Degradation of Soil Quality in Mandalay Region of Myanmar Due to Overuse of Pesticides in Agriculture

Abstract

Landlords and cultivators of watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) and several other types
of melons (Cucumis melo var. Cantalupensis, Cucumis melo var. Reticulatus, Cucumis
melo var. Cucumis melo Inodorusvar, etc.) complained about soil degradation due to
cultivation of melons without judicious use of pesticides. Conducting a field survey
on the use of pesticides and the prevalence of pesticide residues in the soil of meloncultivated
areas, the study investigates the authenticity of such claims and figures
out the actual reasons for such land degradation. The survey was carried out on
150 farmers from 30 villages in Kyaukse, Myitthar and Tada U Township in Mandalay
division of Myanmar. The survey captures information on pesticide-related awareness,
attitudes and practices and identifies possible health and environmental risks. The
usage, storage and handling of pesticides by most of the respondents were found
not safe, and knowledge on the adverse effects of pesticides on health, crops and the
environment was found to be inadequate. The findings have indicated the potential
risk of soil degradation. It appears that lack of cooperation among the government,
non-governmental organisations (NGO), private sector stakeholders and farmers is
the key weakness for improving agricultural practices adopted by farmers. Enhancing
the awareness, changing the attitudes and improving the practices of the farmers
regarding the use of pesticides may be the key step towards addressing this issue.

Full text

Asia-Pacic Journal of Rural Development
30(1–2) 113–138, 2020
© 2020 Centre on Integrated Rural
Development for Asia and the Pacific
Reprints and permissions:
in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india
DOI: 10.1177/1018529120977247
journals.sagepub.com/home/jrd
1 Biotechnology Research Department, Ministry of Education, Kyaukse, Myanmar.
Corresponding author:
Aye Aye Khaing, Biotechnology Research Department, Ministry of Education, Kyaukse 05151, Myanmar.
E-mail: drayeayekhaing@moe.edu.mm
Degradation of Soil
Quality in Mandalay
Region of Myanmar
Due to Overuse of
Pesticides in Agriculture
Theint Theint Win1, Myat Thu1, Tin Myat Swe1,
Thet kyaw Ko1, Tun Tun Aung1, Htike Htike Ei1,
Nwe Nwe Win1, Kyi Kyi Swe1, Aye Aye Hlaing1,
Winnandar1 and Aye Aye Khaing1
Abstract
Landlords and cultivators of watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) and several other types
of melons (Cucumis melo var. Cantalupensis, Cucumis melo var. Reticulatus, Cucumis
melo var. Cucumis melo Inodorusvar, etc.) complained about soil degradation due to
cultivation of melons without judicious use of pesticides. Conducting a field survey
on the use of pesticides and the prevalence of pesticide residues in the soil of melon-
cultivated areas, the study investigates the authenticity of such claims and figures
out the actual reasons for such land degradation. The survey was carried out on
150 farmers from 30 villages in Kyaukse, Myitthar and Tada U Township in Mandalay
division of Myanmar. The survey captures information on pesticide-related awareness,
attitudes and practices and identifies possible health and environmental risks. The
usage, storage and handling of pesticides by most of the respondents were found
not safe, and knowledge on the adverse effects of pesticides on health, crops and the
environment was found to be inadequate. The findings have indicated the potential
risk of soil degradation. It appears that lack of cooperation among the government,
non-governmental organisations (NGO), private sector stakeholders and farmers is
the key weakness for improving agricultural practices adopted by farmers. Enhancing
the awareness, changing the attitudes and improving the practices of the farmers
regarding the use of pesticides may be the key step towards addressing this issue.
Keywords
Watermelons cultivation, pesticide use, degradation of soil quality, pesticide
residues analysis
Article

114 Asia-Pacic Journal of Rural Development 30(1–2)
Introduction
Myanmar relies mainly on agriculture, which is the backbone of its economy,
accounting for 37.8% of its gross domestic product (GDP), 25%–30% of its total
export earnings and 70% of its employment (Source FAO, 2014). Myanmar’s
trade with China is heavily dominated by cross-border trade through the Yunnan
province, watermelons and melons being one of the main export items. In 2016,
around USD 169.0 million worth of watermelons were exported to China from
Myanmar through cross-border trade (Kubo & Sakata, 2018). The main cultivation
areas of watermelons and melons are in Mandalay and Sagaing division, Central
Dry Zone. According to the data published by Koji (2016), 18,907 acres were
under watermelon, and 823 acres were under melon cultivation in the Mandalay
area. One of the stylised facts of this melon farming is that many melon growers
operating in these areas grow them on land received from local landowners by
paying rentals.1 Local landlords who rent out their land to tenant farmers of melon
often complain that they (landlords) cannot grow any crops in their lands, where
melons and watermelons are being cultivated for 3–5 consecutive years. There are
complaints of indiscriminate or injudicious use of pesticides in melon cultivation,
which is responsible for soil degradation.
Obviously, there is a potential conflict of interest between landlords and tenant
farmers with respect to preserving the quality of soil. Often, we observe that
excessive utilisation of pesticides and other chemicals increases production in the
short term, but it brings an adverse consequence of such excessive utilisation in
the long term. But the long-term consequence is borne by the landlords and
therefore the complaints by the landlords deserve attention. Considering the
repercussions relating to indiscriminate use of pesticides by farmers in melon
cultivation, an urgent scientific study is deemed necessary to find out the
authenticity of such claims and explain why these lands in this region have shown
reduction in output for other crops typically grown in these areas.
This study aims to analyse pesticide residues, particularly in watermelon- and
melon-growing area in the Kyaukse region to investigate the farmers’ awareness,
attitudes and practices towards pesticides and their use. A survey was carried out
to collect information on commonly used agrochemicals, pesticide-related
practices using questionnaires and examine pesticide residues in the fields where
melons and watermelons are grown. The findings are applied for developing a
suitable programme and action plan to prevent further deterioration of soil and
environment in the focus area.
Literature Review
Soil degradation occurs due to the changes in the physical, chemical and biological
properties of soil. Pollution of soil due to industrial or waste accumulation,
excessive use of pesticides, acidification by airborne pollutants, excessive
manuring, oil spills, etc., are some of the factors that cause soil degradation

Win et al. 115
(Oldeman, 1992). The cultivation of watermelons requires a more significant
expenditure on farm labourers and input materials, including chemical fertilisers
(Koji, 2016). Watermelons and melons are highly susceptible to environmental
and biological factors such as pest and disease caused by fungi, bacteria,
nematodes and viruses. Therefore, the use of pesticides is inevitable to get higher
yields with good quality at harvest (Nguyen et al., 2008; Park et al., 2010). Further,
Nguyen et al. (2008) recorded around 156 different pesticide residues in
commercial watermelons in Korea. Moreover, Essumang et al. (2013) reported
that organo-chlorine (OC) and organo-phosphorus (OP) pesticides persisted in
other vegetable crops grown near watermelon fields in Ghana. These studies
indicate that the use of pesticides in watermelon cultivation is unavoidable to get
a reasonable yield, which, in turn, gives farmers a good economic return.
Deleterious effects of pesticides in the environment have been studied
extensively, and abundant literature is available. Essumang et al. (2013) reported
that if pesticides are used by directives, it will not harm environmental and human
health. If the pesticides with long half-life are applied continuously to control
insects, weeds or diseases, there will be a residual activity, and land degradation
might occur after the continuous application of large quantities of pesticides (Joko
et al., 2017). Indiscriminate use of pesticides can contaminate soil; destroy other
non-target species; and damage soil biomass and microorganisms such as bacteria,
fungi and earthworms (Azam et al., 2003). Furthermore, pesticides applied to soil
can kill native microbial communities needed for soil fertility and pesticide
degradation itself (Lo, 2010). Resistance to pesticides caused by improper use of
pesticides is also a threat to the environment (Joko et al., 2017). The impact of
pesticides on soil has been intensively studied in the laboratory and has proved to
be correlated to the biological and physico-chemical properties of the soil.
However, most of the studies have been carried out under laboratory conditions,
and field studies are conspicuously lacking (Pal et al., 2010).
Lo (2010) reported that an integral part of the risk evaluation of pesticides is
considering the impact of pesticides on soil microflora and their beneficial
activities. In order to implement effective pest control programmes, understanding
the current state of knowledge, attitude, practices adapted for pesticides and the
perception that users have about pesticides is needed (Ajayia, 2000 ). It is also
very crucial to study people’s knowledge level regarding pesticide use and its
effects on humans and the environment (Al-Zaidi et al., 2011).
Materials and Methods
Time and Study Area
A total of 30 villages from Kyaukse, Myitthar and Tada U Township, falling in the
Kyaukse district, were selected for this study (Figure 1). Sampling and interviews
were conducted from December 2016 (during the cultivation period) to April
2017 (after the cultivation period).

116 Asia-Pacic Journal of Rural Development 30(1–2)
Figure 1. Map of the Study Area (Kyaukse, Tada U and Myitthar Township), Mandalay
Division, Myanmar.
Source: Satellite data.
Questionnaire and Field Survey
A total of 150 farmers from study sites participated in the in-depth interview. The
questionnaire was prepared in the Myanmar language to examine farmers’
attitudes about agrochemicals handling, storage and disposal activities,
information about adverse environmental and health effects, and the source of
agrochemicals’ information. A multiple-choice questionnaire was distributed
among the participants to gather general information from the local farmers.
There were 35 questions in the survey questionnaire, which took approximately
30–45 min to complete individually. Farmers who participated in interviews
cultivated traditional (rice, beans, sesame seeds, etc.) and exported crops
(watermelons and melons). Information on watermelon- and melon-planting
patterns in the study fields, pesticide use, pesticide types, pesticide mixing,
spraying and time of pesticide usage, depending on planting time, were also
collected during the interview. While conducting the questionnaire survey, we
educated the farmers about the potential risk of agrochemical overuse. Instruments
used in the study are questionnaires, notes and recorders, and sampling bags for
soil sample collection. For a detailed assessment, questionnaires’ results were
stored in the Microsoft Office Excel for descriptive analysis. Data are descriptively
presented in tables and graphs based on the existing findings of observations and
respondents’ interviews.

Win et al. 117
Figure 2. Soil Sampling in Watermelon and Melon Fields.
Source: The authors.
During the questionnaire study, fields were searched to look for empty pesticide
containers to check the pesticides that were used by farmers, as they did not share
information on used pesticides. They did not want to reveal the information since
they used unauthorised pesticides. The information collected in this way was
classified by active ingredient, toxic level and type of pesticides.
Collection of Soil Samples
Soil samples were collected from 10 different fields, where watermelons and
melons were cultivated for the first time, to study the pesticide residues (Figure
2). During December 2016 (during the cultivation period) and April 2017 (after
the cultivation period) when farmers were being interviewed, soil samples were
collected randomly across the field at a depth of 10–50 cm, using soil cover after
removing the top soil. Approximately 1 kg of soil sample was collected from each
sampling point. The soil samples were then placed in sampling plastic bags and
labelled with sample codes, sampling dates and sample locations. Samples were
immediately sent to the laboratory and stored at 4°C for analysis.
Preparation of Soil Samples and Extraction of Agrochemical Residues
All soil samples were dried in a hot air oven for 1 h at 60°C and then gently
crushed and sieved with (< 2 mm) mesh. Then, 10 g of soil sample was dissolved
in 10 ml of distilled water and centrifuged at about 4000 rpm for 10 min. After
centrifugation, 10 ml of the upper layer was taken and mixed with 10 ml of

118 Asia-Pacic Journal of Rural Development 30(1–2)
acetonitrile (90% purity grade), shaken in a separatory funnel and allowed to
settle down to get a clear upper layer. After that, the upper layer was evaporated
with a rotatory evaporator at 95°C and a small amount of residue concentrates was
re-dissolved in 2 ml of acetonitrile and the vials were prepared to analyse the
pesticides by GC-MS. Matrix extraction and purification were performed
according to ISO 22892: 2006 (en).
For the determination of OC) and OP groups, GC-MS (SHIMADZU, GC-2010)
with an electron capture detector (ECD) was used. The resulting chromatograms
were analysed by using Mass Spectral Libraries and Databases (SHIMADZU).
For the analysis of OC, the oven temperature programme was 70°C (2 min hold)
to 160°C, 15°C/min to 270°C and 5°C/min (18 min hold). The temperature of the
injection port was 250°C, and a 1 μL volume was injected in split-less mode. For
the analysis of OP, the oven temperature programme was 150°C (1 min hold) to
225°C and 5°C/min (18 min hold). The temperature of the injection port was
220˚C, and a 1 μL volume was injected in split-less mode.
Results and Discussion
Data Analysis
Data were entered in Microsoft Excel and analysed with Stata (Intercooled
Standard version 14.0). Descriptive analysis of various variables such as age,
level of education, primary occupation, types of crops cultivated, household
chemical use, pesticide use and storage, and knowledge about the effects of
pesticides on crops, health and soil was also carried out. The analysis was carried
out on the study population (n = 150). Data were analysed by descriptive statistics
using frequency distribution, percentage, mean and standard deviation.
The Use of Pesticides in Studied Area
The results presented here are limited to the Kyaukse district only and do not
represent the state or national scenario. Agrochemicals such as fertilisers and
pesticides play an important role in increasing crop yields and productivity in
modern agriculture. In this survey, from used pesticide packages, information on
active substance(s) were recorded. Table 1 describes 27 different pesticides that
were mostly used by farmers in the sites surveyed. In these study fields, various
types of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and bactericides were used. From the
study area, there were 14 different kinds of insecticides that were recorded.
Among them, imidacloprid was the most used insecticide followed by abamectin.
It was also found that some products that were used in this area contained a
mixture of active substances. All these insecticides listed belong to WHO Hazard
Class and Health Effects of IB, II and III and was rated as moderately hazardous.
Fungicides, bactericide and herbicide have also been widely used, especially
during the rainy season. The reason behind this is that increased rainfall triggers

Win et al. 119
weed growth, leading to crop diseases (Joko et al., 2017). From field surveys,
eight types of fungicides, two types of bactericides and two types of herbicide
packages of different brands were collected. Glyphosate and quizalofop-p-ethyl
were the recorded herbicides in this survey. Glyphosate was the most widely used
active ingredient in the herbicide category and Carbendazim was found to be an
extensively used fungicide.
Table 1. List of Used Pesticides Collected in Studied Locations, Classified Using the
WHO Hazard Class and Health Effects, 2009.
Type of
Pesticides Active Ingredients Concentration
(%)
WHO
Class Distributer
Insecticide
Imidacloprid 70 II
WiSaYa, Aventine
Ltd, Awba, Golden
Key Co. Ltd, J. japan,
Powder Agro, No
poison Crop Science
Co., Ltd., Taung paw
thar YiShin
Abamectin 1.8 II Awba, Golden Key
Co. Ltd
Carbofuran 3 IB WiSaYa
Lambda
cyhalothrin 10 II Min Ma Har, Powder
Agro
cypermethrin 10, 5 II
Arysta Life Science,
Powder Agro, Awba,
Armo
Dinotefuran 20 -Armo
Thiamethoxam 25 III JDS Company
Thiocyclam
oxalate 50 -Arystal Life Science
Acephate 75 III Powder Agro
Emamectin
Benzoate 15, 5 II Min Ma Har, Powder
Agro
Acetamiprid 20 II Powder Agro, Farm
Link
Chlorpyrifos 50 III Powder Agro, Awba,
Armo
Carbamic acid 50 -Golden Key Co. Ltd
Endosulfan 35 II Golden Key Co. Ltd
Profenofos 50 II Awba
(Table 1 Continued)

120 Asia-Pacic Journal of Rural Development 30(1–2)
Type of
Pesticides Active Ingredients Concentration
(%)
WHO
Class Distributer
Fungicide
Zineb 14.5 III Anawyahta
copper
oxychloride 37, 45 III Anawyahta, Powder
Agro
Hexaconazole 5 No
Hazard Awba
carbendazim 50 U Awba
Cymoxanil -III WiSaYa
Copper hydroxide 77 III Product of Thailand
Mancozeb 80 No
Hazard Awba
Propiconazole 250g/L II Awba
Herbicide
Glyphosate
(isopropylamine
salt of glyphosate)
41.2 2A WiSaYa
Quizalofop-p-ethyl 10 II WiSaYa
Bactericide
kasugamycin 2 No
Hazard Powder Agro
Oxalic acid 20 Acute
Tox. 4 EVOGRO Co. Ltd
Source: The authors.
From this field survey, it was found that kasugamycin and oxalic acid were the
only two bactericides used by the farmers. Registered dealers with many
representative sellers in every village have sold these pesticides found in this
field survey. Pesticides when exposed to environment start to break down into
simple, usually less toxic compounds, through photolysis, hydrolysis,
volatilisation and microbiological degradation. Some pesticides stimulate growth
of microorganisms, whereas some other pesticides, when administered at normal
rates, have depressive effects or have no impact on microorganisms (Lo, 2010).
The exact half-life of each pesticide depends on the active ingredient, the
formulation and the condition of the environment (Kerle et al., 1994). All the
pesticides reported are moderately hazardous to humans and the environment
according to the WHO hazard classification (Terms Safety & IPCS, 2005). If
farmers follow the directions on the label properly, pesticides will be less harmful
to humans and the environment.
(Table 1 Continued)

Win et al. 121
Table 2. Pesticide Residues in Soil Collected from Watermelons and Melon Fields During
the Cultivation Period.
No.
Sampling
Sites Residues Name
Molecular
Weight
(kb) Formula
Kind of
Residues
1 1 (U Min) 2-(o-Methoxyphenyl)-
4,5-diphenylimidazole
326.4 C22H18N2O Insecticide
2 2 (Chaung
bat)
Naphtho(2,1-b)
thiophene
184.26 C12H8S Insecticide
3 Benzamide,4-fluoro-N-
(2-(2-furanyl) ethyl)
Herbicide
47-chlorp-2,3-dihydro-
5-phenyl-3-trienyl-2)
methylene)-1H-1,4-
Ben-benzodiazepin-2-
one
364 C20H130N2O18 Insecticide
5 2,5-dioxo-2,5-
dihydropyrol-1-yl) acetic
acid
155 C6H5O4N Herbicides
6 3 (Pal Lay
Sal)
Ethanol
2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)
20 C8H8O2Cl2Herbicide
7 4 (Ton lon) 9-chloro-1-
fluro-12H(1,3)
benzothiazole(2,3-B)
quinazdin-12-one
304 C14H80N2OF8Insecticide
81-alpha-acetoxy-
3-alpha,4-alpha-
dimethyl-4-beta-(1,3-
dioxolan-2-4)
490 C27H38O68 Insecticide
Source: The authors.
Pesticide Residues in Soil
The collected soil samples were analysed to determine the presence of pesticide
residue that are accumulated in the soil due to overuse of pesticides during the
cultivation period and stoppage of pesticide spraying after the cultivation period.
The presence of pesticide residue was confirmed by the GC-MS analysis of soil
samples, as shown in Tables 2 and 3. The findings revealed that there was some
accumulation of residue of pesticides in soils where watermelons and melons
were cultivated.

122 Asia-Pacic Journal of Rural Development 30(1–2)
Table 3. Pesticide Residues in Soil Collected from Watermelon and Melon Fields After
the Cultivation Period.
No.
Sampling
Sites Residues Name
Molecular
Weight
(kb) Formula
Kind of
Residues
1 1 (U
Min)
Pyrrole,2-(2-naphthyl)-3,5-
diphenyl
Insecticide
2 Acridine-9yl-naphalen 320 C23H16N2Dye
3 5
(Thaman
Gone)
2,5-Dihydrothiophene 88 C4H66 Insecticide
4 Benzothiozole,2-(4-amino-3-
methylphenyl
240 C14H12N28 Anti-bacterial
Ethane 1,2-dione,1-(2-
methyl-1H,indo-3-yl)2-(4-
phenylpiperazin-1)
347 C21H21O2N3Antivirus
5 6 (Nwar
Ku Lay)
Anthracene,9,10-dihydro-9-
91-Methylpropyl
236 C18H20 Pesticide
6 Methane,Bis (fluoranthen-
3-yl)
416 C33H20 Polycyclic
aromatic
hydrocarbon
7 5,5-BIS 92-94-Aminophenyl-
1H-1,3-benzimidazole
416 C26H20N6Herbicides
8 7 (Kyan
Ta w )
Benzenamine,4-nitro-N-
(triphenylphosphoranylidene)
398 C24H19N2O2POrgano-
inorganic
compounds
9 propanedinitrile(5-
dimethylamino)2,3 dihydro-
1H-inden-1-ylidene
223 C14H13N3Insecticide
10 quinoline,3,6-dimethyl-2,4-
diphenyl
309 C23H19N Fungicide
11 8(Kone
Gyi)
methylthio-2-cyano-3-(2-
cyano(carboxy)methyl-1-
cyclopent
334 C16H1804N26 Herbicide
12 P-toluic acid,3,5-dimethyl
phenyl ester
240 C16H16O2(free aromatic
acid)
biodegradable
and
insecticide
13 9 (Nal
Toe)
2-(p-bromohenyl)-8-methyl-
8Hthieno(2,3-B)Indole
341 C17H12NBr8Antivirus
14 thiophene-2-methylamine,N-
(2-fluorophenyl)
207 C11H10NF8Insecticide
15 (2-methyl phenyl) (methyl,N-
pentyl ether)
192 C13H20O Solvent
16 10 (Yin
Gone)
1,4,dioxane,2-(2 furanyl) 154 C8H10O3Chlorinated
solvent
Source: The authors.

Win et al. 123
During the cultivation period, herbicide and insecticide residues from four
different fields were detected (Table 2). Owing to the presence of imidazole,
2-(o-Methoxyphenyl)-4,5-diphenylimidazole found in sampling site 1 can be the
residues of imidacloprid. Oi (1999) and Liu et al. (2006) reported that imidacloprid
compounds absorbed into the soil decreased biodegradation and were highly
persistent in soils. Zhang et al. (2014) indicated that imidacloprid has a potentially
harmful effect on the population of earthworms and reduces soil fertility. In
sampling site 2, benzamide, naphtha (2,1-b) thiophene, benzodiazepine and
2-maleimido acetic acid were detected as a residue. Benzamide is a residue from
benzamide containing herbicides, and it is a major degradation product of
dichlobenil (Beynon & Wright, 1972). Carbendazim is a prominent fungicide
used in these fields under study, and hence the derivatives may have come from
this fungicide. Furthermore, naphtho (2,1-b) thiophene is another residue found in
soils that would have been derived from insecticides. Jacob et al. (1991) also
reported that naphtho (2,1-b) thiophene is a primary insecticide used explicitly for
the management of mites.
Ethanol 2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy) detected from sampling site 3 has been
reported as an herbicide residue of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (Zahm et al.,
1990). It has been well established in the literature that 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid is a commonly used compound among chlorophenoxy herbicides that is an
analogue of auxin and thus also aids as a plant growth hormone (Marziano et al.,
2017; Song, 2014). The herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid along with its
derivatives have been detected in surface and groundwater, threatening the
environment and health (Gaultier et al., 2008; Kearns et al., 2014; Shareef &
Shaw, 2008).
At sampling site 4, two insecticide residues were found, viz. 9-chloro-1-fluro-
12H (1,3) benzothiazole(2,3-B) quinazdin-12-one and 1-alpha-acetoxy-3alpha,4-
alpha-dimethyl-4-beta-(1,3-dioxolan-2-4). The former is reported to be from a
benzothiazole-containing insecticide (Dong et al., 2017), whereas the latter is
reported to be a derivative of dioxolan-containing insecticide (Pape et al., 1970).
In total, 3 different herbicide residues and 5 different insecticide residues were
found from 4 out of 10 sampling sites during the cultivation period. Higher
numbers of insecticide residue in the soil can cause various types of deterioration
in soil quality. Further, generally, it is difficult to assess the relevant role of organic
matter and clay in the binding process once pesticides reach the soil. It is also
quite challenging to quantify realistic field situations (Calderbank, 1989).
Therefore, it is extremely difficult to predict the fate of pesticide derivatives in the
soil. On the other hand, residues reported from the soil are often found not to be
from widely used materials such as organic manure, urea, phosphorus fertilisers
and NPK fertilisers. After contact with the soil, they undergo several
transformations that include a complex metabolite pattern (Andreu & Picó, 2004).
Hence, the chances are very remote that the identified residues have come from
the inorganic fertilisers applied to the fields.
After the cultivation period, there were several kinds of residues detected from
7 different fields out of 10 sampling sites, as shown in Table 3. From the sampling
site 1, two residues were found, viz. Pyrrole,2-(2-naphthyl) -3,5-diphenyl and
Acridine-9yl-naphalen, a mixture of acridine and naphthalene dye was discovered

124 Asia-Pacic Journal of Rural Development 30(1–2)
as a dye residue. The former residue is reported to be a residual derivative of
pyrrole-based insecticides like chlorpyrifos (N’guessan et al., 2007).
There were three residues, namely 2,5-Dihydrothiophene (insecticide residue),
Benzothiozole,2- (4-amino-3-methylphenyl (anti-bacterial residue) and Ethane
1,2-dione,1-(2-methyl-1H,indo-3-yl)2-(4-phenylpiperazin-1) (antivirus residue)
at sampling site 5. The results show that the farmers use even antivirus chemicals
in their fields, which was not reported previously. Many authors in the past have
reported the presence of these residues in pesticide-treated soil (El-Feky et al.,
2010; Mcconnell & Shearer, 1959; Seenaiah et al., 2014).
Similarly, Anthracene,9,10-dihydro-9-(1-Methylpropyl) and 5,5-BIS
92-94-Aminophenyl-1H-1,3-benzimidazole were detected in sampling site 6.
Many studies have earlier reported that these residues are from OC pesticides
(Sawaya et al., 1999; Villeneuve et al., 1999; Zhou et al., 1996). The OC pesticides
such as Endosulfan are still widely used in melon fields without realising their
repercussions. OC pesticides have a long half-life, ranging from months to years
and, in some cases, decades, and resist degradation by chemical, physical or
biological means.
While analysing the soil from sampling site 7, organo-inorganic compounds,
fungicide and insecticide residues were detected. Benzenamine,4-nitro-N-
(triphenylphosphoranylidene), which is reported to be a benzenamine-based
herbicide residue (Shasha et al., 1981), a malonitrile derivative, Propanedinitrile(5-
dimethylamino)2,3 dihydro-1H-inden-1-ylidene, reported to be used as insecticide
(Otaka et al., 2006), and quinoline,3,6-dimethyl-2,4-diphenyl, a quinolone-
containing residue reported to be from fungicide (Liu et al., 2017) were detected.
Furthermore, in the sampling site 8, two residues (herbicide and insecticide)
were detected. These residues are Methylthio-2-cyano-3-(2-cyano(carboxy)
methyl-1-cyclopent and P-toluic acid,3,5-dimethyl phenyl ester. Earlier studies
reported that Methylthio-2-cyano-3-(2-cyano(carboxy)methyl-1-cyclopent can be
the residue of methylthio-2-cyano-containing herbicide (Wang et al., 2004), while
P-toluic acid,3,5-dimethyl phenyl ester is the combination of ester-containing
insecticide and biodegradable free aromatic acid (Fischer et al., 2002; Schwartz &
Bar 1995).
Apart from this, a potentially hazardous residue was also detected from
sampling site 9, viz. 2-(p-bromohenyl)-8-methyl-8H-thieno(2,3-B) Indole. Earlier
studies have reported that this is a hazardous and recalcitrant residue derived from
an antivirus substance containing thieno (2,3-B) indole (Boeini, 2009). Moreover,
thiophene-2-methylamine, N-(2-fluorophenyl) was also detected. Many studies
have previously reported about the presence of this insecticide residue in soils
treated with the combination of three different active ingredients (thiophene,
methylamine, 2-fluorophenyl) (Arnason et al., 1989; Jain, 2015; Shi et al., 2000).
Authors have also reported that Methyl and N-pentyl ether that are used as
insecticides are hazardous solvents that act as general anaesthetic when inhaled
above the lethal concentration (Voss et al., 2005).
Similarly, at sampling site 10, presence of 2-(2-Furyl)-1,4-dioxane was
detected. Zenker et al. (2003) has reported the oncogenic impact of 1,4-dioxane

Win et al. 125
complex residue on humans, thus making it hazardous in nature. Thus, it could
be inferred that residues that are more hazardous were detected from soil
collected after the cultivation period. This fact is in concordance with earlier
literature in which many authors have monitored the pesticide residues in soils
and examined their potential health risks and found that the stable nature of the
pesticides and their derivatives make them extremely recalcitrant, and, thus, they
remain in the soil or water for many years in cultivable lands (Atreya et al., 2011;
Ritz & Yu, 2000; Samsel & Seneff, 2013; Shelton, 2014). It has also been
observed that as the trend of pesticide usage is growing alarmingly worldwide,
many researchers have also reported that these pesticides have the tendency to
cause cancerous and non-cancerous diseases in humans as well as other animals
when they enter into the food chain through the environment (Bhandari et al.,
2018; Shelton et al., 2014).
There were many residues from different pesticides that were found in this
study. Interestingly, many pesticide residues that were detected from this study
were not from the pesticides reported to be used in these fields. This may be
because farmers use cost-effective, dangerous and unauthorised pesticides that
can rapidly control pests without considering their implications, which have a
higher deleterious effect on soil fertility and environment than the registered
pesticides. The presence of antivirus residue in the soil after the cultivation period
is also supportive of the fact that many cheap, unauthorised pesticides are used
without even knowing its name or actual use. The literature also reports that due
to the ever-increasing demand for food and other agricultural commodities due to
rapid increase in world population, the framers tend to use increasing number of
pesticides to meet the growing demand. If farmers across the world desist from
using pesticides, there will be a 78%, 54% and 32% increase in the crop losses due
to pests in fruits, veggies and grains, respectively (Cai, 2008). Even though
pesticide use is inevitable, the pesticide residues in soil can cause unpredictable
harmful effect on life forms and non-living things. This is supported by findings
of Kookana et al. (1998), who reported that trace levels of pesticide residues
present in the soil, water, air and sometimes food might result in harmful effects
on human and environmental health, especially inducing potential hazard of land
degradation. On the other hand, transformation products after contacting with soil
provides complex metabolites, which may be more toxic or less toxic than the
parent compound itself (Andreu & Picó 2004).
From an environmental sustainability perspective, the present study reveals the
need for good agricultural practices (GAP) particularly in export-oriented
agriculture sector. To establish these practices, the growers must understand the
potential risk of agrochemical overuse. Joko et al. (2017) pointed out that land
degradation, particularly the decline in soil quality, can occur after the continuous
application of large quantities of pesticides. Our study also confirms the claim
that the soil is degraded even in the fields where watermelon and melons were
cultivated for the first time. Such residues can accumulate increasingly through
several consecutive years of watermelon and melon cultivation and become the
main reason for causing severe soil degradation.

126 Asia-Pacic Journal of Rural Development 30(1–2)
The Basic Information on Respondents
The average age of respondents in this survey was 47.38 (range 17–80 years). A
total of 76.39% of respondents were males, and 23.61% were females. The
respondents in the research have 23.35 years (range 2–60 years) of farming
experience. For the use of pesticides in their farming practices, an average of
15.67 years (1–45) has been recorded. According to the survey responses, 46.53%
of respondents had primary education (standard I to standard IV), 25% of
respondents had secondary level of (standard V to standard VIII) education,
8.33% of respondents had higher education (standard IX to standard X), only
1.39% of respondents had graduated from university and the remaining 18.75%
had no education. Accordingly, 81.25% of farmers in the sample had at least
primary education. The overall percentages are presented in Figure 3. Education
plays a vital role in a better understanding of the details provided in the label. The
pesticide label is an important source of information for the safe and proper use
and mitigation of environmental and health risks (Waichman et al., 2007).
Therefore, a higher percentage of educated farmers in this area should be able to
read and understand pesticide labels. Nguyen et al. (2018) pointed out that if
farmers read the pesticide label and directions before use, they should be able to
use the appropriate dosage, stick to the correct time of spraying, take necessary
safety measures while handling pesticides, understand the potential toxicity of
pesticides and adhere to instruction on preharvest intervals. However, Lekei et al.
(2014) found that the level of education could not influence knowledge regarding
pesticide management and practices. Therefore, creating awareness for local
farmers on the safe use of pesticides by local authorities is highly advocated.
About the size of the farm, the average farm size is 6.75 acres. It was recorded
that 71.8% of the respondents owned agricultural land, 7.38% worked on hired
land and 20.8% did not declare ownership of their land (Figure 4). During soil
tillage, 11.1% of respondents used NPK fertiliser, 15.28% used urea, 0.69% used
phosphorus fertiliser and 72.2% of respondents did not specify the fertiliser applied.
Figure 3. Education Status of Respondents.
Source: The authors.

Win et al. 127
Figure 4. Land Possession by Farmers.
Source: The authors.
Figure 5. Crops Grown in Study Area (others include watermelon, melons and sunflower).
Source: The authors.
Figure 5 shows the crops cultivated in this area. More than 50% of households
cultivated more than one crop. The crops commonly grown were paddy (51%),
beans (29%), sesame (4.86%) and other crops (15.14%). Also, some households
cultivated watermelons, melons and sunflowers. However, farmers were inclined
to cultivate crops that were more profitable.
In Table 4, statistical data on the use, handling, storage and disposal of
pesticides are presented. Approximately 49.33% of farmers did not use protective
clothing because they were unaware of the potential health risk, not easily
accessible and expensive. Raksanam et al. (2012) also reported that such unsafe
practices might have adverse health consequences. However, 50.67% of
respondents used at least one of the protective wears like a mask, glove, coat, eye

128 Asia-Pacic Journal of Rural Development 30(1–2)
cover, long boots, long sleeve shirts and long pants, whereas 72.36% of spraying
personnel used face masks as protective cover. Respondents were ignorant about
the health hazard at the individual and even at the community level. Safety
measures adopted by these farmers were ineffective and inadequate. A total of
30.49% of the respondents admitted that they prepared pesticide solutions for
spraying and wash sprayers closer to water well, canal, stream or river, which
provide water for households and other day-to-day activities. However, 69.51%
of the respondents declined to answer this question.
Table 4. The Results of Responses on Pesticide Handling Practices.
Characteristics Percentages of Response (n = 150)
Equipment washed
• At well at home
• Outside the yard
• Nearby River/lake
• Not specify
8.54
1.22
20.37
69.51
Storage
In the storage room
In the house
Outside the house
Not specify
28.46
7.32
24.39
39.82
Waste disposal sites
• In yard
• In canalisation
• In solid waste disposal
Not specify
11.22
2.04
9.18
77.56
Wearing protective clothing when applying
pesticides
• Yes
• No
50.67
49.33
If No, please pick one:
• Lack of knowledge
• not available
• uncomfortable
89.18
1.35
9.45
If Yes, check one or more of the following:
• Gloves
• Coat
• Eyeglasses
• Face mask
• Boots/shoes
• Long-sleeved shirt/long pants
38.15*
43.42*
5.26*
72.36*
19.73*
43.42*
Reuse the pesticide containers
• Yes
• No
5.69
94.31
(Table 4 Continued)

Win et al. 129
Characteristics Percentages of Response (n = 150)
Amount of pesticide usage
• Normal
• Increase
• Decrease
58.67
22.67
18.67
Non-repetitive use of same pesticide
• Always
• Never
• Sometimes
63.43
14.18
22.39
Source: The authors.
Note: *Each respondent uses more than one kind of item.
Regarding disposal of used pesticide packages, 75.51% of the respondents
denied providing any information, but 9.18% disposed used pesticides at the
garbage disposal site, 11.22% disposed of used pesticides outside the compound
and 2.04% disposed of used pesticides in the drainage system. These data show
that there is high potential of polluting surface water, natural water bodies and
soil, and the environment. This kind of pesticide waste disposal can lead to the
accumulation of toxic substances in the environment, depending on their water
solubility, soil-sorption constant (Koc), the octanol/water partition coefficient
(Kow) and half-life in soil (Swann et al., 1983). They can also be moved from the
soil by run-off water with time and leaching, thereby creating a problem in the
supply of drinking water to the population (Andreu & Picó, 2004). According to
Székács et al. (2015), most of the pesticides released into the environment are
considered toxic substances, and new toxicological interactions have been
reported. However, the behaviour of farmers in terms of waste disposal in the
surveyed areas also contribute considerably to the degradation of soil through
accumulation of pesticides in soil.
However, the pesticide storage activities carried out by these farmers are
encouraging. Only 7.32% of respondents stored pesticides within the house,
28.46% stored in a separate storage room, 24.39% stored outside the house and
39.02% did not reveal the area where pesticides were stored. According to the
interviewer’s experience, most of them stored pesticides either in the living
quarters or in the agricultural field. These results highlighted the farmers’
ignorance on the safe use of pesticide and the need for precautions to be taken
while preparing and spraying. They also did not cooperate when asked about the
practices adopted while handling pesticides. These findings showed that there is a
strong need to create awareness on pesticide hazards, safety practices and safe
storage among farmers. However, achieving these goals is severely hampered due
to the lack of skilled and well-trained agricultural extension staff in the existing
agricultural extension services in Myanmar, as reported by Cho and Boland
(2004). Thus, it is strongly advocated that appropriately designed education and
training programmes on pesticide handling, application methods and health
effects must be implemented in this region.
(Table 4 Continued)

130 Asia-Pacic Journal of Rural Development 30(1–2)
Table 5. Source of Knowledge on Usage and Storage of Pesticides.
Question Percentages of Response (n = 150)
Agricultural consultation services in your district
• Yes
• No
65.89
24.11
Consultations about the right use and storage of
pesticides
• From distributor
• From consultancy services (government)
• From neighbours
• From consultancy services (NGO)
• Others
66.66
3.78
19.69
3.78
6.06
The decision on the usage of the pesticides
Seller
Self
Others
62.26
30.19
7.55
Receive information about pesticides usage
guidelines
• Yes
• No
77.52
22.48
Source: The authors.
Source of Knowledge on Usage and Storage and Risk of Pesticides
Knowledge on effects of pesticides on the environment and health of farmers revealed
that approximately 30.08% of respondents are aware of pesticide hazard, 47.15% of
respondents believe that it has some hazard but not serious and 22.76% of respondents
believe that it does not cause any risk to humans or the environment. With respect to
taking decisions on the selection of pesticide for the management of pests, most
respondents (62.26%) received information from persons selling pesticides, 30.19%
of farmers determined by themselves and 7.55% followed the advice of their
neighbours. Questions were also asked about the source of knowledge on current
farming practices, pest control and safe use of agrochemicals. Overall, 66.66% of
respondents received advice from distributors, and 19.69% shared knowledge from
their neighbours, and only 3.78% of respondents received knowledge from
agricultural staff and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). According to our
survey (Table 5), a considerable number of farmworkers gained information from
individuals selling pesticides and experienced neighbouring farmers.
Based on these two questionnaire results, it was found that local farmers have
very little knowledge on pests that infest crops and their management, and lack of
proper handling of pesticides and safety measures. Therefore, it is also important
to educate the village pesticide retailers and farmer leaders as they can strongly
influence the farmers to adopt appropriate pest control measures and GAP. As
stated earlier, cooperation and participation of farmers in trainings and extension
programmes are also major issues. It is, therefore, necessary to involve the private

Win et al. 131
sector, particularly distributors and local government authorities, in training and
extension programmes to disseminate and share the right information and promote
innovative agricultural practices in the agricultural sector in Myanmar.
Farmers’ Perception on the Use of Pesticides
Most farmers are aware that chemical pesticides are not safe for them and the
environment. However, from an economic and productivity point of view, they
cannot avoid using pesticide for effective control of pests. Overall, 82.47% of
respondents used pesticides to protect their crops and getting a good yield. While
these chemicals play a major role in increasing production the yield improvement
is often associated with the risk and persistence of pesticide residues in food, soil
and water due to intensive and indiscriminate pesticide use. Another concern
associated with maximising crop yields is that farmers intentionally and
continuously release these pesticides into the environment at levels, which might
severely affect human health. Essumang et al. (2013) also emphasised the
importance of training farmers to ensure proper application of pesticides to
minimise its impact on the health of consumers. A total of 88.66% of respondents
admitted that they would like to shift to viable alternatives to pesticides (Table 6).
Felix and Sharp (2016) also reported that poor pesticide management practices
and violation of safety rules lead to undesirable consequences such as untreatable
diseases affecting growers, non-farmers, manufacturers, customers, negative
impact on the climate and the ecosystem even though pesticides contribute to
increased food production and reduce agricultural production loss.
Table 6. Farmers’ Perception on the Use of Pesticides
Farmers’ Perception Percentages of Response (n = 150)
Perception on pesticides usage and potential
risk
• Not harmful
• Moderately harmful
• Very harmful
22.76
47.15
30.08
Pesticide requirement is essential for crop yield
• Yes
• No
90.82
9.18
Why not stop the use of harmful pesticides
• Cheap
• Not require labour force
• Concern about yield
• Do not know about risk
• Not specify
1.03
6.19
82.47
4.12
6.19
Want to use alternative pesticides
• Yes
• No
88.66
11.34
Source: The authors.

132 Asia-Pacic Journal of Rural Development 30(1–2)
Farmers’ Experiences Regarding Pesticide Poisoning and Environmental
Risk
Approximately 41.67% of farmers reported having experienced physical
discomfort with pesticides such as nausea, eye and skin irritation, blurry vision,
dizziness, headache, etc. It was recorded that 40.33% of respondents witnessed
accidental contamination of pesticides with water and air, dying of fish and birds,
and declining population of beneficial insects. As reported by Gupta (2004), long-
term exposure to low doses of pesticides in humans has been found to cause
immune repression, hormonal disruption, reduced intelligence and reproductive
malfunction through a human endocrine disorder phenomenon. The use of
pesticides in agriculture may have negative consequences not only for humans but
also for the natural environment due to dispersion of pesticides into the
environment, sorption and binding by organic and mineral soil components;
volatilisation, run-off and leaching (van der Werf, 1996). Microflora and fauna of
soil, which play a critical role in soil fertility maintenance, are also adversely
affected by pesticides.
The long-term consequences of such structural changes in soil microflora are
difficult to predict, as they can lead to changes in the occurrence of soil-borne
pathogens (Elmholt et al., 1993). Concerning soil fertility, 42.86% of respondents
reported it being degraded over time, and 57.14% of respondents reported not
having encountered this issue. According to Bhattacharyya et al. (2015), the
reason for land degradation is improper agricultural practices such as excessive
and unbalanced use of inorganic fertilisers, pesticide overuse and insufficient crop
residue and/or organic carbon inputs. Myanmar faces severe land degradation,
particularly soil erosion in upland agricultural areas and dry zones. Degraded
agricultural areas were estimated at 33% in 2008 as a percentage of total cultivated
area. The total degraded land has continuously increased in Myanmar according
to the results of this study. Environmental impact assessment is still weak in the
use of agrochemicals and soil degradation according to the findings from Table 7.
Table 7. Farmers’ Experiences Regarding Pesticide Poisoning and Environmental Risk.
Experiences on Health and Environmental Risk Percentages of Response (n = 150)
Using pesticides or being exposed to them have you experienced
• Yes 41.67
• Dizziness 40
• Headache 14.28
• Nausea/vomiting 8.57
• Blurred vision 8.57
• Skin rashes 25.71
• Excessive sweating 14.28
• excessive salivation 5.71
(Table 7 Continued)

Win et al. 133
Experiences on Health and Environmental Risk Percentages of Response (n = 150)
• Irregular heartbeat 2.85
• Difficulty breathing 5.71
• Others discomfort 8.57
• No 58.33
Experiences on accident with pesticides
• Yes 40.33
• Water pollution 25.67
• Air pollution 21.62
• Fish, bird etc. dying 31.08
• Reduction on beneficial insect population
21.62
• No 50.66
Changes in soil fertility due to pesticide usage
• Yes
• No
42.86
57.14
Source: The authors.
Conclusion
The study showed that farmers use various types of authorised and unauthorised
pesticides and other chemical inputs in their lands. Residues of different pesticides,
which were reported to be used and not used in this area, were detected during and
after cultivation from the soils. Therefore, it can be inferred that pesticide-induced
gradual soil degradation has been occurring in this area. Further, farmers are
ignorant about the judicious use of pesticides and their management. Waste
management of used pesticide containers in this region is also in a poor state.
Indiscriminate and injudicious use of pesticides can lead to several health hazards
and environmental problems.
Therefore, it is recommended to promote awareness on the safe use of
pesticides, impose strict regulations about sales and handling of pesticides,
introduce and promote biotechnology in agriculture and promote the use of bio-
pesticides. It is also recommended to promote the use of botanical and bio-
pesticides to reduce hazards caused by inorganic pesticides to humans and
environment.
Acknowledgement
TTW designed the research, analysed the data and wrote the article; other participants
worked on planned research; and AAK supervised the research work.
(Table 7 Continued)

134 Asia-Pacic Journal of Rural Development 30(1–2)
Declaration of Conicting Interest
The authors declared the following potential conicts of interest with respect to the
research, authorship and/or publication of this article: There are no conicts of interest.
Funding
Technological University (Mandalay) and Ministry of Education are gratefully
acknowledged. Survey research was nancially supported by Ministry of Education and
residues analysis fees were supported by Rector, Technological University (Mandalay).
Note
1. Three different types of growers are found to cultivate melons in these areas; (a) resi-
dent farmers who own land, (b) resident farmers who hire the land and (c) international
migrants who hire land. The complaints were reported by the landlords who rented out
their land for melon cultivation by tenant farmers.
References
Ajayia, O. O. C. (2000). Pesticide use practices, productivity and farmers’ health: The
case of cotton–rice systems in Côte d’Ivoire, West Africa. In Pesticide Policy Project
Publication Series (No. 3). Publication of the Institute of Horticultural Economics, Uni
Druck Hannover.
Al-Zaidi, A., Elhag, E., Al-Otaibi, S., & Baig, M. (2011). Negative effects of pesticides on
the environment and the farmers awareness in Saudi Arabia: A case study. Journal of
Animal and Plant Sciences, 21, 605–611.
Andreu, V., & Picó, Y. (2004). Determination of pesticides and their degradation products
in soil: Critical review and comparison of methods. Trends in Analytical Chemistry,
23, 772–789.
Arnason, J., Philogene, B., Morand, P., Imrie, K., Iyengar, S., Duval, F., Soucy-Breau, C.,
Scaiano, J., Werstiuk, N., & Hasspieler, B. (1989). Naturally occurring and synthetic
thiophenes as photoactivated insecticides. ACS Publications.
Atreya, K., Johnsen, F. H., & Sitaula, B. K. (2011). Health and environmental costs
of pesticide use in vegetable farming in Nepal. Environment, Development and
Sustainability, 14, 477–493.
Azam, F., Farooq, S., & Lodhi, A. (2003). Microbial biomass in agricultural soils-
determination, synthesis, dynamics and role in plant nutrition. Pakistan Journal of
Biological Sciences, 6, 629–639. https://dx.doi.org/10.3923/pjbs.2003.629.639
Beynon, K., & Wright, A. (1972). The fates of the herbicides chlorthiamid and dichlobenil
in relation to residues in crops, soils, and animals. In F. A. Gunther & J. D. Gunther
(Eds.), Residue Reviews (pp. 23–53). Springer.
Bhandari, G., Atreya, K., Yang, X., Fan, L., & Geissen V. (2018). Factors affecting pesticide
safety behaviour: The perceptions of Nepalese farmers and retailers. Science of the
Total Environment, 631, 1560–1571.
Bhattacharyya, R., Ghosh, B. N., Mishra, P. K., Mandal, B., Rao, C. S., Sarkar, D., Das, K.,
Anil, K. S., Lalitha, M., & Hati, K. M. (2015). Soil degradation in India: Challenges
and potential solutions. Sustainability, 7, 3528–3570.
Boeini, H. Z. (2009). Highly efficient synthesis of Thieno [2, 3-b] indole derivatives.
Helvetica Chimica Acta, 92, 1268–1272.

Win et al. 135
Cai, D. W. (2008). Understand the role of chemical pesticides and prevent misuses of
pesticides. Bulletin of Agricultural Science and Technology, 1, 36–38.
Calderbank, A. (1989). The occurrence and significance of bound pesticide residues in soil.
Reviews of Environmental Contamination, T, 71–103.
Cho, K. M., & Boland, H. (2004). Agricultural training in Myanmar: Extension
agents’ perceptions of training needs. JIAEE, 11, 5–15. https://dx.doi.org/10.5191/
jiaee.2004.11101
Dong, L.-R., Hu, D.-Y., Wu, Z.-X., Chen, J.-X., & Song, B.-A. (2017). Study of the
synthesis, antiviral bioactivity and interaction mechanisms of novel chalcone
derivatives that contain the 1, 1-dichloropropene moiety. Chinese Chemical Letters,
28, 1566–1570.
El-Feky, S. M., Abou-zeid, L. A., Massoud, M. A., Shokralla, S. G., & Eisa, H. M. (2010).
Synthesis, molecular modeling of novel 1, 2, 4-triazole derivatives with potential
antimicrobial and antiviral activities. Acta Pharmaceutica Sciencia, 52, 353–364.
Elmholt, S., Frisvad, J. C., & Thrane, U. (1993). The influence of fungicides on soil
mycoflora with special attention to tests of fungicide effects on soil-borne pathogens.
In J. Altman (Ed.), Pesticide interactions in crop production: Beneficial and deleterious
effects (pp. 227–243). Taylor & Francis Group.
Essumang, D., Asare, E., & Dodoo, D. (2013). Pesticides residues in okra (non-target
crop) grown close to a watermelon farm in Ghana. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment, 185, 7617–7625. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-013-3123-5
FAO. (2014). Myanmar at a glance. Myanmar Economy and the role of Agriculture http://
www.fao.org/myanmar/fao-in-myanmar/myanmar/en/
Felix, M., & Sharp, A. (2016). A survey on pesticide awareness and management practices
in Tanzania. GMSARN International Journal, 10, 121–128.
Fischer, R., Bretschneider, T., Hagemann, H., Lieb, F., Lui, N., Ruther, M., Widdig, A.,
Erdelen, C., Wachendorff-Neumann, U., & Santel, H.-J. (2002). 2-Phenyl-substituted
heterocyclic 1, 3-ketonols as herbicides and pesticides. Google Patents.
Gaultier, J., Farenhorst, A., Cathcart, J., & Goddard, T. (2008). Degradation of [carboxyl-
14C] 2,4-D and [ring-U-14C] 2,4-D in 114 agricultural soils as affected by soil organic
carbon content. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 40, 217–227.
Gupta, P. (2004). Pesticide exposure—Indian scene. Toxicology, 198, 83–90. https://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.tox.2004.01.021
ISO 22892:2006 Characterization. (2006). Soil quality—Guidelines for the identification
of target compounds by gas chromatography and mass spectrometry (1st ed.). ISO.
Jacob, J., Schmoldt, A., Augustin, C., Raab, G., & Grimmer, G. (1991). Rat liver
microsomal ring-and S-oxidation of thiaarenes with central or peripheral thiophene
rings. Toxicology, 68, 181–194.
Jain, S. (2015). Studies on genotoxicity and immunotoxicity of acetamiprid-a pyridyl
methylamine neonicotinoid insecticide in mice. LUVAS. http://krishikosh.egranth.
ac.in/handle/1/72716
Joko, T., Anggoro, S., Sunoko, H. R., & Rachmawati, S. (2017). Pesticides usage in the
soil quality degradation potential in wanasari subdistrict, Brebes, Indonesia. Applied
and Environmental Soil Science. ID 5896191. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5896191
Kearns, J. P., Wellborn, L. S., Summers, R. S., & Knappe, D. R. U. (2014). 2,4-D adsorption
to biochars: Effect of preparation conditions on equilibrium adsorption capacity and
comparison with commercial activated carbon literature data. Water Research, 62,
20–28.

136 Asia-Pacic Journal of Rural Development 30(1–2)
Kerle, E. A., Jenkins, J. J., & Vogue, P. A. (1994). Understanding pesticide persistence and
mobility for groundwater and surface water protection. Environmental and Molecular
Toxicology, EM5559 (reprint April 2017).
Koji, K. (2016). Myanmar’s cross-border trade with China: Beyond informal trade (IDE
Discussion Paper). IDE-JETRO 625. http://hdl.handle.net/2344/1601
Kookana, R. S., Baskaran, S., & Naidu, R. (1998). Pesticide fate and behaviour in
Australian soils in relation to contamination and management of soil and water: A
review. Soil Research, 36, 715–764.
Kubo, K., & Sakata, S. (2018). Myanmar’s fresh fruit export to China via cross-border
trade. In Impact of China’s Increasing Demand for Agro Produce on Agricultural
Production in the Mekong Region (Chap. 4). BRC Research Report Bangkok Research
Center, JETRO Bangkok/IDE-JETRO.
Lekei, E. E., Ngowi, A. V., & London, L. (2014). Farmers’ knowledge, practices and
injuries associated with pesticide exposure in rural farming villages in Tanzania. BMC
Public Health, 14, 389. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-389
Liu, W., Zheng, W., Ma Y., & Liu, K. K. (2006). Sorption and degradation of imidacloprid
in soil and water. Journal of Environmental Science and Health B, 41, 623–634.
Liu, X. H., Fang, Y. M., Xie, F., Zhang, R. R., Shen, Z. H., Tan, C. X., Weng, J. Q., Xu,
T. M., & Huang, H. Y. (2017). Synthesis and in vivo fungicidal activity of some new
quinoline derivatives against rice blast. Pest Managemnet Science, 73, 1900–1907.
Lo, C.-C. (2010). Effect of pesticides on soil microbial community. Journal of
Environmental Science and Health B, 45, 348–359.
Marziano, V., Pugliese, A., Merler, S., & Ajelli, M. (2017). 2,4-D attenuates salinity-
induced toxicity by mediating anatomical changes, antioxidant capacity and cation
transporters in the roots of rice cultivars. Scientific Reports, 7, 10443. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41598-017-09708-x
Mcconnell, R. L., & Shearer, J. N. H. (1959). Organophosphorus derivatives of
dihydrothiophene 1, 1-dioxide. Google Patents.
N’guessan, R., Boko, P., Odjo, A., Akogbeto, M., Yates, A., & Rowland, M. (2007).
Chlorfenapyr: A pyrrole insecticide for the control of pyrethroid or DDT resistant
Anopheles gambiae (Diptera: Culicidae) mosquitoes. Acta Tropica, 102, 69–78.
Nguyen, T. D., Lee, M.-H., & Lee, G. H. (2008). Multiresidue determination of 156
pesticides in watermelon by dispersive solid phase extraction and gas chromatography/
mass spectrometry. Bulletin of the Korean Chemical Society, 29, 2482–2486. https://
doi.org/10.5012/bkcs.2 008.29.12.2482
Nguyen, T. M., Le, N. T. T., HaVukaiNen, J., & HaNNaway, D. B. (2018). Pesticide use in
vegetable production: A survey of Vietnamese farmers’ knowledge. Plant Protection
Science, 54, 203–214. https://doi.org/10.17221/69/2017-PPS
Oi, M. (1999). Time-dependent sorption of imidacloprid in two different soils. Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 47, 327–332.
Oldeman, L. R. (1992). Global extent of soil degradation (Bi-Annual Report, 1991–1992,
pp. 19–36). ISRIC.
Otaka, K., Oohira, D., & Takaoka, D. (2006). Malononitrile compounds and their use as
pesticides. Google Patents.
Pal, R., Chakrabarti, K., Chakraborty, A., & Chowdhury, A. (2010). Degradation and
effects of pesticides on soil microbiological parameters-a review. International Journal
of Agricultural Research, 5, 625–643.
Pape, B. E., Para, M. F., & Zabik, M. J. (1970). Photochemistry of bioactive compounds.
Photodecomposition of 2-(1, 3-dioxolan-2-yl) phenyl N-methylcarbamate. Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 18, 490–493.

Win et al. 137
Park, S., Lee, S. J., Kim, H. G., Jeong, W. Y., Shim, J. H., Abd El-Aty, A., Jeong, S. W.,
Lee, W. S., Kim, S. T., & Shin, S. C. (2010). Residue analysis of multi-class pesticides
in watermelon by LC-MS/MS. Journal of Separation Science, 33, 493–501. https://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/jssc.200900644
Raksanam, B., Taneepanichskul, S., Siriwong, W., & Robson, M. (2012). Factors associated
with pesticide risk behaviors among rice farmers in rural community, Thailand. Journal
of Environmental & Earth Sciences, 2, 32–39. https://dx.doi.org/10.7282/T30Z71NB
Ritz, B., & Yu, F. (2000). Parkinson’s disease mortality and pesticide exposure in California
1984–1994. International Journal of Epidemiology, 29, 323–329.
Samsel, A., & Seneff, S. (2013). Glyphosate’s suppression of Cytochrome P450 enzymes
and Amino Acid biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to modern diseases.
Entropy, 15, 1416–1463.
Song, Y. (2014). Insight into the mode of action of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D)
as an herbicide. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology, 56, 106–113.
Sawaya, W. N., Al-Awadhi, F. A., Saeed, T., Al-Omair, A., Ahmad, N., Husain, A.,
Khalafawi, S., Al-Omirah, H., Dashti, B., & Al-Amiri, H. (1999). Kuwait’s total diet
study: Dietary intake of organochlorine, carbamate, benzimidazole and phenylurea
pesticide residues. Journal of AOAC International, 82, 1458–1465.
Schwartz, A., & Bar, R. (1995). Cyclodextrin-enhanced degradation of toluene and p-toluic
acid by Pseudomonas putida. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 61, 2727–
2731.
Seenaiah, D., Reddy, P. R., Reddy, G. M., Padmaja, A., & Padmavathi, V. (2014). Synthesis,
antimicrobial and cytotoxic activities of pyrimidinyl benzoxazole, benzothiazole and
benzimidazole. European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 77, 1–7.
Shareef, K., & Shaw, G. (2008). Sorption kinetics of 2,4-D and carbaryl in selected
agricultural soils of northern Iraq: Application of a dual-rate model. Chemosphere, 72,
8–15. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.02.056
Shelton, J. F., Geraghty, E. M., Tancredi, D. J., Delwiche, L. D., Schmidt, R. J., Ritz, B.,
Hertz-& Picciotto, I. (2014). Neurodevelopmental disorders and prenatal residential
proximity to agricultural pesticides: The CHARGE study. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 122, 1103–1109.
Shasha, B., Trimnell, D., & Otey, F. (1981). Encapsulation of pesticides in a starch-calcium
adduct. Journal of Polymer Science A. Polymer Chemistry, 19, 1891–1899.
Shi, W., Qian, X., Song, G., Zhang, R., & Li, R. (2000). Syntheses and insecticidal activities
of novel 2-fluorophenyl-5-aryl/cyclopropyl-1, 3, 4-oxadiazoles. Journal of Fluorine
Chemistry, 106, 173–179.
Swann, R., Laskowski, D., McCall, P., Vander Kuy, K., & Dishburger, H. (1983). A rapid
method for the estimation of the environmental parameters octanol/water partition
coefficient, soil sorption constant, water to air ratio, and water solubility. In F. A.
Gunther & J. D. Gunther (Eds.), Residue reviews (pp. 17–28). Springer.
Székács, A., Mörtl, M., & Darvas, B. (2015). Monitoring pesticide residues in surface and
ground water in Hungary: Surveys in 1990–2015. Journal of Chemistry. https://doi.
org/10.1155/2015/717948
Terms Safety & International Programme on Chemical Safety. (2005). The WHO
recommended classification of pesticides by hazard and guidelines to classification:
2004. IPCS, WHO.
van der Werf, H. M. (1996). Assessing the impact of pesticides on the environment.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 60, 81–96.
Villeneuve, J.-P., Carvalho, F., Fowler, S., & Cattini, C. (1999). Levels and trends of
PCBs, chlorinated pesticides and petroleum hydrocarbons in mussels from the NW

138 Asia-Pacic Journal of Rural Development 30(1–2)
Mediterranean coast: Comparison of concentrations in 1973/1974 and 1988/1989.
Science of the Total Environment, 237, 57–65.
Voss, J.-U., Roller, M., Brinkmann, E., & Mangelsdorf, I. (2005). Nephrotoxicity of organic
solvents: Biomarkers for early detection. International Archives of Occupational and
Environmental Health, 78, 475–485.
Waichman, A. V., Eve, E., & da Silva Nina, N. C. (2007). Do farmers understand the
information displayed on pesticide product labels? A key question to reduce pesticides
exposure and risk of poisoning in the Brazilian Amazon. Crop Protection, 26, 576–583.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2006.05.011
Wang, Q. M., Sun, H. K., & Huang, R. Q. (2004). Synthesis and herbicidal activity
of (Z)-ethoxyethyl 2-cyano-3-(2-methylthio-5-pyridylmethylamino) acrylates.
Heteroatom Chemistry, 15, 67–70.
Zahm, S. H., Weisenburger, D. D., Babbitt, P. A., Saal, R. C., Vaught, J. B., Cantor, K. P., &
Blair, A. (1990). A case-control study of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and the herbicide
2, 4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2, 4-D) in eastern Nebraska. Epidemiology, 1(5),
349–356.
Zenker, M. J., Borden, R. C., & Barlaz, M. A. (2003). Occurrence and treatment of 1,
4-dioxane in aqueous environments. Environmental Engineering Science, 20, 423–432.
Zhang, Q., Zhang, B., & Wang, C. (2014). Ecotoxicological effects on the earthworm Eisenia
fetida following exposure to soil contaminated with imidacloprid. Environmental
Science and Pollution Research, 21, 12345–12353.
Zhou, J. L., Fileman, T. W., Evans, S., Donkin, P., Mantoura, R. F. C., & Rowland, S.
J. (1996). Seasonal distribution of dissolved pesticides and polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons in the Humber Estuary and Humber coastal zone. Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 32, 599–608.