Our findings indicate that airborne pollution from pesticides in residential areas close to cultivated areas, especially vineyards, is a significant concern for both human health in neighboring residential areas and for edible crop plants and their food derivatives. Verona continues to be a prominent region for pesticide use («Fitosanitari», s.d.). Although we only investigated a limited number of sites, the results presented in this study are of great importance, as they demonstrate the presence of Folpet-phthalimide and other pesticides in residential areas adjacent to cultivated areas, particularly vineyards.
In our study, the first ten most frequently detected pesticides in 2021 are all used in the defense of the vine; of these, six are for exclusive use on vines, three, although presenting other possibilities on the label, are marketed almost exclusively on the wine market, while the last one, glyphosate, is also widely used on other crops or uncultivated areas. From this list it is evident that the research results in 2021 are greatly affected by the sampling period (end of July); the molecules found are for the vast majority referable to pesticides that can be used on crops in the summer period, while pesticides for spring use are almost completely missing (e.g., dithiocarbamates). Also noteworthy is the presence of one molecule that is not permitted for use in agriculture (Clorpiriphos methil, prohibited in 2020). 2022 sampling carried out in three different times starting from the end of June also made it possible to identify the presence of typically spring pesticides, such as residues of dithiocarbamates (CS2), a fungicide family, or fluazinam, consistently with the findings of (Sammartano et al. 2020). Furthermore, the climatic trend of 2022, strongly characterized by high temperatures and the absence of summer rains, has in fact limited the use of summer antidowny mildews, all in favor of antioidics. However, the vine remains the main source of pollutants with eight exclusive presences in the top ten. For the pesticides which have been traced several times, their values vary greatly from one site to another: it is not possible to define the cause of this variability, as it could depend on numerous factors, such as the different time elapsed from the treatment to the sampling, the different distance from the place of the treatment and others. The rainfalls could be implicated but the collection without previously raining days and the climatic stability of the summers of 2021 and allow us to exclude or minimize their impact.
Many of the detected pesticides are dangerous for the environment, and one third is dangerous for man. Most of the risk phrase detected is dangerous not only for the operator (e.g. the farmer) but also for people who don’t handle the pesticide. In particular, although most of the risk phrases are not dangerous or can be found according to the regulations in the vicinity of houses or sensitive places, 25% of the risk phrases of the products found within 30 m of the cultivated fields should not be detected in that area (possible, but not confirmed, toxicity). Fortunately, within 40 m only 2% of the risk phrases concern products with a proven risk of toxicity to humans.
Human health
Studies link pesticide exposure to respiratory issues, allergies, and neurotoxicity in children, potentially affecting cognitive functions (Buralli, Dultra, e Ribeiro 2020; Grandjean e Landrigan 2014; Miani et al. 2021). Folpet, a specific pesticide, has raised concerns regarding carcinogenicity. Additionally, the impact of pesticides on human fertility and their role as endocrine disruptors are under scrutiny, with inconsistent findings (Roeleveld e Bretveld 2008; Foster et al. 2008; Requena et al. 2019).
Legal aspects
What are the legal grounds that justify this obligation and also imply the right of citizens and individuals to see the necessary arrangements made? A rigorous normative about the use of pesticides in order to reduce to negligible levels these chemicals in resident neighboring areas, is crucial, both for human safety and agronomy. They are rooted in International Declarations(Stockholm, 1972)(Janeiro, 1992), in a variety of European regulations(1907/2006, s.d.)(1107/2009, s.d.) and directives (2009/128/EC, s.d.), which establish a framework to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides (SUD), and in some Italian laws (152/06). Moreover, in 2021, a United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution(Human Rights Council 48/13, 2021) unequivocally enshrined the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. This statement marks the clear recognition of a healthy environment as a prerequisite for the enjoyment of human, civil, political, social and economic rights of all people on earth. All these regulations, together with the provisions on POPs, or persistent organic pollutants rest, precisely, on the identification of substances that have the potential to cause harm to the environment and humans(Stockholm Convention, 2001) (Regulation (EU) 2019/517, 2019).
Potential biases and limitations
The present study focused on private gardens contamination by pesticides. We selected sampling sites neighboring cultivated area; therefore we cannot extend our results to the general population in a risk assessment framework. We aimed to detect presence and number of pesticides as an indicator of a potential health hazard.
Imputing such hazard to use of pesticides in farming depends on an adequate control of other sources of contamination (direct use in gardening, pets, etc.). Our questionnaire should had provided information on this. We cannot exclude some misclassification by the respondents. The fact that the study relied on spontaneous participation and community engagement could have produced biased responses in two opposite directions: volunteers could stress one sources of contamination and underestimated others (e.g., use of pesticides in gardening) or volunteers could be more motivated to provide accurate responses to the survey.
We employ the Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) technique for our analytical measurements to ensure the reliability and accuracy of our data. This rigorous approach enables us to confidently identify the presence or absence of pesticides in our samples, providing a solid foundation for subsequent hazard assessment. By adhering to QA/QC standards, we ensure that our findings are robust and credible, thereby facilitating a more informed and reliable hazard identification process, which is crucial for addressing public health and environmental safety concerns related to pesticide exposure.
Moreover, in this study, we strategically focused on identifying the presence or absence of pesticides in residential gardens adjacent to agricultural areas, aligning our approach with hazard identification methodologies like those employed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). By determining whether specific pesticides are detectable in the environment, we aim to highlight potential exposures that could pose health risks to the local population. This step is crucial for understanding the broader implications of pesticide use in proximity to human habitats. However, it's important to note that our analysis does not delve into risk assessment, which would require a more detailed evaluation of the potential health impacts based on the levels of exposure and the toxicity of the detected pesticides. Our findings serve as a foundational step, indicating areas of concern that warrant further investigation to fully assess the risks and inform appropriate regulatory and public health responses.