/sites/default/files/fileinter/monograph_paraquat_0.pdf. Accessed: August 15, 2019Google Scholar
Wilks, MF, Tomenson, JA, Fernando, R, Ariyananda, PL, Berry, DJ, Buckley, NA, Gawarammana, IB, Jayamanne, S, Gunnell, D, Dawson, A (2011) Formulation changes and time trends in outcome following paraquat ingestion in Sri Lanka. Clin Toxicol (Phila) 49:2128CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[WHO] World Health Organization (2017) World Health Statistics 2017: Monitoring Health for the SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals. https://www.who.int/gho/publications/world_health_statistics/2017/EN_WHS2017_Part3.pdf?ua=1. Accessed: August 15, 2019Google Scholar