| Date post: | 21-Jul-2016 |
| Category: |
Documents |
| Upload: | didiherchacon-chaverri |
| View: | 13 times |
| Download: | 1 times |
Evaluating threats to humans and aquatic
ecosystems posed by agriculture around the
Rio Sierpe, Costa Rica
Evaluar las amenazas representada para los seres humanos y los ecosistemas
acuáticos por la agricultura en el Río Sierpe, Costa Rica
Willy Eldridge, Dave Arscott, and Bern Sweeney
SWRC Report 2012009
Final Report
submitted to the
Blue Moon Fund
Grant 32023
11 December 2012
1
I. SUMMARY
We determined that food fish in a tributary to the Rio Grande de Térraba near the town of
Puerto Cortez and in the Estero Azul on the Rio Sierpe are contaminated with pesticide
residues that could threaten consumers. In the U.S.A., the observed concentrations would
lead to restricted consumption advisories for machaca (machaca or sabalo, Brycon behreae,
0.7-1.1 meals per month), tilapia (tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus, 3.6 meals per month) and
robalo aleta manchada (blackfin snook, Centropomus medius, 6.5 meals per month) for fish
caught in these two locations. Other species such as pargo (snapper, Lutjanus sp.), bagre (sea
catfish, Cathorops sp.), camarones de aqua dulce (freshwater shrimp, Palaemonetes sp.), and
piangua (cockles, Anadara tuberculosa) from elsewhere in the Humedal Nacional Térraba-
Sierpe (HNTS), the freshwater portion of the Rio Sierpe or lower Rio Térraba, or from the
ocean near the Rio Sierpe are safe to eat in unlimited quantities (i.e., >16 meals per month).
These recommendations are based upon 227 g (0.5 lb) of skin-on fish filet, whole clam or
whole shrimp per meal and apply to a 70 kg (154 lbs) person. Cleaning or cooking which
reduces the fat content, where most of the pesticides are stored, may reduce the risk to
consumers, whereas consuming the head or organs may increase the risk to consumers. Other
routes of exposure such as water, soil, other foods, or occupational exposure, may increase
the risk to consumers.
The concentrations of 63 organochlorine, organophospate, pyrethroid and trazine pesticides
or their breakdown products were measured in 41 fish and shellfish samples representing 7
species of fish, 1 species of mollusc and 1 species of crustacean from 19 sites throughout the
HNTS, Rio Sierpe, lower Rio Grande de Térraba and ocean off of the Rio Sierpe collected in
August and November 2011. A subset of 29 organochlorines and their derivatives were
measured in 4 additional shellfish samples. All samples contained detectable levels of at least
1 or as many as 25 chemicals and a total of 34 chemicals were detected across all fish and
shellfish representing 20 pesticides. The pesticides that pose the biggest threat to humans
tended to be organochlorine pesticides that have been prohibited in Costa Rica for decades
such as Dieldrin and DDT. The concentrations detected in fish filets suggest that no new
application has occurred since the bans were put in place a few decades ago, but rather
current concentrations reflect the persistent and bioaccumulative nature of these chemicals.
Chlorpyrifos, a pesticide whose use in Costa Rica is permitted with restrictions, was also
detected at concentrations that could be a concern. Other current use pesticides were
occasionally detected in high quantities in fish sampled within or near rice farms, but these
did not reach concentrations thought to pose a health risk to human consumers.
Of the three major forms of agriculture in the area, rice farming is a likely source for new
contaminants. Although farmers have shifted towards pesticides that breakdown or leave the
system quickly or pose a low health risk to consumers, some of the pesticides in use are
extremely toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates in small doses. Two fish kills were noted
downstream from rice farms in the HNTS in 2011 following aerial application of pesticides.
The threats to humans from pesticide application may be shifting from a risk to human health
caused by ingesting contaminated fish to a threat to the food supply due to reduced
abundance and biomass of food fish.
2
Future research should focus on collecting additional information on fish harvest and
consumption to more accurately evaluate threats from eating contaminated fish, and
determining the status of food fish stocks caught by small scale commercial and artisanal
fisherman in southwestern Costa Rica.
RESUMEN
Se determinó que el pescado atrapado en un afluente del Río Grande de Térraba, cerca de la
ciudad de Puerto Cortez, y en el Estero Azul del Río Sierpe, estaba contaminado con residuos
de plaguicidas que pueden ser peligrosos para los consumidores. En los Estados Unidos, las
concentraciones observadas habrían generado recomendaciones de restricción del consumo
de pescado atrapado en esos dos sitios: para la machaca o sábalo (Brycon behrea) a 0.7-1.1
veces (comidas) por mes; la tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) a 3.6 veces por mes; y el róbalo
aleta manchada (Centropomus medius) a 6.5 veces por mes. Otras especies, como el pargo
(Lutjanus sp.), el bagre (Cathorops sp.), los camarones de agua dulce (Palaemonetes sp.) y la
piangüa (Anadara tuberculosa), pescadas en otras áreas del Humedal Nacional de Térraba-
Sierpe (HNTS), las porciones de agua dulce del Río Sierpe y los bajos del Río Térraba, así
como en el mar cerca de la boca del Río Sierpe, son perfectamente aptas para el consumo en
cantidades ilimitadas (es decir, más de 16 comidas por mes). Estas recomendaciones se basan
en porciones de 227g (media libra) de filete de pescado con piel, de almeja entera o de
camarón entero por comida y se aplican a personas de unos 70 Kg. (154 libras). Limpiar o
cocinar el pescado, lo que reduce el contenido de grasa que es donde se acumulan los
pesticidas, puede reducir el riesgo para los consumidores, mientras que consumir la cabeza o
los órganos puede aumentar el riesgo. Otras fuentes de exposición, tales como el agua, el
suelo, otras comidas o exposición laboral a los pesticidas, puede aumentar el riesgo para los
consumidores.
Se midió la concentración de 63 pesticidas organoclorados, organofosfatados, piretoides y de
trazina, así como de sus productos de descomposición, en 41 muestras de pescados y
mariscos, que representan 7 especies de peces, 1 especie de molusco y 1 especie de crustáceo
recolectados en 19 sitios del HNTS, el Río Sierpe, los bajos del Río Grande de Térraba y el
océano en la boca del Río Sierpe entre agosto y noviembre del 2011. Se midió también la
concentración de un subconjunto de 29 organoclorados y sus derivados en 4 muestras
adicionales de mariscos. Todas las muestras contenían niveles detectables de al menos 1 y de
hasta 25 sustancias químicas, y se detectó un total de 34 productos químicos, representando
20 plaguicidas, entre todos los pescados y mariscos analizados. Los plaguicidas que
representan mayor peligro para los seres humanos tienden a ser organoclorados que están
prohibidos en Costa Rica desde hace décadas, como la Dieldrina y el DDT. Las
concentraciones detectadas en los filetes de pescado sugieren que no es que se ha vuelto a
aplicar estas sustancias desde la prohibición hace varias décadas, sino que las
concentraciones actuales reflejan la naturaleza persistente y bioacumulativa de estas
sustancias químicas. También se detectaron concentraciones de Chlorpyrifos, un pesticida de
uso restringido en Costa Rica, en cantidades que podrían resultar preocupantes. Se detectó la
presencia de otros plaguicidas de uso común en altas concentraciones en muestras de pescado
obtenidas dentro o en las cercanías de fincas arroceras, pero no llegaron a tener
concentraciones que puedan representar un riesgo para la salud de los consumidores
3
humanos.
De las tres actividades agrícolas principales de la zona, la producción arrocera es una fuente
potencial de nuevos contaminantes. Aunque cada vez los agricultores utilizan más
plaguicidas que se descomponen o abandonan el sistema rápidamente, o que representan un
riesgo muy bajo para la salud de los consumidores, algunos de los productos utilizados son
extremadamente tóxicos en pequeñas dosis para los peces y los invertebrados acuáticos. En el
2011, dos muertes de peces fueron anotadas en el HNTS, río abajo de fincas arroceras,
después de una aplicación aérea de plaguicidas. El peligro a la salud humana en relación con
el uso de plaguicidas parece estar pasando de un riesgo debido al consumo de pescado
contaminado, a una amenaza a la disponibilidad de alimentos, producto de la reducción de
abundancia y biomasa de pescado.
Las futuras investigaciones deberían enfocarse en recopilar información adicional sobre la
pesca y el consumo de pescado, para poder evaluar con mayor precisión las amenazas
generadas por el consumo de pescado contaminado, y determinar el estado de las reservas de
pescado capturado por pescadores comerciales y artesanales de pequeña escala en el suroeste
de Costa Rica
II. HAVE THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES CHANGED? HOW?
The goal and objectives of the project have not changed. The goal of the project was to evaluate
the threats to humans posed by agriculture around the Rio Sierpe, Costa Rica. To achive this goal
we addressed the following objectives:
1. Develop an understanding of agricultural activities within the Rio Sierpe and lower Rio
Grande de Térraba watersheds
2. Identify and sample food fish and shellfish species
3. Evaluate variation in pesticide residue concentrations within and among fish and shellfish
species and sites
4. Evaluate risk to consumers from eating contaminated food fish and shellfish.
5. Develop an understanding of water physiochemistry
III. ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Study area: The project was conducted in the vicinity of the Humedal Nacional Térraba-
Sierpe (HNTS) in the Osa Province, Costa Rica. The study area included the lower Rio
Grande de Térraba where the Rainforest Alliance has established connections with rice
farmers, as well as the freshwater portions of the Rio Sierpe where we had previously
conducted a project for the Blue Moon Fund.
Objectives, Methods, and Results
1. Develop an understanding of agricultural activities within the Rio Sierpe and lower
Rio Grande de Térraba watersheds
4
We initiated a literature review, discussions with the Rainforest Alliance, and
discussions with local land-owners, farmers, fisherman, guides, and performed
ground truthing to develop an understanding of land use within the Rio Sierpe and
Rio Térraba watersheds.
The ECOTICOS group created GIS maps of existing land use including a time
series of maps depicting how land use has changed over time in the Rio Sierpe
and lower Rio Térraba watersheds. Bananas were the dominant crop within the
Rio Sierpe and Rio Térraba watersheds until the 1970’s. Current agriculture
includes rice, palm oil, bananas, teak, and grazing. We used GIS information
from the ECOTICOS group to create a map of rice farms, other agriculture and
mangrove/wetlands in the region (Figure 1).
a. Size and location of rice paddies
Rice, of the species Oryza sativa, is a very important crop in Costa Rica. A total
of 63,171 hectares in Costa Rica were dedicated to rice in 2009, second in area
only to coffee (Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado, Ministerio de Agricultura y
Ganadería. Sistema de Certificación Voluntario en Buenas Prácticas Agrícolas
para Productos Frescos de Consumo Nacional).
The Osa region is among the most important for rice farming in Costa Rica. We
observed rice farms within the Rio Térraba and Rio Sierpe watersheds on a scale
of artisanal farms of a few hectares to large industrial farms of thousands of
hectares. Small artisanal farms are often located within the HNTS wetland or
mangrove forest, not accessible by road, and all operations are performed by
hand. Some of the artisanal rice farmers in the Térraba region are organized into
the Asociación de Arroceros Artesanales de Térraba (headed by Dagoberto
Oconitrillo). In large farms machines are used for most operations and pesticides
are applied by plane, tractor, and with backpack sprayers. The Agrosur Company
owns the two largest farms within the Rio Sierpe and Rio Térraba watersheds
(Marcelo Aurgios, personal communication).
The Rainforest Alliance provided contact information for Sr. Oconitrillo with
whom we discussed farming practices. Most rice farms that we visited sow two
crops each year. Sr. Oconitrillo said that he plants his first crop in April and
harvests in August. He then waits 15-20 days and plants his second crop in
September and harvest in December or January. He’s been farming for 30 years.
The low price for rice in Costa Rica, driven down by cheap imports (Hermann
Fabrega, rice farmer near Rio Térraba, personal communication), is forcing some
farmers to switch to other crops. Hermann Fabrega, another farmer that we
connected with through the Rainforest Alliance, has been operating a relatively
large rice farm near the mouth of the Rio Térraba. In 2011 Sr. Fabrega planted
only one crop of rice forgoing the second crop because he had not sold his first
5
crop. The low price of rice made it hard to justify to upfront expense of a second
crop. He indicated to us that soon he will be converting his rice paddy to African
Palm.
b. Pesticides use in Costa Rica with an emphasis on rice.
The list of approved pesticides in Costa Rica is constantly changing as new
chemicals enter the market and old chemicals are removed because they are
obsolete or are banned because of undue risks to humans or the environment.
Costa Rica is a signatory to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants and ratified the treaty on 6 Feb 2007 banning many of the most
hazardous pesticides. There has been a general shift in developed and some
developing countries from long-lasting organochlorines (e.g., DDT, dieldrin) to
chemicals which may be more toxic to target organisms, but break down quickly
and have a lower potential for bioaccumulation (Carvalho 2006, Schreinemachers
and Tipraqsa 2012). The “circle of poision” is the process by which the most
dangerous pesticides are prohibited in the countries where they are manufactured
but remain legal in developing countries that export crops on which those
dangerous pesticides are used back to the countries where the pesticides are
manufactured. The list of countries in which this occurs no longer includes Costa
Rica (Galt 2008b). However, some residents of the Osa Province expressed
concern with compliance with the bans and restrictions. We heard stories that, if
true, would constitute violations of existing standards such as off label use of
chemicals or re-labeling of containers at the border.
Costa Rica does not manufacture pesticides on a large-scale, therefore most of the
active ingredients in pesticides are imported from elsewhere. The Instituto
Regional de Estudios en Sustancias Tóxicas (IRET) of the Universidad Nacional
(UNA) in Herida, Costa Rica maintains a database of pesticide imports (Muñoz
2011), which was used to develop a list of current use pesticides in Costa Rica
(Appendix Table 1). To determine which pesticides have been or are currently
used on rice we consulted peer-reviewed publications, grey literature, industry
advice, information collected during interviews with rice farmers conducted by
the Rainforest Alliance, and by reading labels on containers disposed of within
rice farms in the Rio Sierpe and Rio Grande de Térraba watersheds (Appendix
Table 2). Lab analyses also identified a few additional chemicals which may have
been used on rice or one of the other crops grown in the region.
We were not able to determine the amount of pesticide used on rice, but factors
besides crop value may necessitate the use of larger amounts of pesticide on rice
such as the regulatory risk and pest susceptibility, as well as other crop specific
circumstances (Galt 2008a).
c. Fish kills
6
Figure 2. A dead robalo (Centropomus sp.)
in Estero Tajual (photo by Dagoberto
Oconitrillo on 7 Aug 2011). The fish shows
the erect fins, open gape and bulging eyes
typical of a fish killed by poisoning. Sr.
Oconitrillo said that he observed a number
of dead fish at this site shortly after
pesticides were applied to a nearby rice
farm by airplane.
Fish kills due to pesticides are nothing new to Latin America (e.g., Keiser Jr. et al.
1973, Polidoro 2007) but some of the current use pesticides are extremely toxic to
fish and shellfish (Schulz 2004). A few residents living near the Rio Sierpe and
Rio Térraba indicated that there have been fish kills in association with the aerial
application of pesticides to the larger rice farms. Sr. Oconitrillo said that there
was a fish kill one month prior to our August 2011 visit in Estero Tajual (local
name), a northern tributary of the Rio Térraba, following application of pesticides
to a rice farm just upstream from the site of the dieoff. He does not know the
name of the chemicals applied. He shared photos with us which he took at the
time of the dieoff. The photo in Figure 2 depicts a robalo with flared fins and
gills, gaping mouth and bulging eyes consistent with fish that died due to
chemical poisoning (Meyer and Barclay 1990). Geovanni Jimenez, a boat guide
out of Sierpe, also said that there are fish kills twice each year on the Rio Sierpe.
He took us to a tributary of the Estero Azul where he saw dead fish in April of
2011. He said that pesticides are applied when the rice is 15 cm (6 inches). He
does not know the name of the chemical that is applied.
One resident, who’s name was not
recorded, implicated pesticide
residues entering surface waters for
repeated die offs at the shrimp farm
within the HNTS mangrove forest.
The resident was a young employee
of one of the palm farms. The
repeated die offs ultimately lead to
the shrimp farm closing in 2011. The
assumption was that these pesticides
were from rice farms. Pesticide
poisoning has also been implicated in
die offs and reduced production at
other shrimp farms in Latin America
(Nomen et al. 2012).
Marcello Aurigos lives on Isla
Zacate at Boca Zacate, at the mouth
of HNTS. This island is about 5-8
km downstream from the nearest
farm. Sr. Aurigos makes a living by
extracting natural resources such as fish and piangua from the Humedal Nacional
de Térraba-Sierpe and the ocean. Sr. Aurgios stated that the freshwater that passes
by his island comes from both the Rio Sierpe and Rio Térraba. He knows because
he sees hyacinth which is only in the Rio Sierpe and palm and banana leaves
known from the Rio Térraba, although most of the water is from the Rio Sierpe.
He recalled with uncanny certainty that it was twenty-seven years before our
August 2011 visit when he last saw dead fish, clams, caiman and crocodiles by his
island. The die-offs occurred regularly when bananas in Sierpe were sprayed by
7
plane. At that time, much of what is now planted in rice or palm was planted in
bananas. He has not noticed impacts near his island from pesticides applied to the
large rice farms upstream in the Rio Sierpe or Rio Térraba.
2. Identify and sample food fish and shellfish species
a. Identify fish and shellfish species in the Rio Sierpe likely to be consumed
We generated a list of common food fish and shellfish species based on reviews
of the literature and talks with local fishing guides. The most important marine or
diadromous fish species in the HNTS are members of the genera Caranx,
Centropomus, Diapterus, Lutjanus, and Mugil. The large characid Brycon
beherae may be taken in fresh water. The cockle Anadara tuberculosa (locally
known as piangua), a delicacy often used in ceviche, may be the most important
economic resource within the HNTS (Mainardi 1996, Sierra et al. 2007). Other
mollusks and a number of marine and freshwater shrimp species are also
harvested near the HNTS (Mainardi 1996).
We supplemented this list through discussions and observations. We quickly
came to realize that almost any species may be retained for personal consumption,
although some residents indicated that they would not retain puffers, parrot fish,
or needle fish.
Recent estimates suggest that per capita fish consumption in Costa Rica might be
very close to 6 kg per person per year, which coincides with INCOPESCA’s
marketing department’s unpublished data (FAO 2010). Although fish appear to be
an important part of the diet for most people in the Osa region, no numbers on
catch or consumption could be found to rank species importance. There is one fish
market in Palmar Norte, although in towns of this size it is typical to buy fish
from a vendor selling from a truck who shows up periodically. Both the market
and the mobile vendors sell fish brought from all over Costa Rica, including the
HNTS. Restaurants also sell fish from all over including the HNTS.
i. Tilapia
According to Bussing (2002), tilapia of the genus Oreochromis and
Tilapia, which are native to Africa, were introduced into Costa Rica for
the aquaculture industry. One guide from the town of Sierpe said that
tilapia were farmed in a pond near the Estero Azul and probably escaped
from there during a hurricane in the late 1980’s or early 1990’s (he
couldn’t remember the exact date, but possibly Hurricane Joan in 1988).
The farm is no longer in operation, but he reported that tilapia are now
found in most of the tributaries of the Sierpe. His father fishes for them by
spear as they do not bite a hook. Steve, a fishing guide from the town of
Sierpe, suggested that tilapia have been present for only a few years and
8
that they may be eating freshwater shrimp. He suggested that predation by
tilapia has reduced freshwater shrimp abundance in many tributaries.
ii. Freshwater shrimp
Freshwater shrimp (Palaemonetes sp.) are eaten by locals and are used as
fish bait in the freshwater portion of the Rio Sierpe. We tried to collect
them in the Estero Azul (site 13) without luck. We had limited success in
the Estero Olla downstream of a large rice farm (site 22). Shrimp were
collected at a faster rate in the Rio Chacuaco (site 19) suggesting their
density was higher in this relatively healthy southern tributary to the Rio
Sierpe. Shrimp were also relatively abundant at the town of Sierpe
drinking water supply (site 12). During our 2009 survey, residents
indicated that shrimp are also present in the Rio Salama Viejo above the
drinking water intake for a local Finca. The residents said that poachers
used chemicals to collect them.
iii. Piangua
Piangua (mud cockel, Anadara tuberculosa) are commonly eaten in
ceviche and are a major economic resource of the HNTS. Piangua are
found on a number of mangrove islands in the HNTS that are inundated
with half to full strength sea water (Campos-Montero et al. 1990). Piangua
can be collected by hand during low tide and piangua harvest is regulated
with a minimum size of 46-47mm total length (Sierra et al. 2007). The
status of the Piangua in the HNTS has not been evaluated recently, but
thirty years ago it was relatively healthy (Campos-Montero et al. 1990).
Sr. Aurgios said that Isla Boca Brava to the north of the HNTS is no
longer good for piangua. The soil is not good and too much freshwater
passes over them. Many years ago it was better. Sr. Aurgios indicated that
there are also piangua to the south of the HNTS. Boca Llorona is part of
Corcovado Park and it is illegal to collect there without a scientific permit.
The piangua population there is healthy. It is legal to collect in Boca
Ganado and according to Sr. Aurgios the abundance is depleted due to
overharvest. There are small-scale artisanal rice farms and pastures near
the piangua islands where most farming activities are done by hand.
b. Identify locations where food fish are captured
Commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishing occurs within the estuarine
portion of the Rio Sierpe and the ocean. Recreational and subsistence fishing
occurs within the freshwater portion. During the rainy season (May-Dec.) the
local fishing guides prefer to fish for robalo (snook, Centropomus sp.) in
freshwater.
c. Conduct two sampling trips to the region Aug. 16-21 and Nov. 3-8, 2011.
9
The August trip coincided with harvest of the first rice crop of the season (2
crops/year). The November trip occurred during the middle of the second growing
season. During both trips fish were sampled in a number of sites (Figure 3,
Appendix Figure 1), many of which overlap with locations where fish are caught
for consumption. By comparing pesticide residue concentrations in fish from
different locations we could determine the threat posed by fish from different
parts of the region. In one farm we sampled along a continuum starting in a ditch
within a rice farm through to the main channel.
Sampling targeted the principle fish species, although a few non-target species
were retained for analysis (Table 1). Our target list included fish of the genera
Caranx, Centropomus, Diapterus, Lutjanus, Mugil, and Oreochromis, the cockle
Anadara tuberculosa, and the freshwater shrimp Palaemonetes sp. In August
2011, we also sampled some characids and poecilids that were present in the
canals in rice farms even though they were not indicated to be food fish.
Sites were accessed by boat or vehicle as appropriate. We procured the assistance
of local fishing guides and residents throughout the HNTS to identify and access
sampling sites. Sr. Oconitrillo and Sr. Auguros took us to sample piangua
(cockles, Anadara tuberculosa) in the Humedal Nacional Térraba-Sierpe during
the August 2011 sampling trip. Fish were sampled by hook and line, 0.6 cm mesh
cast net, 0.6 cm mesh beach seine, 7.6 cm mesh gill net and by purchasing fish
directly from fisherman or from a fish market (See Appendix Figure 1 for the gear
used at a particular site). We also harvested piangua by hand at three locations in
the HNTS. Total lenth and weight was recorded on the day of capture. Species
identification was primarily done by WHE from fresh or preserved specimens or
photographs with the aid or regional ichthyofuanal guides and past experience.
Dr. Ross Robertson at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute was consulted
to resolve the specific identity of Lutjanus.
A total of 301 individual fish and shellfish were collected during the two trips
(Table 1). Noteworthy collections include several species of robalo (snook,
Centropomus sp.) in fresh, brackish, and ocean waters and the marine species
pargo colorado (red snapper, Lutjanus colorado) at two freshwater sites in the Rio
Sierpe. We also collected quite a few tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), a freshwater
species, in canals draining a large rice farm on the Rio Sierpe. Additional species
and their sampling locations are indicated in Table 1.
Tissue samples for pesticide analysis were taken from large fish the same day
they were captured by removing the filet from both sides of the fish or a portion
of the filet near the head. Smaller fish were processed whole. All utensils and
surfaces were washed with diethylether and allowed to dry before removing the
tissue sample and processing took place on a fresh piece of muffle furnace
cleaned aluminum foil to avoid cross contamination. Fish tissue samples were
individually wrapped in cleaned aluminum foil. Unshucked piangua and whole
10
shrimp from a single sampling event were combined and wrapped in cleaned
aluminum foil. All samples were stored frozen until reaching the SWRC
laboratory in the US. At the SWRC laboratory, skin-on filets were removed from
remaining fish, and piangua were removed from their shell. Shrimp were left
whole. Diethylether was used to clean all utensils between samples and
processing took place on a fresh piece of clean aluminum foil for each sample to
avoid cross contamination. A 10-20g sample of individual or composited skin-on
filet, whole clam or whole shrimp was placed in a borosilicate vial and stored
frozen (-20°C).
3. Evaluate variation in pesticide residue concentrations within and among species
and sites
a. Measure pesticide residue levels in fish and shellfish
This report presents the results of pesticide analyses of 45 individual or
composited fish or shellfish samples collected from 19 locations in the Rio Sierpe
and Rio Grande de Térraba, the Térraba-Sierpe Mangrove Forest, and from the
ocean in August or November 2011 (Table 2). (No fish of shellfish from sites 5, 8,
9, 11 or 16 were tested). A total of 41 individual descaled skin-on fish filets or
composited piangua samples were analyzed for 63 organochlorine,
organophosphate, triazine and pyrethroid pesticides or their derivatives using a
standard protocol (EPA-821-R-08-001, Method 1699: Pesticides in Water, Soil,
Sediment, Biosolids, and Tissue by HRGC/HRMS) by AXYS Analytical
Services, Ltd. in Sydney, British Columbia (method MLA-035; Table 3). Two
additional composited piangua samples and two composited shrimp samples were
analyzed for 29 organochlorine chemicals using high resolution gas
chromotagraphy with mass spectroscopy (AXYS Analytical Services, Method
MLA-028; Table 3). Frozen tissue samples were shipped overnight on wet ice
from the SWRC to AXYS Analytical Services. All samples were still frozen upon
arrival. All tissue processing, spectroscopy and data quality control was
conducted at AXYS Analytical Services. Lipid concentration was also determined
as part of the pesticide analysis.
b. Legacy pesticides persist throughout the study area
A total of 34 of 63 chemicals were detected in fish or shellfish representing the
active ingredient or breakdown product of 20 different pesticides (Table 4,
Appendix Table 3). Eight of the 20 pesticides detected are legacy pesticides that
have been banned in Costa Rica for decades. Three restricted use pesticides were
also detected.
The pesticides that were detected in the most locations were the banned pesticides
Dieldrin and Hexachlorobenzene, along with the restriced use pesticide
Endosulfan, which were each found in fish or shellfish from 18 of 19 sites and the
fish market (Figure 5). The banned pesticides Chlordane, DDT, Endrin,
11
Heptachlor and Mirex were also common being detected in 9 or more sites.
Banned and restricted use pesticides persist throughout the study area.
Most current use pesticides were found in fewer sites. Chlorphyriphos was found
in 10 sites, Chlorothalonil in 7 sites and Diazinon in 4 sites. The current use
pesticides Ametryn, Atrazine, Captan, Cypermethrin, Octachlorostyrene,
Permethrin, Primiphos-methyl, Quintozene and Terbufos and the banned pesticide
beta-HCH (a breakdown product of Lindane) were all rare each being detected in
only 1 or 2 sites.
c. Species differences in pesticide residues
All samples contained detectable levels of at least 1 and as many as 25 chemicals
(Appendix Table 3). The concentration of organochlorines was highest on average
in tilapia, followed by bagre (sea catfish) and machaca (Figure 4). The bagre
contained the highest average concentration of triazines, organophospates, and
pyrethroids, but it should be noted that only one composite bagre sample of three
small individuals was screened. The variability of pesticide concentrations within
and among species could reflect differences in a number of intrinsic factors,
including size, age, growth rate, diet, feeding rate, tissue composition, migration
patterns, and the size of the home range (Borgå et al. 2004).
i. ANCOVA
An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) considering species, lipid content
and length revealed that species was the only consistent predictor of
pesticide concentration among the four classes of pesticides (Appendix
Table 3). Lipid content was a significant predictor of organochlorine and
pyrethroid concentration. Length was a significant predictor only with
pyrethroids in interaction with other terms.
ii. Lipids
Most of the pesticides are lipid soluble and, in general, pesticide residue
concentration increased with the lipid content of the organism (Figure 4).
Machaca, which had the highest lipid levels of the species examined, also
contained relatively high concentrations of most pesticides. Tilapia and
bagre also had high lipid levels and high concentrations of some
pesticides.
Camarones (shrimp) were an exception to this pattern. They had high lipid
levels but did not exhibit high concentrations of pesticides. Other factors
which could account for the relatively low pesticide concentrations in
camarones could be the ambient concentration in the locations where they
were sampled or their higher sensitivity to contaminants resulting in
12
mortality of individuals before they attain a large body burden (Schulz
2004, Nomen et al. 2012).
iii. Size & age
Size and age are two of the more important factors that can influence the
concentration of contaminants in biota because many contaminants can
bioaccumulate over time. Bioaccumulation is the process that causes an
increased chemical concentration in an organism compared to that in its
ambient environment, through all exposure routes including dietary
absorption and transport across body surfaces (Borgå et al. 2012).
Bioaccumulation is a rate dependent process, so if the rate of chemical
absorption exceeds the rate of elimination or dilution due to growth then
the chemical concentration will increase over time. Therefore, older fish
would be expected to have a higher body burden than younger fish/
We did not age fish in the course of this study, so we considered the
relationship between size and pesticide burden. Tilapia exhibited a weak
positive relationship between size and pesticide burden but other species
did not (Figure 4). In fact, the sea catfish, which were fairly small and
probably young of the year, contained some of the highest observed
concentrations of many pesticides.
Failure to detect a strong relationship between size and pesticide burden
should not be taken as an indication that bioaccumulation is not occurring.
Rather, it suggests that the rates of pesticide absorption, elimination and
dilution are variable throughout the life of an individual fish.
iv. Diet
Biomagnification can be regarded as a special case of bioaccumulation in
which the chemical concentration in the organism exceeds that in its prey
due to dietary absorption occurring faster than elimination (Borgå et al.
2012). Biomagnification would result in a sequential increase in
contaminant concentrations with an increase in trophic level (Kidd et al.
1998). The often observed relationship between trophic level and pesticide
burden has prompted the investigation and development of trophic
biomagnification factors to predict pesticide burden based upon
knowledge of trophic level (Borgå et al. 2012).
13
Species Diet
Tilapia Herbivore
Piangua Organic matter
Camarones Organic matter
Machaca Omnivore
Bagre Omnivore
Pargo Carnivore
Robalo Carnivore
Tilapia has a predominantly vegetarian diet and machaca is an omnivore
eating fruit and seeds that fall into the water as well as small fish and
invertebrates (Bussing 2002). Robalo and pargo are both carnivores that
eat fish and shrimp (Bussing 2002). Piangua and camarones are both filter
feeders that probably consume a combination of plant and animal matter.
Based upon the trophic biomagnification model of pesticide
bioaccumulation, tilapia would be expected to have the lowest
concentration of most pesticides among the fish species, followed by
camarones and piangua and then machaca. Robalo and pargo would be
expected to have the highest concentrations of pesticide residues. The
species are ordered in the table above by their expected relative
concentration of pesticides from lowest to highest, based upon trophic
magnification.
Pesticide residues were not higher in fish that occupy the highest trophic
level (Figure 4) indicating that trophic biomagnification was not a primary
driver of pesticide accumulation among the fish in this study. The results
suggest that tilapia and bagre consume more contaminated material than
most other species, including robalo and pargo.
v. Size of home range
The potential for the concentrations of pesticide residues to increase or
decrease in the tissue of exposed organisms depends in part upon the
ambient concentration. The rate of absorption from the diet or diffusion
across the body surface may exceed the rate of elimination or dilution
when fish are in an area with a high ambient concentration, in which case
the pesticide concentration increases. Outside of these hot spots
elimination or dilution due to growth may exceed absorption, in which
case the body burden declines.
The size of an organism’s home range may influence its pesticide body
burden if the ambient concentration of a pesticide is spatially variable.
Organisms with a restricted home range would reflect the average ambient
concentration in a single location, which may be high or low. Organisms
14
that are more wide ranging may move between areas with high and low
ambient concentration and therefore reflect the average concentration
across a broader geographic area.
Species Home range
Piangua Estuary sedentary
Camarone Freshwater resident
Machaca Freshwater migrant
Bagre Estuary resident
Pargo Diadromous
Robalo Diadromous
Tilapia Freshwater resident
The home range of fish in Costa Rica has not be studied extensively, but
based upon the species life history and evidence from elsewhere, robalo
would be expected to have the largest home range of the fish species
examined and tilapia the smallest. Robalo are diadromous capable of
tolerating both fresh and salt water. In Florida, most adults migrate
between fresh and salt water annually for spawning (Trotter et al. 2012).
Pargo also appear to be diadromous – they were captured in both fresh and
salt water – but probably spend less time in freshwater than robalo. Tilapia
is a resident species and individuals probably exhibit a restricted home
range. The home range of machaca is not known, but this freshwater
species migrates into small streams to spawn and apparently can tolerate
some salt water, therefore its home range may be somewhere between
tilapia and robalo. Elsewhere in the tropics, camarones migrate to
headwater streams (Greathouse et al. 2006), which may also occur here
suggesting that their home range may include more than one stream or
stream segments.
Resident tilapia had either a high or low pesticide concentration, as
expected. For example, at site 10 where a number of highly contaminated
fish were collected, tilapia, which probably exhibit limited movement
within a segment of river, usually contained the largest number and the
highest concentrations of pesticides. The highly mobile Robalo from site
10 contained fewer pesticides at lower concentrations. Machaca from site
10 were intermediate in concentration suggesting that they may display
movement somewhere between tilapia and robalo. The same pattern was
observed in Estero Azul where the machaca had higher concentrations of
most pesticides than did the robalo. These results are consistent with the
hypothesis that migratory fish moved between areas with high and low
ambient pesticide concentrations, whereas resident fish remained fixed.
When the ambient concentration of pesticide residues is highly variable
home range size and location may be more important than other intrinsic
factors such as size or trophic level.
15
In summary, lipid content and the relative size of the species home range are two
important intrinsic factors that appeared to influence the concentration of
pesticides residues in fish and shellfish in the Osa Province. Diet and the length
of the individual were not as important. The relationship between pesticide
concentration and lipid content is not surprising considering that many of the
pesticides are lipid soluble. The connection with the size of the home range
suggests that the ambient concentration of pesticides is highly variable in the
study area. Spatial variability in pesticide absorption and elimination could
explain why highly mobile species with large home ranges, such as robalo, had
lower contaminant levels than tilapia, which generally have a more restricted
home range, even when they were sampled in the same location. Although diet
did not appear to be important, there may also be important ontogenetic shifts in
life history behavior which affect pesticide accumulation. For example, species
like robalo may eat fewer contaminated food items when they shift from a
freshwater to marine phase.
d. There are hot spots for most pesticides
At least one pesticide was detected in fish and shellfish from all sites, but the
concentrations were quite variable among sites (Figure 5). Differences in the
concentrations of pesticides among fish from different sites likely reflect
differences in the ambient concentration of the pesticides. The highest observed
concentration of any chemical was of DDT in one Tilapia from site 10 (Puerto
Cortez) which reached 49 ng/g wet weight. Cypermethrin, Dieldrin and
Endosulfan each were observed above 7 ng / g wet weight in at least one sample,
and Atrazine, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon and Permethrin reached a maximum
concentration of 2.1 - 5.7 ng/g wet weight in at least one sample. Twelve other
pesticides did not exceed 1.1 ng/g wet weight in any sample.
Two locations stood out as hot spots for fish contaminated with banned pesticides,
a tributary to the Rio Térraba near Puerto Cortez (site 10) and the Estero Azul in
the Rio Sierpe (sites 13 and 14). Both locations contained fish with relatively high
concentrations of Chlordane, DDT, Dieldrin, Endrin and Heptachlor. Other
chemicals found only in the Estero Azul were Octachlorostyrene, Primiphos-
methyl and Terbufos. beta-HCH (a breakdown product of Lindane) was detected
only in a fish from Puerto Cortez. Both tributaries drain urban and agricultural
areas, including rice farms, and are inundated with water from the respective
mainstem rivers during high tide. This matches a world wide pattern where
organochlorine contaminated soils are often near urban areas (Bezama et al.
2008).
The lower Rio Terraba including the nearby mangrove island at Boca Brava (sites
2, 6 and 10) was a hot spot for Chlorpyrifos and Endosulfan, where
concentrations exceeded what was observed in the Rio Sierpe.
16
A number of current use chemicals – Atrazine, Ametryn, Captan, Cypermethrin
and Quintozene – were most abundant near active rice farms (Sites 6 and 10 in the
Rio Terraba and sites 14 and 15 in the Rio Sierpe). Diazinon, another current use
pesticide, was also found at most of these sites as well as a few nearby sites (site 2
near the Rio Terraba and site 19 in the Rio Sierpe) suggesting that it had spread
since application.
Mirex and Hexachlorobenzene, two banned pesticides, were the only two
pesticides found in samples from most locations and the fish market, at
equivalent, albeit low, concentrations (<0.2 ng/g wet weight).
e. Fish in rice farm canals contain lower than average concentrations of banned
pesticides.
To evaluate the threat that farming practices pose to consumers we sampled
tilapia in three ditches with active stream flow draining a large rice farm on the
Rio Sierpe (sites 15, 20 & 21). We also sampled robalo and machaca further
downstream in the Estero Azul (sites 13 & 14).
The fish with the highest concentrations of banned pesticides were not in streams
immediately adjacent to rice farms. Tilapia from the three sites within the rice
farm all had lower concentrations of banned pesticides than were observed in
other fish species sampled further downstream. For instance, the tilapia had lower
concentations of Chlordane, Chlorothalonil, DDT, Dieldrin, Endrin, Heptachlor
and Mirex than the machaca and a robalo sampled downstream in the Estero Azul.
On the other hand, a tilapia from site 15 contained a much higher concentration of
Diazinon, a current use pesticide. Diazinon is water soluble and highly toxic to
fish and it is possible that the fish community present when we sampled the
ditches consisted of individuals that recolonized since the most recent pesticide
application, and therefore were still accumulating contaminants.
Finding lower concentrations of banned pesticides in fish within the rice farms
than outside of the farms suggests this farm has been following the bans and that
the source for persistant organic pollutants is somewhere else in the watershed,
possibly in the downstream sediment.
f. Concentrations of legacy pesticides are declining
Many of the chemicals that were detected in this study are currently banned in
Costa Rica. However, the observed tissue concentrations of these chemicals do
not suggest that there has been recent application in violation of existing bans;
rather the observed concentrations are consistent with contamination from
persistent legacy residues.
17
To demonstrate how far concentrations of banned pesticides have declined, we
evaluated long-term trends in contaminant concentrations by comparing the
concentrations we observed in 2011 with what has been observed previously. No
data could be found for biota from the Osa Region, therefore we relied on
observations from other parts of Latin America that had a similar history of
intensive agriculture.
The average and maximum concentration of DDT in many of the same species
sampled along the Pacific Coast of Guatemala in 1970 was 4,200 and 45,000 ng/g
wet weight (Keiser Jr. et al. 1973), about 1,000 times higher than the average and
maximum concentrations we observed.
More recently, the concentrations of DDT observed in other regions of South
America with a similar history of intensive agriculture were similar to the
concentrations we observed (Barra et al. 2006).
Long-term monitoring in El Salvador revealed that not all pesticides are declining
in concentration as expected (Nomen et al. 2012). While the concentration of
DDT at fixed monitoring stations has declined since the 1970’s, the concentration
of Dieldrin has not changed suggesting that a different source of contamination
may be impacting the sampling site. It is interesting that both that study, as well
as our own, found Dieldrin to persist in the environment.
g. There may be seasonal changes in pesticide concentrations in biota – heavy rains
may dilute pesticides but increase transport distance
We conducted a reciprocal transplant experiment with piangua to evaluate sources
and rates of accumulation of pesticides in the HNTS mangrove forest. Piangua
from a presumed “clean” site near the Boca Zacate (site 4), which is dominated by
flow from the Rio Sierpe, were collected in August and placed in mesh bags and
swapped with piangua from Isla Boca Brava (site 2), which is dominated by flow
from the Rio Térraba and which we thought would be a “dirty” site. Three bags
with 10 piangua each were transported to the Boca Brava and two bags with 5-6
piangua each were transported to Boca Zacate. We also attempted to exchange
piangua with an island near Boca Chica (site 3), but lost the transplanted piangua
to predation. The piangua were retrieved 11 weeks later in November.
In August, piangua at each site contained detectable concentrations of four
pesticides and a total of six pesticides were detected across all sites (Table 4).
Among the pesticides detected at more than one site, concentrations of
Endosulfan and Hexachlorobenze were higher at the sites closer to the Rio
Térraba supporting out hypothesis that this river was more “dirty”.
Pesticide concentrations generally declined in both locations during the transplant
experiment. Fewer pesticides were detected in the November samples compared
to the August samples and the pesticides that were detected were often at lower
18
concentrations (Table 4). These results suggest that the pesticides were being lost
from the animals by dilution. There were two exceptions, however. Piangua from
Isla Zacate that were transfered to Isla Boca Brava accumulated Endosulfan and
Mirex, although Mirex was not detected at any of the sites in August. Likewise,
piangua from Isla Boca Brava accumulated Dieldrin at Isla Zacate even though
Dieldrin was not detected at Isla Zacate in August.
The mangrove islands where piangua are found may be 5 km or more from the
nearest industrial farm, although artisanal farms may be closer to the islands. In
general, piangua contained fewer chemicals at lower concentrations than fish and
shellfish samples that were collected closer to an industrial farm. However, the
increase in concentration of some pesticides in the piangua between August and
November suggests that the threat of pesticides extends beyond the immediate
farm where it was applied.
The rainy season is likely to have a complex spatial and temporal affect on
pesticide concentrations. Heavy rains may increase runoff leading to a temporary
spike in ambient pesticide concentration near the source (Anasco et al. 2010).
However, increased volume of surface waters may decrease the concentrations of
some pesticides in biota by diluting the ambient concentration (Nomen et al.
2012) causing the rate of elimination to exceed the rate of absorption. But our
study suggests that heavy rains may also increase the transport distance of
pesticides thereby increasing the concentration in biota at sites that are far from
the source, which could have contributed to the increase in concentration of
Dieldrin, Endosulfan and Mirex we observed.
h. Atmospheric transport of pesticides
To evaluate the threat posed by pesticides being transported through the air to a
remote site and accumulating in biota there, we tested freshwater shrimp from the
town of Sierpe drinking water supply (site 12). We detected three legacy
pesticides in the freshwater shrimp: DDT, Hexachlorobenzene and Mirex (Table
4). The drinking water supply is relatively undisturbed and there is no agriculture
upstream of the drinking water supply, so the most likely mechanism for
pesticides to enter the biota in this stream is via aerial transport and deposition.
Transport and deposition of pesticides is generally associated with aerial
application from a nearby farm (particularly during a rain storm, (Standley and
Sweeney 1995, Daly and Wania 2005, Daly et al. 2007a, 2007b), but these
chemicals are banned in Costa Rica so they may not have been applied for
decades. Residual chemicals remaining in the soil of the farms may get swept up
and transported by a passing storm. Alternatively, the chemicals may be in the
soil adjacent to the drinking water supply or in the stream sediment. In any event,
observing banned pesticides in the Sierpe drinking water supply suggests an
alternate route of exposure, and that the threat of pesticides persists long after
their use has stopped.
19
i. Chlorothalonil
Chlorothalonil displayed an unsual distribution (Figure 5). This current use
fungicide was found in 5 of 6 Machaca from the freshwater or estuarine study
sites (not found in site 19, the Rio Chacuaco), but not in any other species from
the freshwater or estuarine locations. It was also found in a pargo from the ocean
and a robalo from the fish market in Palmar Norte. It is possible that the
omnivorous diet of Machaca would make them more susceptible to ingesting this
pesticide than the other species in the HNTS (they are omnivorous and feed on
seeds and fruits that fall into the water). Alternatively, this chemical binds to lipid
and, because machaca tended to have the highest percent lipid composition, this
could account for the presence of this pesticide in Machaca.
4. Evaluate risk to consumers from eating contaminated food fish and shellfish.
We evaluated the threat to consumers from eating contaminated fish or shellfish
using standards developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The
USEPA has broken down health effects posed by contaminants into non-
carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects (USEPA 2000). The concentration of a
contaminant which results in a carcinogenic health effect is not always the same
as the concentration which results in a non-carcinogenic effect. In addition, in the
U.S. the acceptable risk of carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects (that is the
proportion of the population which may experience a health effect) may be lower
or higher than elsewhere. Therefore the protocol and consumption advisories
presented here may need to be adjusted to meet standards in Costa Rica.
“Noncarcinogenic effects resulting from multiple exposures occurring over a
significant period of time are also termed chronic exposure effects (IRIS 1999).
The RfD is defined as “an estimate (with uncertainty perhaps spanning an order of
magnitude) of daily exposure to the human population (including sensitive
groups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects
during a lifetime (USEPA 1987; USEPA 2000 V2 p2-14). The use of the IRIS
RfDs is recommended for evaluation of chronic exposure toxicity of the target
analytes. RfDs calculated for chronic noncarcinogenic effects reflect the
assumption that, for noncarcinogens and nonmutagens, a threshold exists below
which exposure does not cause adverse health effects.” (USEPA 2000)
USEPA (2000) Equation (3-3) was used to calculate the allowable daily
consumption (CRlim) of contaminated fish, based on a contaminant’s
noncarcinogenic health effects, and is expressed in kilograms of fish per day:
Eq. 1
CRlim = Maximum allowable fish consumption rate (kg/d)
20
RfDm = Reference dose of chemical contaminant m (mg/kg-d)
BW = Consumer body weight (kg)
Cm = Observed concentration of chemical contaminant m in a given species of fish
(mg/kg)
Fish may contain multiple contaminants simultaneously and health advisories
should account for possible toxic interactions. Very little data are available on
toxic interactions, so determining the type of interaction remains partially a matter
of guesswork. Contaminants in a mixture that induce the same health effect by
similar modes of action (e.g., cholinesterase inhibition), may be assumed to
contribute additively to risk (USEPA 2000). Chemicals in a particular class (e.g.,
organochlorines or organophosphates) tend to have a similar mechanism of
toxicity and produce similar effects. For mixtures of chemicals that produce
similar toxicological endpoints, USEPA recommends dose addition (USEPA
2000 V2 p 3-20). When information is lacking on joint effects in the same organ,
a conservative approach is to assume dose addition (USEPA 1999 –EPA/630/R-
00/002 August 2000, Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk
Assessment of Chemical Mixtures). For calculating consumption limits based on
non-carcinogenic effects, we assumed dose addition for effects of all components
in chemical mixtures. The equation for dose additivity of noncarcinogenic effects
is:
Eq.2
If different fish with different concentrations of a mixture of chemicals will be
eaten then the equation for determining the daily consumption limit will be:
Eq.3
where Cm,j is the concentration of chemical m in fish j, Pj is the proportion of
species j in the meal and .
Some of the chemicals also pose a cancer risk, therefore we calculated the
allowable daily consumption (CRlim) of contaminanted fish based upon a
contaminant’s carcinogenic health effects, expressed in kilograms of fish per day
using USEPA (2000) – Equation (3-1):
Eq.4
CRlim = Maximum allowable fish consumption rate (kg/d)
21
ARL= Maximum acceptable individual lifetime risk level (unitless)
BW = Consumer body weight (kg)
CSFm = Cancer slope factor, usually the upper 95 percent confidence limit on the linear
term in the multistage model used by EPA ([mg/kg-d]-1
).
Cm = Observed concentration of chemical contaminant m in a given species of fish
(mg/kg)
For calculating consumption limits based on carncinogenic effects of multiple
chemicals, we assumed dose addition for effects of all components in chemical
mixtures. The equation for dose additivity of carcinogenic effects is:
Eq.5
If different fish with different concentrations of a mixture of chemicals will be
eaten then the correct equation for determining the daily consumption limit will
be:
Eq.6
It is often easier to comprehend risk when expressed as a monthly consumption
limit. We used USEPA (2000) Equation (3-2) to calculate the monthly
consumption limit:
Eq.7
where Tap is the number of days in an average month or 30.44 days and MS is the
average meal size.
The RfD and Cancer slope factor for each chemical was retrieved from the EPA
Integrated Risk Information Service (www.epa.gov/IRIS) in September 2012
(Table 5). We used the USEPA (2000) recommended ARL of 10-5
, an average
meal size of 227 g (0.5 lb) and assumed a body weight of 70 kg (154 lbs). We
calculated consumption advisories only for contaminants and their breakdown
products that had detectable concentrations.
a. The risk to consumers is highest near Puerto Cortez (Rio Térraba) and the Estero
Azul (Rio Sierpe)
Averaging pesticide concentrations in individuals of the same speices from the
same site and month resulted in a total of 32 sites/season samples. Food fish in a
tributary to the Rio Grande de Térraba near the town of Puerto Cortez and in the
Estero Azul on the Rio Sierpe are contaminated with pesticide residues that could
22
threaten consumers (Table 6). In the U.S.A., the observed concentrations would
lead to restricted consumption advisories for machaca (machaca or sabalo, Brycon
behreae, 0.7-1.1 meals per month), tilapia (tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus, 3.6
meals per month) and robalo aleta manchada (blackfin snook, Centropomus
medius, 6.5 meals per month) for fish caught in these two locations. Other species
such as pargo calorado (red snapper, Lutjanus colorado), bagres (sea catfish,
Cathorops sp.), camarones de aqua dulce (freshwater shrimp, Palaemonetes sp.),
and piangua (cockles, Anadara tuberculosa) from elsewhere in the Humedal
Nacional Térraba-Sierpe, the freshwater portion of the Rio Sierpe or Rio Térraba,
or from the ocean near the Rio Sierpe are safe to eat in unlimited quantities (i.e.,
>16 meals per month).
We made a number of assumptions about a consumer’s exposure to chemical
contaminants. These recommendations are based upon 227 g (0.5 lb) of skin-on
fish filet, whole clam or whole shrimp per meal and apply to a 70 kg (154 lbs)
person. We assumed that consumers were eating raw skin-on filets that had been
descaled. Removing the skin and fatty portions of the fish may result in lower
concentrations of lipid soluble chemicals (USEPA 2000). Also cooking filets may
result in a reduction in the concentration of lipid soluble contaminants because fat
tends to be lost during cooking (USEPA 2000). Alternatively, soups made from
whole fish including the head and organs may increase the consumer’s
contaminant exposure to organic pesticides because these tissues tend to have
higher lipid levels than do filets (USEPA 2000). Cleaning or cooking that reduces
the fat content, where most of the pesticides are stored, may reduce the risk to
consumers, whereas consuming the head or organs may increase the risk to
consumers.
We assumed that the only source of exposure was by eating contaminated fish.
Other potential sources of exposure include water, soil, air or other contaminated
foods. Agricultural workers who live and work near areas where pesticides are
applied may be exposed to higher amounts of contaminants and therefore would
want to further restrict their consumption of contaminated foods beyond the
recommendations here. Other routes of exposure such as water, soil, other foods,
or occupational exposure may increase the risk to consumers (Polidoro et al.
2008).
b. Diledrin is the most significant driver of the consumption advisories.
The concentration of Dieldrin on its own would be sufficient to warrant the
consumption advisories in all four cases where they are warranted. The only other
pesticide that would warrant a consumption advisory on its own was DDT in
Tilapia near Puerto Cortez (site 10), although the risk posed by Dieldrin is still
higher for this fish. No other chemical was at a sufficient concentration to warrant
a consumption advisory on its own.
5. Develop an understanding of water physiochemistry
23
We were able to take advantage of having visited multiple sites in the Rio Sierpe,
lower Rio Grande de Térraba and Humedal Nacional Térraba-Sierpe to describe
water physiochemistry throughout the region. Stream physiochemistry can influence
community structure of aquatic organisms and influence spawning or feeding
behavior, growth and population dynamics, as well as the transport of contaminants.
a. The Térraba and Sierpe differ in many physiochemical characteristics.
The mainstem of the Rio Térraba contains higher dissolved oxygen concentrations
(DO), turbidity, and pH, but lower specific conductivity, particularly upstream of
tidal influence (Figure 6). In comparison, the mainstem and some tributaries to the
Sierpe are depleted in dissolved oxygen. Temperature is similar in the two
mainstems upstream of tidal influence.
b. There are strong seasonal differences in water physiochemistry related to
changes in the amount of freshwater in streams in rivers.
More freshwater enters streams, rivers and the mangrove estuary during the rainy
season than during the dry season. We noted that saltwater intrusion into the
mangrove estuary during high tide does not extend as far during the rainy season
because the much larger discharge from the rivers keeps the saltwater lens from
extending upstream. However, there is greater intrusion of saltwater into the Rio
Sierpe portion of the estuary because this river has less discharge than the Rio
Térraba. During the rainy season the Térraba mainstem is extremely turbid and
influences a greater proportion of the mangrove estuary than does the Rio Sierpe.
Sr. Geovanni Jimenez stated that most of the water from the Rio Sierpe enters the
ocean through Boca Guarumal, which is to the south of Boca Zacate.
IV. CHALLENGES OR OBSTACLES
We could not test for the presence of all of the pesticides of interest (particularly current use
pesticides) due to not finding a laboratory capable of screening some chemicals. Some of the
pesticides of interest are known to be in use by a number of farms in large quantities (e.g.,
Propanil and Mancozeb). Many of these chemicals breakdown rapidly and may not
accumulate in fish or shellfish (e.g., Mancozeb: EPA 738-R-04-012). Some chemicals, such
as Propanil or its metabolites, may accumulate in fish or shellfish and may pose a health risk
to human consumers (Propanil: EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0348). Many of these pesticides are also
highly toxic to fish, crustaceans, and molluscs.
The list of pesticides used on rice may not be complete. Chemicals may not be listed because
of non-reporting by farmers when their use is illegal or off-label. We also experienced
difficulty connecting with local ecotoxicologists working on similar questions at the
Universidad Nacional in Heridad.
24
We intended to target a number of fish species for contaminants analysis but we had
difficulty catching some species in sufficient numbers. This may be because there are few
fish available to catch or because of limitations of our equipment or technique. Low
abundance could be a problem in the vicinity of rice farms where recent fish kills may have
reduced abundance. We were told that fish die offs are common and in some areas occur
twice a year in association with the aerial application of pesticides to rice farms. Abundance
may also vary naturally due to seasonal cycles in life history. Fishing is poorly regulated in
these areas and overfishing may also be reducing abundance. Future research should be
aimed at determining the status of important food fish in the HNTS.
Future research should explore pesticide transport in the region. A number of factors could
influence the amount of pesticide entering surface waters including: pesticide type, amount,
and time since last application; timing and method of pesticide application; weather and soil
type; proximity to surface water and factors that affect runoff including status of riparian
buffers, slope of the terrain, or presence of retention ponds.
The frequency of fish kills suggests that another threat posed by rice farming may be to the
food supply. Toxicity data is based upon summaries of other studies conducted elsewhere,
usually with temperate fish species from North America or Europe. Toxicity data may not be
directly applicable to tropical fish species found in Costa Rica where differences in climate
(rain, temperature), animal species (air breathing), and crops (e.g., rice, hillslope coffee,
bananas) could result in different affects to fish (Lacher and Goldstein 1997, Daam and Van
den Brink 2010). Future monitoring should evaluate the impact of pesticide application on
fish, particularly with regard to episodic fish kills.
It is also important to determine the factors that contribute to low levels of dissolved oxygen
within the Rio Sierpe. During a previous BMF funded project in the Rio Sierpe we observed
dissolved oxygen levels close to 0 mg/L within the headwaters of the Rio Sierpe at the end of
the dry season in April 2009. This concentration of DO is below the level required for most
aquatic organisms. The macroinvertebrate community at this site exemplified anoxic
conditions and consisted almost exclusively of blood red chironomids (i.e., species that are
extremely tolerant of low dissolved oxygen). During a trip in August 2011 the oxygen level
at this location was higher, and increased when a rainstorm passed (Appendix Figure 2),
although the concentration may still be below the concentration required for many aquatic
organisms. The concentration of dissolved oxygen was also well below saturation at the town
of Sierpe where the river is much larger (Appendix Figure 3). Low dissolved oxygen in such
a large river can occur if there is poor aeration due to insufficient mixing and water clarity is
low, which limits in-stream production of oxygen by photosynthesis, and warm waters are
combined with heavy loads of organic mater and nutrients, which increases the consumption
of oxygen by the microbes that feed on the organic matter.
V. FUTURE
A thorough evaluation of the threat to humans from eating contaminanted fish and shellfish
and development of guidelines to reduce those threats requires more information. Following
is a description of some of those information needs.
25
1. Severe health effects or death due to acute pesticide poisoning is rare in Costa Rica
(Litchfield 2005, Wesseling et al. 2005), however chronic effects may be common and
cancer rates in the Osa Province are among the highest in Costa Rica, particularly for
women (Wesseling et al. 1999). Additional information is needed on consumer behavior
to more accurately evaluate threats of eating contaminated fish within Osa Province,
Costa Rica. Information needs include: Where are food fish for commercial (i.e., sold at
local fish markets) versus private consumption captured? What type and amount of fish
are eaten by local inhabitants? How are fish prepared? Of all the places we visited, we
observed the largest number of people fishing in the tributary near Puerto Cortez where
some of the most contaminanted fish are located. People catching fish for consumption
near Puerto Cortez and Estero Azul may need to be informed of the health risks
associated with consuming fish from these waters.
2. Efforts should be undertaken to minimize the risk posed by legacy pesticides and current
use pesticides to aquatic biota and potential consumers of contaminanted food. A
comprehensive approach will entail reducing the amount of pesticide used, such as by
implementing integrated pest management protocols, using alternatives to hazardous
pesticides, and restricting pesticides from entering surface waters. Restricing pesticide
transport to surface waters will require an understanding of runoff and aerial deposition,
and the possible role of riparian buffers, constructed wetlands or vegetated channels in
slowing pesticide transport and facilitating breakdown (Schulz 2004). Heavy rains may
reduce the impacts of pesticides by diluting the concentration in the surface waters.
However, rain may increase the transportation distance of pesticides as more pesticides
are likely to be washed off of fields, and pesticides suspended in the water column are
likely to be transported further downstream. In addition, pesticides that are applied from
a plane during a rain storm are more likely to be carried to remote locations. The
Rainforest Alliance has done an exemplary job of working with local farmers to identify
incentives to minimize the risk of pesticies and should be encouraged to continue to do
so.
3. Legacy pesticides persist throughout the region but our results suggest that the threat to
consumers from eating contaminated fish or shellfish may be declining due to a shift
towards pesticides that breakdown or leave the system quickly, or pose a low health risk
to consumers. However, threats to the regional fisheries resource may remain high due to
episodic localized fish kills during and immediately after pesticide application. Future
research should evaluate the risk of fishery collapse of highly desirable species due to
unregulated fishing and periodic fish kills (likely resulting from pesticide application)
coinciding with the breeding season. Species traits, such as toxilogical sensitivity at
different life stages, generation time and home range, may prove useful to identify
species most at risk and to evaluate community effects of surface water contamination
(Liess et al. 2008).
4. A great deal of concern arose in 2012 in the US and Sri Lanka when arsenic and other
heavy metals were detected in rice (USFDA 2012, Johnson et al. 2012). In Sri Lanka,
arsenic and other heavy metals have been linked to a rare chronic kidney ailment
26
(Johnson et al. 2012). The arsenic appears to be a contaminant in the pesticides that are
applied to rice. Arsenic in pesticides may also be entering nearby surface waters and
contaminating food fish and shellfish. However, concentrations of arsenic in edible fish
in some reservoirs in Sri Lanka were below cause for concern (Subasinghe et al. 2012),
although the concentration of arsenic in the water was not determined and the proximity
of these reservoirs to potential sources of arsenic such as rice farms is not clear. We did
not evaluate arsenic or other heavy metals in biota from the Osa Province, but future
efforts should explore these contaminants.
5. It is also important to determine how fish acquire their pollutant load. Biomagnification
(increase of pesticide concentrations at higher trophic levels) does not appear to be the
primary mechanism by which fish acquire pesticide residues in the Osa Province. It may
be that fish absorb pesticides while in hot spots and eliminate or dilute these pesticides
when they leave these hot spots. This would explain why highly mobile species with
large home ranges, such as robalo, had lower contaminant levels than tilapia, which
generally have a more restricted home range, even when they were sampled in the same
location There may also be important ontogenetic shifts in life history behavior which
affect pesticide accumulation. For example, species like robalo may eat fewer
contaminated food items when they shift from a freshwater to marine phase.
27
VI. REFERENCES
Anasco, N., Uno, S., Koyama, J., Matsuoka, T., and Kuwahara, N. 2010. Assessment of pesticide
residues in freshwater areas affected by rice paddy effluents in Southern Japan. Environ
Monit Assess 160: 371–83. doi: 10.1007/s10661-008-0701-z.
Barra, R., Colombo, J.C., Eguren, G., Gamboa, N., Jardim, W.F., and Mendoza, G. 2006.
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in Eastern and Western South American Countries.
In Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Edited by G.W. Ware,
H.N. Nigg, and D.R. Doerge. Springer New York. pp. 1–33. Available from
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g385312357q89347/abstract/ [accessed 28 August
2012].
Bezama, A., Navia, R., Mendoza, G., and Barra, R. 2008. Remediation Technologies for
Organochlorine-Contaminated Sites in Developing Countries. In Reviews of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Edited by D.D.M. Whitacre. Springer
New York. pp. 1–29. Available from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-
73163-6_1 [accessed 4 December 2012].
Borgå, K., Fisk, A.T., Hoekstra, P.F., and Muir, D.C.G. 2004. Biological and chemical factors of
importance in the bioaccumulation and trophic transfer of persistent organochlorine
contaminants in arctic marine food webs. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 23:
2367–2385. doi: 10.1897/03-518.
Borgå, K., Kidd, K.A., Muir, D.C., Berglund, O., Conder, J.M., Gobas, F.A., Kucklick, J., Malm,
O., and Powell, D.E. 2012. Trophic magnification factors: Considerations of ecology,
ecosystems, and study design. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 8:
64–84. doi: 10.1002/ieam.244.
Bussing, W.A. 2002. Pesces de las aguas continentales de Costa Rica = Freshwater fishes of
Costa Rica. Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica, San Jose, C. R.
Campos-Montero, J.A., Fournier-Leiva, M.L., and Soto-Soto, R. 1990. Estimación de la
población de Anadara tuberculosa (Bivalvia: Arcidae) en Sierpe-Térraba, Costa Rica. An
estimate of the population of Anadara tuberculosa (Bivalvia: Arcidae) in Sierpe-Térraba,
Costa Rica. Revista de Biología Tropical 38: 477–480.
Carvalho, F.P. 2006. Agriculture, pesticides, food security and food safety. Environmental
Science & Policy 9: 685–692. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2006.08.002.
Castillo, L.E., De la Cruz, E., and Ruepert, C. 1997. Ecotoxicology and pesticides in tropical
aquatic ecosystems of Central America. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 16:
41–51. doi: 10.1002/etc.5620160104.
Castillo, L.E., Martínez, E., Ruepert, C., Savage, C., Gilek, M., Pinnock, M., and Solis, E. 2006.
Water quality and macroinvertebrate community response following pesticide
applications in a banana plantation, Limon, Costa Rica. Science of the Total Environment
367: 418–432.
Castillo, L.E., Ruepert, C., and Solis, E. 2000. Pesticide residues in the aquatic environment of
banana plantation areas in the North Atlantic Zone of Costa Rica. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry 19: 1942–1950. doi: 10.1002/etc.5620190802.
Daam, M., and Van den Brink, P. 2010. Implications of differences between temperate and
tropical freshwater ecosystems for the ecological risk assessment of pesticides.
Ecotoxicology 19: 24–37. doi: 10.1007/s10646-009-0402-6.
28
Daly, G.L., Lei, Y.D., Teixeira, C., Muir, D.C.G., Castillo, L.E., Jantunen, L.M.M., and Wania,
F. 2007a. Organochlorine Pesticides in the Soils and Atmosphere of Costa Rica. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 41: 1124–1130. doi: 10.1021/es062349d.
Daly, G.L., Lei, Y.D., Teixeira, C., Muir, D.C.G., Castillo, L.E., and Wania, F. 2007b.
Accumulation of Current-Use Pesticides in Neotropical Montane Forests. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 41: 1118–1123. doi: 10.1021/es0622709.
Daly, G.L., and Wania, F. 2005. Organic Contaminants in Mountains. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39:
385–398. doi: 10.1021/es048859u.
FAO. 2010. National Aquaculture Sector Overview. Costa Rica - Profiles home, Updated 1
February 2005. Available from http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/FI-CP_CR/en.
Galt, R.E. 2008a. Pesticides in export and domestic agriculture: Reconsidering market
orientation and pesticide use in Costa Rica. Geoforum 39: 1378–1392. doi:
10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.12.003.
Galt, R.E. 2008b. Beyond the circle of poison: Significant shifts in the global pesticide complex,
1976–2008. Global Environmental Change 18: 786–799. doi:
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.003.
Greathouse, E.A., Pringle, C.M., McDowell, W.H., and Holmquist, J.G. 2006. Indirect Upstream
Effects Of Dams: Consequences Of Migratory Consumer Extirpation In Puerto Rico.
Ecological Applications 16: 339–352. doi: 10.1890/05-0243.
Johnson, S., Misra, S.S., Sahu, R., and Saxena, P. 2012. Environmental contamination and its
association with chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology in north central region of
Sri Lanka. In First National Symposium: The Potential Health and Environmental
Impacts of Exposure to Hazardous Natural and Man-made Chemicals and their Proper
Management. Centre for Environmental Justice & Friends of the Earth Sri Lanka, Sri
Lanka. pp. 6–11.
Keiser Jr., R.K., Amado, J.A.A., and Murillo, R.S. 1973. Pesticide Levels in Estuarine and
Marine Fish and Invertebrates from the Guatemalan Pacific Coast. Bulletin of Marine
Science 23: 905–924.
Kidd, K.A., Schindler, D.W., Hesslein, R.H., and Muir, D.C. 1998. Effects of trophic position
and lipid on organochlorine concentrations in fishes from subarctic lakes in Yukon
Territory. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 869–881. doi:
10.1139/f97-307.
Klemens, J.., Wieland, M.., Flanagin, V.., Frick, J.., and Harper, R.. 2003. A cross-taxa survey of
organochlorine pesticide contamination in a Costa Rican wildland. Environmental
Pollution 122: 245–251. doi: 10.1016/S0269-7491(02)00293-2.
Lacher, T.E., and Goldstein, M.I. 1997. Tropical ecotoxicology: Status and needs. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry 16: 100–111. doi: 10.1002/etc.5620160111.
Liess, M., Schäfer, R.B., and Schriever, C.A. 2008. The footprint of pesticide stress in
communities—Species traits reveal community effects of toxicants. Science of The Total
Environment 406: 484–490. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.05.054.
Litchfield, M.H. 2005. Estimates of acute pesticide poisoning in agricultural workers in less
developed countries. Toxicol Rev 24: 271–278. [accessed 24 August 2012].
Mainardi, V. 1996. El manglar de Térraba Sierpe en Costa Rica. CATIE: Centro Agronomico
Tropical de Investigacion y Ensenanza. Available from
orton.catie.ac.cr/repdoc/A7006E/A7006E.PDF.
29
Meyer, F.P., and Barclay, L.A. (Editors). 1990. Field manual for the investigation of fish kills.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 177.
Muñoz, F.R. 2011, March. Importacion de plagucidas en Costa Rica: Periodo 2007-2009.
Instituto Regional de Estudios en Sustancias Tóxicas (IRET) de la Universidad Nacional
(UNA). Available from http://cep.unep.org/repcar/informacion-de-paises/costa-
rica/Impoortaciones_07-09_REPCar.pdf [accessed 6 December 2012].
Nomen, R., Sempere, J., Chávez, F., López, N.A. de, and Rovira, M.D. 2012. Measurement of
pollution levels of organochlorine and organophosphorus pesticides in water, soil,
sediment, and shrimp to identify possible impacts on shrimp production at Jiquilisco Bay.
Environ Sci Pollut Res 19: 3547–3555. doi: 10.1007/s11356-012-0916-y.
Polidoro, B.A. 2007. PhD Dissertation: Ecological risk assessment of current-use pesticides in
the Sixaola watershed, Costa Rica. University of Idaho, College of Graduate Studies.
Polidoro, B.A., Dahlquist, R.M., Castillo, L.E., Morra, M.J., Somarriba, E., and Bosque-Pérez,
N.A. 2008. Pesticide application practices, pest knowledge, and cost-benefits of plantain
production in the Bribri-Cabécar Indigenous Territories, Costa Rica. Environmental
Research 108: 98–106. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2008.04.003.
Schreinemachers, P., and Tipraqsa, P. 2012. Agricultural pesticides and land use intensification
in high, middle and low income countries. Food Policy 37: 616–626. doi:
10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.06.003.
Schulz, R. 2004. Field Studies on Exposure, Effects, and Risk Mitigation of Aquatic Nonpoint-
Source Insecticide Pollution. Journal of Environmental Quality 33: 419–448. doi:
10.2134/jeq2004.4190.
Sierra, C., Castillo, E., and Arguedas, S. 2007. Documento de trabajo para el plan de manejo del
humedal nacional Térraba‐Sierpe. Diagnósticos biofísico, social, económico, productivo
y análisis institucional. San José, Costa Rica. Available from
sites.google.com/site/sistnat/Home/Diagn%C3%B3sticoHNTerrabaSierpe2.doc.
Standley, L.J., and Sweeney, B.W. 1995. Organochlorine Pesticides in Stream Mayflies and
Terrestrial Vegetation of Undisturbed Tropical Catchments Exposed to Long-Range
Atmospheric Transport. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 14: 38–49.
doi: 10.2307/1467723.
Subasinghe, M.M., Jinadasa, B.K.K.K., and Wicramasinghe, I. 2012. Accumulation of toxic and
essential trace metals in four fish species from Anuradhapura District, Sri Lanka. In First
National Symposium: The Potential Health and Environmental Impacts of Exposure to
Hazardous Natural and Man-made Chemicals and their Proper Management. Centre for
Environmental Justice & Friends of the Earth Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka. pp. 1–5.
Trotter, A.A., Blewett, D.A., Taylor, R.G., and Stevens, P.W. 2012. Migrations of Common
Snook from a Tidal River with Implications for Skipped Spawning. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 141: 1016–1025. doi: 10.1080/00028487.2012.675903.
USEPA. 2000. National Guidance: Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use
In Fish Advisories - Volume 2: Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits - Third
Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC USA.
Available from
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/fishshellfish/techguidance/risk/volume2_index.c
fm.
30
USFDA. 2012. Consumer Updates - FDA Looks for Answers on Arsenic in Rice. WebContent.
Available from http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm319827.htm
[accessed 4 December 2012].
Wesseling, C., Antich, D., Hogstedt, C., RodrÃguez, A.C., and Ahlbom, A. 1999. Geographical
differences of cancer incidence in Costa Rica in relation to environmental and
occupational pesticide exposure. International Journal of Epidemiology 28: 365–374. doi:
10.1093/ije/28.3.365.
Wesseling, C., Corriols, M., and Bravo, V. 2005. Acute pesticide poisoning and pesticide
registration in Central America. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 207: 697–705.
31
Table 1. Total number of fish and shellfish species collected 16-22 August (A) & 3-8 November 2011 (N) at each site. “M” indicates Fish from
Banco Pesces fish market in Palmar Norte that were purportedly from the HNTS.
Ocean Mangalar Rio Sierpe Rio Terraba Market Total
1 2 2 3 3 4 4 7 7 5 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 6 6 8 10 M
Family Species N A N A N A N A N A A A A A N N A A N N A A A N N A N A A A
Molluscs
Arcidae Anadara tuberculosa 8 10 15 21 16 13 83
Crustaceans
Amphipoda Scud 1 1
Cambaridae Crayfish 2 2
Palaemonidae Shrimp 15 1 13 29
Fish
Anablepidae Oxyzygonectes dovii 4 4
Ariidae Cathorops sp. 3 3
Carangidae Caranx sp. 1 1
Centropomidae Centropomus armatus 5 3 1 1 1 1 12
Centropomus medius 1 2 1 4
Centropomus nigrescens 3 2 4 9
Centropomus sp. 1 1
Centropomus unionensis 1 1
Centropomus viridis 3 1 4
Characidae Astyanax aeneus 1 9 8 5 23
Brycon behreae 1 1 1 3 2 4 12
Roeboides ilseae 1 2 5 8
Cichlidae Cichlid 1 1
Cryptoheros (Archocentrus) sajica 2 2
Oreochromis niloticus 4 1 4 1 3 13
Eleotridae Eleotris picta 2 2
Gobiomorus maculatus 1 2 2 5
Gobiidae Awaous transandeanus 2 2
Lutjanidae Lutjanus argentiventris 1 1 1 3
Lutjanus colorado 3 2 2 1 1 1 10
Lutjanus jordani 1 1
Poeciliidae Brachyrhaphis rhabdophora 54 54
Poecilia gillii 6 6
Sciaenidae Sciaenidae sp. 5 5
Total 9 5 10 15 21 16 13 6 1 8 1 6 72 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 7 20 18 1 5 4 3 8 29 3 301
32
Table 2: Number of individual or composite samples (and the number of individuals in each sample) screened for pesticide residues using AXYS
Analytical Services, Ltd. method MLA-035 (MRES) and method MLA-028 (HR GC/MS).
Name (Spanish) Name (English) Species Waterbody Site Date MRES HR GC/MS
Piangua Mud cockle Anadara tuberculosa Mangrove 2 Aug. 1 (2)
2 Nov. 1 (6)
3 Aug. 1 (3)
4 Aug. 1 (3)
4 Nov. 1 (4)
Camarone Freshwater shrimp Palaemonidae Rio Sierpe 12 Aug. 1 (15)
22 Aug. 1 (15)
Machaca Sabalo Brycon behreae Rio Sierpe 14 Nov. 1 (1)
18 Nov. 1 (1)
19 Nov. 1 (1)
24 Nov. 1 (1)
Rio Térraba 6 Nov. 2 (1)
10 Aug. 1 (1)
Pargo colorado Red snapper Lutjanus colorado Ocean 1 Nov. 3 (1)
Rio Sierpe 17 Aug. 1 (1)
22 Aug. 1 (1)
Robalo aleta manchada Blackfin snook Centropomus medius Market M Aug. 1 (1)
Rio Sierpe 13 Aug. 1 (1)
Robalo chucumite Armed snook Centropomus armatus Mangrove 2 Aug. 3 (1)
7 Aug. 2 (1)
Market M Aug. 1 (1)
Rio Sierpe 23 Nov. 1 (1)
Rio Térraba 6 Nov. 1 (1)
10 Aug. 1 (1)
Robalo negro Black snook Centropomus nigrescens Ocean 1 Nov. 3 (1)
Rio Sierpe 24 Nov. 2 (1)
Rio Térraba 10 Aug. 3 (1)
Bagre Sea catfish Cathorops sp. Rio Térraba 6 Aug. 1 (3)
Tilapia Tilapia Oreochromis niloticus Rio Sierpe 15 Nov. 1 (1)
20 Aug. 1 (1)
21 Aug. 1 (1)
Rio Térraba 10 Aug. 3 (1)
Total
41 4
33
Table 3: Analytes and typical detection limit for AXYS Analytical Services, Ltd. method MLA-
035 (MRES) and method MLA-028 (HR GC/MS; ng/g wet weight).
Analytes MRES HR
GC/MS
Organochlorines
Captan 0.60
Chlordane
Chlordane, oxy- 0.20 0.02
Chlordane, gamma (trans) 0.10 0.02
Chlordane, alpha (cis) 0.10 0.02
Nonachlor, trans- 0.10 0.02
Nonachlor, cis- 0.06 0.02
Chlorothalonil 0.04
Dacthal 0.04
4,4'-DDT 0.10 0.02
2,4'-DDD 0.10 0.02
4,4'-DDD 0.10 0.02
2,4'-DDE 0.20 0.02
4,4'-DDE 0.20 0.02
2,4'-DDT 0.10 0.02
Dieldrin 0.05 0.05
Aldrin 0.02 0.02
Endosulfan
alpha-Endosulphan 0.40 0.05
beta-Endosulphan 0.30 0.05
Endosulphan sulphate 0.30 0.05
Endrin 0.04 0.05
Endrin aldehyde 0.05
Endrin ketone 0.10 0.05
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) 0.01 0.01
Heptachlor 0.02 0.02
Heptachlor epoxide 0.08 0.05
HCH, gamma (Lindane) 0.03 0.02
HCH, alpha 0.02 0.02
HCH, beta 0.03 0.02
HCH, delta 0.03 0.05
Mirex 0.01 0.02
Methoxychlor 0.60 0.10
Octachlorostyrene 0.02
Perthane 0.50
Quintozene 0.04
Tecnazene 0.05
Toxaphene, Technical 0.05
Triazines
Analytes MRES HR
GC/MS
Ametryn 0.05
Atrazine 0.90
Cyanazine 1.00
Desethylatrazine 0.10
Hexazinone 0.40
Metribuzin 0.50
Simazine 0.50
Organophosphates
Azinphos-methyl 2.00
Chlorpyriphos 0.08
Chlorpyriphos-methyl 0.04
Chlorpyriphos-oxon 0.20
Diazinon 0.40
Diazinon-oxon 0.70
Dimethoate 6.00
Disulfoton 0.80
Disulfoton sulfone 0.10
Ethion 0.10
Fenitrothion 0.20
Fonofos 0.04
Malathion 2.00
Methamidophos 2.00
Parathion-methyl 3.00
Parathion-ethyl 0.40
Phorate 0.50
Phosmet 0.30
Pirimiphos-methyl 0.08
Terbufos 0.20
Pyrethroids
Total-Permethrins 0.40
Total-Cypermethrins 2.00
34
Table 4: Concentration of pesticides summed with their breakdown products (ng/g wet weight) in fish and shellfish from the Osa Province, Costa Rica. Red –
banned pesticides, orange – restricted use pesticides, blue – current use pesticides.
Site Date Species Sci. name No. Tissue TL(mm) Wt(g) % Lipid
Σ(A
ldrin
+
Die
ldrin
)
Σ(C
hlo
rd
an
e)
Σ(D
DT
)
Σ(E
nd
rin
)
beta
-HC
H
Σ H
epta
ch
lor
Hex
ach
loro
ben
zen
e
Mir
ex
Ch
lorp
yrip
ho
s
Σ(E
nd
osu
lph
an
)
Terb
ufo
s
Am
etr
yn
Atr
azin
e
Ca
pta
n
Ch
loro
tha
lon
il
Cy
per
meth
rin
Dia
zin
on
Oct
ach
loro
sty
ren
e
Perm
eth
rin
Pir
imip
ho
s-M
eth
yl
Qu
into
zen
e
2 8/21/2011 Piangua Anadara tuberculosa 2 Whole clam - - 0.6 0.001 - - 0.011 - - 0.009 - - 0.518 - - - - - - - - - - -
2 11/5/2011 Piangua Anadara tuberculosa 6 Whole clam - - 0.36 - - - - - - - 0.001 - 0.049 - - - - - - - - - - -
3 8/17/2011 Piangua Anadara tuberculosa 3 Whole clam - - 0.52 0.001 - - - - 0.006 0.011 - - 0.069 - - - - - - - - - - -
4 8/16/2011 Piangua Anadara tuberculosa 3 Whole clam - - 0.56 - - - - - 0.002 0.003 - - 0.097 - - - - - - - - - - -
4 11/5/2011 Piangua Anadara tuberculosa 4 Whole clam - - 0.54 0.013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
12 8/22/2011 Camarone Shrimp 15 Whole shrimp - - 3.54 - - 0.005 - - - 0.024 0.005 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
22 8/21/2011 Camarone Shrimp 13 Whole shrimp - - 2.45 0.152 - 0.890 - - - 0.007 0.016 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
14 11/4/2011 Machaca/Sabalo Brycon behreae 1 Skin-on filet 297 - 5.9 7.653 0.217 9.738 0.290 - 0.124 0.041 0.123 - 0.342 0.104 - - - 0.017 - - 0.007 - 0.294 -
18 11/4/2011 Machaca/Sabalo Brycon behreae 1 Skin-on filet 350 - 7.53 0.075 - 1.127 - - 0.018 0.039 0.031 0.017 0.156 - - - - 0.054 - 0.208 - - - -
19 11/4/2011 Machaca/Sabalo Brycon behreae 1 Skin-on filet 281 242.0 5.24 0.341 - 0.867 0.015 - - 0.025 0.028 0.082 0.469 - - - - - - - - - - -
24 11/4/2011 Machaca/Sabalo Brycon behreae 1 Skin-on filet 350 392.0 4.08 0.068 0.005 0.417 0.014 - 0.007 0.030 0.009 0.089 0.139 - - - - 0.012 - - - - - -
6 11/5/2011 Machaca/Sabalo Brycon behreae 1 Skin-on filet 327 - 2.17 0.007 0.005 0.108 0.011 - 0.004 0.016 0.019 0.747 0.129 - - - - 0.006 - 0.320 - - - -
6 11/5/2011 Machaca/Sabalo Brycon behreae 1 Skin-on filet 298 - 3.11 0.048 0.014 0.165 0.001 - 0.029 0.028 0.008 0.736 0.406 - - - - 0.001 - 0.371 - - - -
10 8/20/2011 Machaca/Sabalo Brycon behreae 1 Skin-on filet 151 29.5 6.66 5.133 0.185 2.183 0.016 - 0.115 0.039 0.029 0.348 10.672 - - - 0.843 0.007 7.558 - - 0.053 - -
1 11/7/2011 Pargo colorado Lutjanus colorado 1 Skin-on filet 383 860.0 0.9 0.055 0.002 0.013 0.002 - - 0.005 0.007 0.200 0.204 - - - - 0.005 - - - - - -
1 11/7/2011 Pargo colorado Lutjanus colorado 1 Skin-on filet 402 800.0 0.48 0.021 - - 0.011 - - - 0.006 0.104 0.167 - - - - - - - - - - -
1 11/7/2011 Pargo colorado Lutjanus colorado 1 Skin-on filet 370 - 0.71 0.066 - 0.051 0.010 - - 0.006 0.005 0.140 0.268 - - - - - - - - - - -
17 8/18/2011 Pargo colorado Lutjanus colorado 1 Skin-on filet 248 - 0.67 0.017 0.005 - - - 0.015 0.004 0.003 0.036 0.126 - - - - - - - - - - -
22 8/17/2011 Pargo colorado Lutjanus colorado 1 Skin-on filet 168 - 0.76 0.007 - 0.169 - - 0.001 0.005 0.037 0.069 0.184 - - - - - - - - - - -
M 8/18/2011 Robalo aleta manchada Centropomus medius 1 Skin-on filet 384 - 0.69 0.004 0.011 0.043 0.014 - - 0.004 0.008 - 0.065 - - - - - - - - - - -
M 8/18/2011 Robalo chucumite Centropomus armatus 1 Skin-on filet 350 - 0.47 0.028 0.030 0.040 - - 0.012 0.002 0.001 - 0.408 - - - - 0.001 - - - - - -
13 8/19/2011 Robalo aleta manchada Centropomus medius 1 Skin-on filet 290 178.6 0.45 0.752 - 6.823 0.041 - - 0.006 0.130 - 0.050 - - - - - - - - - - -
23 11/4/2011 Robalo chucumite Centropomus armatus 1 Skin-on filet 304 323.0 1.76 0.018 0.007 0.488 0.001 - 0.002 0.021 0.033 - 0.021 - - - - - - - - - - -
24 11/4/2011 Robalo negro Centropomus nigrescens 1 Skin-on filet 434 637.0 1.18 0.002 - 0.292 - - - - 0.034 - 0.003 - - - - - - - - - - -
24 11/4/2011 Robalo negro Centropomus nigrescens 1 Skin-on filet 408 525.0 0.91 0.026 - 0.231 - - - 0.005 0.021 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 8/20/2011 Robalo chucumite Centropomus armatus 1 Skin-on filet 171 - 0.57 0.011 - 0.036 - - - 0.004 - 0.246 0.811 - - - - - - 0.062 - - - -
2 8/20/2011 Robalo chucumite Centropomus armatus 1 Skin-on filet 155 - 0.54 - - - 0.001 - 0.012 0.003 0.002 0.124 0.603 - - - - - - - - - - -
2 8/20/2011 Robalo chucumite Centropomus armatus 1 Skin-on filet 150 - 0.78 0.003 0.016 - - - 0.001 - 0.005 0.145 0.784 - - - - - - 0.067 - - - -
7 8/16/2011 Robalo chucumite Centropomus armatus 1 Skin-on filet 276 - 0.56 0.017 0.022 - - - 0.008 0.002 - - 0.215 - - - - - - - - - - -
7 8/16/2011 Robalo chucumite Centropomus armatus 1 Skin-on filet 331 413.9 0.62 0.031 - - - - - 0.001 0.003 0.035 0.119 - - - - - - - - - - -
6 11/5/2011 Robalo chucumite Centropomus armatus 1 Skin-on filet 313 - 0.74 0.008 - 0.001 - - 0.006 0.004 0.005 0.096 0.124 - - - - - - 0.114 - - - -
10 8/20/2011 Robalo chucumite Centropomus armatus 1 Skin-on filet 237 157.8 0.88 0.012 0.016 0.791 0.001 - - 0.005 0.037 0.126 0.554 - - - - - - - - - - -
10 8/20/2011 Robalo negro Centropomus nigrescens 1 Skin-on filet 451 650.0 0.7 0.106 - 5.804 0.347 - - 0.001 0.038 0.018 0.120 - - - - - - - - - - -
10 8/20/2011 Robalo negro Centropomus nigrescens 1 Skin-on filet 172 38.5 0.56 0.001 - 1.821 0.016 - - 0.004 0.032 - 0.334 - - - - - - - - - - -
10 8/20/2011 Robalo negro Centropomus nigrescens 1 Skin-on filet 160 31.0 0.81 0.005 - 0.722 - - - 0.005 0.021 - 0.156 - - - - - - - - - - -
1 11/7/2011 Robalo negro Centropomus nigrescens 1 Skin-on filet 632 2100.0 1.29 0.053 - 0.579 - - - - 0.019 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 11/7/2011 Robalo negro Centropomus nigrescens 1 Skin-on filet 523 990.0 0.93 0.031 - 0.105 - - 0.006 0.007 - 0.071 0.125 - - - - - - - - - - -
1 11/7/2011 Robalo negro Centropomus nigrescens 1 Skin-on filet 581 1600.0 0.27 0.029 - 0.224 - - - 0.005 0.024 0.074 0.046 - - - - - - - - - - -
6 8/21/2011 Bagre Cathorops sp. 3 Whole fish 63-85 1.9-4.53 2.29 0.078 - 0.324 0.004 - 0.002 0.020 0.163 3.530 3.586 - 0.200 5.718 - - 0.154 0.724 - 2.118 - -
15 11/3/2011 Tilapia Oreochromis urolepis 1 Skin-on filet 149 71.5 0.67 0.025 - 1.212 - - - 0.019 - - 0.118 - - - - - - 5.237 - - - -
20 8/19/2011 Tilapia Oreochromis urolepis 1 Skin-on filet 208 187.3 0.38 0.137 - 0.967 - - - 0.017 - - 0.114 - - - - - - - - - - -
21 8/19/2011 Tilapia Oreochromis urolepis 1 Skin-on filet 187 138.4 0.86 0.281 - 0.522 - - - - - - 0.036 - 0.089 - - - - - - - - -
10 8/20/2011 Tilapia Oreochromis urolepis 1 Skin-on filet 321 660.0 1.53 1.614 0.631 49.239 2.012 - 0.346 0.133 0.019 0.055 0.231 - - - - - 0.113 - - - - -
10 8/20/2011 Tilapia Oreochromis urolepis 1 Skin-on filet 223 271.2 1.25 0.689 0.279 20.970 0.579 0.022 0.115 0.039 0.016 - 0.216 - - - - - 1.066 - - - - 0.036
10 8/20/2011 Tilapia Oreochromis urolepis 1 Skin-on filet 184 143.9 0.82 0.515 0.145 15.323 0.644 - 0.071 0.070 - 0.027 0.138 - - - - - - - - - - -
35
Table 5: Pesticide Reference Dose (RfD, mg/kg/d) and Cancer Slope Factor (CSF, [mg/kg/d]-1
) from the USEPA to
calculate consumption advisories. (* - a value of 1 is used when the RfD was not reported by the USEPA).
Class Pesticide CAS RfD CSF
Organochlorine Captan 133-06-2 0.13 0
Chlordane
Chlordane, oxy- 27304-13-8 0.0005 0.35
Chlordane, gamma(trans) 5103-74-2 0.0005 0.35
Chlordane, alpha(cis) 5103-71-9 0.0005 0.35
Nonachlor, trans- 39765-80-5 0.0005 0.35
Nonachlor, cis- 5103-73-1 0.0005 0.35
Chlorothalonil 1897-45-6 0.015 0
Dacthal 1861-32-1 0.01 0
4,4'-DDT 50-29-3 0.0005 0.34
2,4'-DDD 53-19-0 0.0005 0.34
4,4'-DDD 72-54-8 0.0005 0.34
2,4'-DDE 3424-82-6 0.0005 0.34
4,4'-DDE 72-55-9 0.0005 0.34
2,4'-DDT 789-02-6 0.0005 0.34
Dieldrin 60-57-1 0.00005 16
Aldrin 309-00-2 0.00003 16
Endosulfan
alpha-Endosulphan 959-98-8 0.006 0
beta-Endosulphan 33213-65-9 0.006 0
EndosulphanSulphate 1031-07-8 0.006 0
Endrin 72-20-8 0.0003 0
EndrinKetone 53494-70-5 0.0003 0
HCH,gamma (Lindane) 58-89-9 0.0003 1.3
HCH,alpha 319-84-6 1* 0
HCH,beta 319-85-7 1* 0
HCH,delta 319-86-8 1* 0
Heptachlor 76-44-8 0.0005 1.3
Heptachlor epoxide 1024-57-3 0.000013 9.1
Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 0.0008 1.6
Methoxychlor 72-43-5 1* 0
Mirex 2385-85-5 0.0002 0
Octachlorostyrene 29082-74-4 1* 0
Perthane 72-56-0 1* 0
Quintozene 82-68-8 0.003 0
Tecnazene 117-18-0 1* 0
Triazine Ametryn 834-12-8 0.009 0
Atrazine 1912-24-9 0.035 0
Cyanazine 21725-46-2 1* 0
Desethylatrazine 6190-65-4 0.035 0
Hexazinone 51235-04-2 1* 0
Metribuzin 21087-64-9 1* 0
Simazine 122-34-9 1* 0
Organophosphate Azinphos-Methyl 86-50-0 1* 0
Chlorpyriphos 2921-88-2 0.0003 0
Chlorpyriphos-methyl 5598-13-0 1* 0
Chlorpyriphos-oxon 5598-15-2 0.0003 0
Diazinon 333-41-5 0.0007 0
Diazinon-oxon 962-58-3 0.0007 0
Dimethoate 60-51-5 0.0002 0
Disulfoton 298-04-4 0.00004 0
Disulfoton sulfone 2497-06-5 0.00004 0
Ethion 563-12-2 0.0005 0
Fenitrothion 122-14-5 1* 0
Fonofos 944-22-9 1* 0
Malathion 121-75-5 1* 0
Methamidophos 10265-92-6 1* 0
Parathion-Ethyl 56-38-2 1* 0
Parathion-Methyl 298-00-0 1* 0
Phorate 298-02-2 1* 0
Phosmet 732-11-6 1* 0
Pirimiphos-Methyl 29232-93-7 0.01 0
Terbufos 13071-79-9 0.00002 0
Pyrethroid Permethrin 52645-53-1 0.05 0
Cypermethrin 52315-07-8 0.01 0
36
Table 6: Fish consumption recommendations to avoid non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic health effects of pesticides.
Values are the recommended maximum number of 227 g (0.5 lbs.) meals per month of contaminanted fish or shellfish
for a 70 kg (154 lbs) person.
Species Waterbody Site Month No. Samples % Lipid
Non-
carcinogenic Carcinogenic
Piangua Mangrove 2 Aug. 1 0.60 60,854 3,088
2 Nov. 1 0.36 712,920 Inf.
3 Aug. 1 0.52 132,989 2,267
4 Aug. 1 0.56 392,479 12,685
4 Nov. 1 0.54 36,103 451
Camarone Rio Sierpe 12 Aug. 1 3.54 144,412 2,341
22 Aug. 1 2.45 1,912 34
Machaca/Sabalo Rio Sierpe 14 Nov. 1 5.90 50 0.7
18 Nov. 1 7.53 1,639 52
19 Nov. 1 5.24 1,028 16
24 Nov. 1 4.08 2,940 70
Rio Terraba 6 Nov. 2 2.64 1,859 143
10 Aug. 1 6.66 81 1.1
Pargo colorado Ocean 1 Nov. 3 0.70 5,942 122
Rio Sierpe 17 Aug. 1 0.67 5,638 225
22 Aug. 1 0.76 10,073 525
Robalo aleta manchada Market M Aug. 1 0.69 27,300 1,056
Robalo chucumite
M Aug. 1 0.47 5,526 161
Robalo aleta manchada Rio Sierpe 13 Aug. 1 0.45 315 6.5
Robalo chucumite
23 Nov. 1 1.76 6,048 191
Robalo negro
24 Nov. 2 1.04 9,806 296
Robalo chucumite Mangrove 2 Aug. 3 0.63 7,715 775
7 Aug. 2 0.59 10,145 220
Rio Terraba 6 Nov. 1 0.74 8,113 496
10 Aug. 1 0.88 3,484 198
Robalo negro
10 Aug. 3 0.69 1,356 61
Ocean 1 Nov. 3 0.83 5,767 131
Sea catfish Rio Terraba 6 Aug. 1 2.29 562 67
Tilapia Rio Sierpe 15 Nov. 1 0.67 898 111
20 Aug. 1 0.38 1,991 37
21 Aug. 1 0.86 1,405 20
Rio Terraba 10 Aug. 3 1.20 100 3.6
37
Figure 1. Land use in the Rio Sierpe and lower Rio Grande de Terraba watersheds. Sampling sites indicated by white dots.
38
Figure 3. Sampling locations for fish and shellfish in the Rio Grande de Térraba and Rio Sierpe, Osa Province, Costa Rica. Green outline
indicates boundary of the Humedal Nacional Térraba-Sierpe. Bullseyes indicate approximate locations of reported fish kills.
39
Figure 4. Distribution of the observed pesticide load (ng/g wet weight) for each species, and for individuals as a
function of lipid content and length. Key: AA – Pargo, B- Bagre, C – Camarone, MM – Machaca, P – Piangua, R –
Robalo, T – Tilapia.
Species % Lipid Total Length
Org
anoch
lori
nes
Tri
azin
es
Org
anophosp
hat
es
40
Figure 4 (Contiuned)
Pyre
thro
ids
All
41
Figure 5: Concentration of pesticide residues summed with their breakdown products in skin-on fish filets,
whole clam or whole shrimp. Center of circle corresponds to the approximate location the sample was collected.
Verticle white box encloses different species from the same sampling location, horizontal white box encloses
samples from different dates (A – August, N – November). Red box indicates sample from the fish market in
Palmar Norte. Key: AA – Pargo, B- Bagre, C – Camarone, MM – Machaca, P – Piangua, R – Robalo, T – Tilapia.
Σ(Chlordane) Chlorothalonil
Σ(DDT) Dieldrin + Aldrin
Σ(Endosulfan) Σ(Endrin)
42
Figure 5 (Continued)
Σ(Heptachlor) Hexachlorobenzene
Mirex
Chlorphyrifos
Diazinon
Rare (3 or fewer species and 2 or fewer sites)
43
Figure 6. November 3-8, 2011 water physiochemistry
Temperature (°C) % DO saturation
pH
Conductivity (Ln[uS/cm])
Turbidity (Ln[NTU])
44
Appendix Table 1 - Pesticide imports into Costa Rica for 2007, 2008 and 2009 (kg active ingredient) listed in
order of import in 2009. Pesticides in bold were screened in fish and shellfish as part of this study (n=21). (Data
adapted from Muñoz 2011).
2007 2008 2009
Total herbicide 3,926,534.92 4,347,735.45 3,357,808.64
Total fungicide 5,840,243.54 6,020,457.15 6,549,208.61
Total insecticide 2,118,757.36 2,094,302.68 1,681,637.37
Total fumigant 802,634.76 798,329.77 664,148.97
Total other 52,977.89 49,101.14 45,407.68
Pesticide (English) Use 2007 2008 2009 Mancozeb Fungicide 3,956,636.27 4,265,657.98 4,990,878.59
Glyphosate Herbicide 1,275,413.94 1,482,111.53 1,085,000.03
2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid Herbicide 1,095,718.84 1,229,842.46 824,184.04
Paraquat Herbicide 350,192.84 370,870.56 457,735.40
Tridemorph Fungicide 490,235.01 388,387.41 336,245.59
Methyl bromide Fumigant 396,900.00 364,756.00 323,743.00
Diazinon Insecticide 202,426.00 379,306.00 313,867.40
Terbufos Insecticide 340,055.20 237,204.81 263,266.60
Metam sodium Fumigant 353,599.76 340,357.12 243,500.91
Ethoprophos Insecticide 339,791.95 365,456.88 229,042.77
Chlorothalonil Fungicide 287,999.90 289,125.55 212,297.18
Fenpropimorph Fungicide 86,996.90 64,574.40 158,189.68
Fosetil Fungicide 237,952.00 192,288.00 141,020.00
Pendimethalin Herbicide 209,567.00 104,733.32 139,111.49
Ametryn Herbicide 152,056.04 202,219.00 132,741.00
Oxamyl Insecticide 73,470.14 157,674.27 118,281.40
Diuron Herbicide 348,137.60 282,881.68 98,142.50
Bentazone Herbicide 21,219.20 42,438.40 96,928.00
Terbutryn Herbicide 72,090.00 150,465.00 89,300.00
Propineb Fungicide 80,675.10 100,808.90 87,245.20
Chlorpyrifos Insecticide 115,866.99 79,831.58 83,024.87
1,3-Dichloropropene Fumigant 37,907.50 69,857.05 82,187.49
Carbaryl Insecticide 80,576.20 101,367.44 79,824.60
Propanil Herbicide 42,089.28 73,546.38 76,114.50
Carbendazim Fungicide 110,405.45 107,008.97 69,878.30
Malathion Insecticide 66,317.40 55,222.08 64,661.70
Carbofuran Insecticide 101,785.58 134,290.13 64,527.95
Sulfur Insecticide 180,680.00 131,016.00 61,400.00
Cadusafos Insecticide 63,338.00 51,412.35 58,752.00
Dimethoate Insecticide 39,476.46 43,061.84 58,010.00
Fenamiphos Insecticide 203,300.90 42,640.70 55,946.80
Pyrimethanil Fungicide 49,656.00 40,747.20 54,996.00
Bromacil Herbicide 53,720.77 71,866.04 49,078.66
Cypermethrin Insecticide 37,842.05 30,189.00 45,817.50
Epoxiconazole Fungicide 25,267.18 23,811.88 45,759.75
Picloram Herbicide 36,454.38 24,869.84 45,596.33
Spiroxamine Fungicide 29,120.00 35,732.48 41,760.00
Ethephon Other 48,749.04 40,781.57 41,069.08
Methylarsonic acid or MSMA Herbicide 39,231.36 32,981.76 39,600.00
45
Pesticide (English) Use 2007 2008 2009 Copper oxychloride Fungicide 27,096.98 47,754.46 30,830.71
Terbuthylazine Herbicide 34,500.50 27,630.00 30,130.00
Forato Insecticide 44,673.71 72,694.58 29,148.34
Acephate Insecticide 14,303.30 12,450.64 25,670.00
Difenoconazole Fungicide 51,830.54 30,537.56 24,128.00
Butachlor Herbicide 25,555.56 31,650.00 23,723.16
Metiram Fungicide 56,700.00 32,000.00 23,640.00
Ziram Fungicide 22,800.00 22,800.00 22,800.00
Pyraclostrobin Fungicide 10,824.15 10,298.34 22,185.70
Captan Fungicide 31,995.00 26,507.88 21,425.00
Tebuconazole Fungicide 15,690.08 25,169.75 20,570.06
MCPA Herbicide 6,517.20 13,770.40 17,330.00
Imazalil Fungicide 16,462.50 12,507.23 17,100.00
Thiophanate methyl Fungicide 24,363.09 33,857.99 16,990.98
Propiconazole Fungicide 4,654.35 9,104.57 16,903.50
Endosulfan Insecticide 42,625.11 50,282.91 16,303.50
Glufosinate Herbicide 11,684.75 6,020.10 16,028.70
Triclopyr Herbicide 18,064.96 17,292.19 15,917.73
Naled Insecticide 2,220.29 12,679.92 14,160.00
Benomyl Fungicide 8,370.00 18,375.00 13,850.00
Triadimefon Fungicide 11,175.46 12,455.55 13,322.73
Clomazone Herbicide 4,800.00 7,389.70 13,280.70
Quinclorac Herbicide 11,202.50 7,604.76 12,567.50
Dimethomorph Fungicide 10,095.15 11,022.70 12,091.25
Oxifluorfen Herbicide 10,954.58 20,090.20 11,784.10
Hexazinone Herbicide 23,039.67 13,206.00 11,767.20
Aluminum phosphide Insecticide 10,349.49 13,211.26 11,574.81
Folpet Fungicide 12,919.16 13,098.24 11,535.36
Metalaxyl Fungicide 11,301.94 12,860.70 10,509.33
Disulfoton Insecticide 2,472.80 5,440.00 10,386.40
Copper hydroxide Fungicide 36,558.96 73,390.00 10,375.00
Quintozene (PCNB) Fungicide 6,929.67 4,049.82 10,340.00
Prochloraz Fungicide 6,026.60 8,795.85 9,969.30
Thiocyclam Insecticide 7,743.03 16,705.48 9,183.20
Cimoxamil Fungicide 7,340.86 3,328.20 9,109.20
Bordeaux mixture Fungicide 4,000.00 5,337.50 8,875.00
Boscalid Fungicide 4,760.28 6,528.06 8,205.12
Zineb Fungicide 8,000.00 4,000.00 8,000.00
Diquat Herbicide 4,703.20 9,841.60 7,797.60
Kresoxim methyl Fungicide 7,245.00
Bitertanol Fungicide 13,080.00 10,575.60 7,122.00
Dazomet Fumigant 2,910.00 11,058.00 7,004.37
Profoxydim Herbicide 7,834.00 9,398.00 6,816.00
Triadimenol Fungicide 7,942.20 6,236.70 6,639.44
Chloropicrin Fumigant 11,317.50 12,301.60 6,629.12
Propamocarb Fungicide 7,364.40 9,585.27 6,590.42
Quizalofop Herbicide 2,969.42 4,053.12 6,354.56
Ferbam Fungicide 2,660.00 4,940.00 5,700.00
Chlorfenpyr Insecticide 1,440.00 2,976.24 5,316.00
Clethodim Herbicide 5,114.40 5,037.60 5,232.00
Potassium salts of fatty acids Insecticide 4,876.00 4,968.00 4,968.00
46
Pesticide (English) Use 2007 2008 2009 Linuron Herbicide 3,960.00 8,848.00 4,940.00
Imazapic Herbicide 2,762.28 5,372.61 4,774.65
Metaldehyde Molusquicida 1570 1648 4704
Metaldehyde Insecticide 1,569.50 1,648.86 4,704.00
Methamidophos Insecticide 30,161.20 15,105.00 4,515.00
Permethrin Insecticide 5,723.68 5,514.69 4,471.80
Cyhalofop butyl Herbicide 2,413.44 2,880.00 4,446.00
Profenofos Insecticide 4,200.00
Tiram Fungicide 4,160.00 4,000.00 4,160.00
Imidacloprid Insecticide 8,238.57 4,936.85 3,907.40
Prothiofos Insecticide 5,042.50 3,680.00 3,500.00
Validamycin Fungicide 4,000.00 4,800.00 3,399.80
Chloroneb Fungicide 2,653.04 6,633.90 3,316.95
Azoxystrobin Fungicide 2,755.70 2,437.40 3,269.70
Fluazifop-P Herbicide 2,881.67 3,123.00 3,015.00
Dichlorvos Insecticide 10,858.00 3,228.00 2,988.00
Alachlor Herbicide 3,548.16 3,344.64 2,981.76
Oxadiazon Herbicide 191.52 2,462.40
Asulam Herbicide 4,400.00 2,400.00
Isoprothiolane Other 1,920.00 4,800.00 2,400.00
Atrazine Herbicide 15,115.00 27,799.30 2,280.00
Pymetrozine Insecticide 1,302.50 1,608.00 2,260.00
Pretilachlor Herbicide 2,050.00 1,040.00 2,250.00
Metsulfuron Herbicide 1,179.10 1,437.47 2,230.48
Aldicarb Insecticide 3,564.00 6,324.30 2,160.00
Anilophos Herbicide 2,868.40 6,932.68 2,102.16
Imazapyr Herbicide 10,247.85 16,930.99 2,093.55
Cartap Insecticide 4,845.00 1,845.00 2,000.00
Maneb Fungicide 1,004.80 1,920.00
Bispyribac sodium Herbicide 907.2 1,018.00 1,825.60
Flutolanil Fungicide 1,566.00 1,800.00 1,800.00
Bifenthrin Insecticide 2,473.14 742 1,752.70
Methomyl Insecticide 25,845.26 2,922.45 1,736.28
Thiabendazole Fungicide 3,360.00 2,672.80 1,713.20
Carbosulfan Insecticide 500 2,250.00 1,650.00
Spinosad Insecticide 2,958.72 1,414.80 1,647.36
Methiocarb Insecticide 531.95 1,291.45 1,629.20
Methiocarb Molusquicida 532 1291 1629
Benfuracarb Insecticide 2,100.00 2,400.00 1,600.00
Methyl Tolclofos Fungicide 1,600.50 872.5 1,597.50
Tiametoxan Other 1,117.25 1,867.50 1,546.10
Dodemorph Fungicide 2,040.00 1,536.00
Cyproconazole Fungicide 2,482.80 2,490.00 1,500.80
Etofenprox Insecticide 1,000.00 500 1,500.00
Sodium fluosilicate Insecticide 1,500.00 1,518.75 1,500.00
Streptomycin Fungicide 12,214.50 5,743.50 1,461.00
Carboxin Fungicide 848 2,200.00 1,305.00
Methyl parathion Insecticide 1,459.20 1,267.20
Propaquizafop+B210 Herbicide 369.6 277.2 1,190.40
Aminopyralid Herbicide 1,147.84
Methyl iodide Fumigant 1,084.08
47
Pesticide (English) Use 2007 2008 2009 Fluoroxipyr Herbicide 5,608.68 1,760.24 970.25
Pencycuron Fungicide 375 750 937.5
Myclobutanil Fungicide 336 811.6 931.2
Iprodione Fungicide 1,600.96 8,531.90 925.2
Phoxim Insecticide 1,843.75 1,284.18 847.73
Dicofol Insecticide 902.8 828.8
Cypermethrin, Zeta- Insecticide 252 504 792
Ioxynil Herbicide 388.8 775.2
Fomesafen Herbicide 415 720
Trifloxystrobin Fungicide 2,484.00 1,609.70 703.7
Cyclosulfamuron Herbicide 1,049.66 699.78 699.78
Famoxadone Fungicide 385.72 841.05 678.6
Oxytetracycline Fungicide 2,464.93 950.35 639.3
TCMTB Fungicide 2,646.00 1,575.00 630
Cylfuthrin Insecticide 668.68 636 561.4
Iprovalicarb Fungicide 514.62 645.3 532.98
Cyhalothrin-lambda Insecticide 374.12 495.38 530.83
Pyrethrin Insecticide 192.71 386.61 520.65
Kasugamacina Fungicide 247.5 940.5 505.89
Deltamethryn Insecticide 476 906.75 502
Ethoxysulfuron Herbicide 122.4 218.8 475.2
abamectin Insecticide 985.67 112.99 473.7
Hydramethylnon Insecticide 418.16 380.55 468.3
Teflubenzuron Insecticide 934.2 816 468
Etradiazole Fungicide 544 183.3 412.79
Imazamox Herbicide 197.81 403.2
Fipronil Insecticide 361 546.4 403.2
Quaternary ammonium Fungicide 402 402 402
Novaluron Insecticide 235.12 522.1 379
Imazaquin Herbicide 225 375
Acibenzolar-s-methyl Other 400 1,120.00 350
Cyromazine Insecticide 301.5 460.5 349.5
Cypermethrin, Alpha- Insecticide 60.19 320 320
Thiacloprid Insecticide 644.9 2,287.50 320
Dichloran Fungicide 273
Haloxyfop Herbicide 541.92 866.88 264
Diflubenzuron Insecticide 130.82 0.11 261.62
Piperophos Herbicide 860 320 256
Carfentrazone Herbicide 241.92 336 240
Propargite Insecticide 240 240
Tetradifon Insecticide 80 240
Spiromesifen Insecticide 122.88 655.2 176.4
fenamidone Fungicide 64 128 128
Magnesium phosphide Insecticide 1,422.40 2,430.40 125.8
Indoxacarb Insecticide 136.31 216 121.5
Copper Sulfate Pentahydrate Fungicide 77.12 81.68 119.12
Pyrazosulfuron Herbicide 60 30 117
Clofentezine Insecticide 270 90 90
Sulfluramid Insecticide 100.5 157.98 90
Gentamicin Fungicide 120.16 60 86
Cypermethrin, Beta- Insecticide 80
48
Pesticide (English) Use 2007 2008 2009 Hexythiazox Insecticide 40.5 40 80
Amitraz Insecticide 720 144 72
Fenoxaprop-P-ethyl Herbicide 130.5 417.51 55.62
Lufenuron Insecticide 112.26 32.4 53.64
Chlorflurenol Herbicide 48.25
Emamectin benzoate Insecticide 95.4 231.5 43.56
Daminozide Other 85 42.5 42.5
Cylfuthrin, Beta- Insecticide 80.61 52.5 40
Coumatetralil Rodenticida 23.44 141.75 23.06
Coumatetralil Insecticide 23.44 141.75 23.06
Nicosulfuron Herbicide 8.1
Difethialone Insecticide 6.25
Acetamiprid Insecticide 18.58 2.4
Flocoumafen Rodenticida 1.69 52.58 2.16
Flocoumafen Insecticide 1.69 52.58 2.16
Brodifacouma Rodenticida 1.41 31 0.95
Brodifacouma Insecticide 1.41 31 0.95
Bromadiolone Rodenticida 0.01 5 0.08
Bromadiolone Insecticide 0.01 5 0.08
Diphacinone Insecticide 0.32 0.05 0.05
Bromuconazole Fungicide 0.28
Bupirimate Fungicide 1.25
Dichlofluanid Fungicide 5,055.00 397.5
Fenbuconazole Fungicide 1,425.00
Potassium phosphite Fungicide 1,930.00
Hexaconazol Fungicide 0.94
Imibenconazole Fungicide 0.15
Iprobenfos Fungicide 6,240.00 2,880.00
Cupric oleate Fungicide 498.12 695.52
Copper hydroxide Fungicide 0.44
Oxycarboxin Fungicide 300
Tribasic copper sulfate Fungicide 23.76
Acetochlor Herbicide 13,824.00
Cyanamide Herbicide 499.2
Iodosulfuron methyl Herbicide 3.88
Isoxaflutole Herbicide 8.45 110.25
Metribuzin Herbicide 5,780.60 1,086.40
Norflurazon Herbicide 14.15
Simazine Herbicide 495.12 1,203.31
Tebuthiuron Herbicide 10
Trifloxysulfuron Herbicide 85.99 118.4
Benthiavalicarb Insecticide 0.1
Buprofezin Insecticide 750 250
Clotanidin Insecticide 2.4
Diafentiuron Insecticide 403 428.5
Fenitrothion Insecticide 1,267.50
Flufenoxuron Insecticide 96.36 280
Metoxifenozide Insecticide 668.16 307.2
Pirimicarb Insecticide 5
Pyriproxyfen Insecticide 200 100
Rotenone Insecticide 47.9
49
Pesticide (English) Use 2007 2008 2009 Thiodicarb Insecticide 367.5 691
Triazophos Insecticide 18,612.00 20,080.00
Fentin Other 307.6
Cytokinin Other 9.57
Paclobutrazol Other 399 480
50
Appendix Table 2. Legacy and current use pesticides used on rice in Costa Rica and other pesticides of interest or their breakdown
products based on literature, site visits and lab analyses. Pesticides in bold were screened as part of this study.
Chemical CAS number Chem class (15) Use (15) Ref
Restricted or Prohibited in Costa Rica (Year)
Propanil 709-98-8 Amide Herbicide 1,5,7,14
Cyhalofop butyl 122008-85-9 Aryloxyphenoxy propionic acid Herbicide 6
Benomyl 17804-35-2 Benzimidazole Fungicide 7 Carbendazim 10605-21-7 Benzimidazole Fungicide 14 Thiabendazole 148-79-8 Benzimidazole Fungicide 2,10 Diquat 2764-72-9 Bipyridylium Herbicide 12 Paraquat 1910-42-5 Bipyridylium Herbicide 1,7,12,13 Restricted (24 Dec 2007)
Aldicarb 116-06-3 Carbamate Insecticide 1,13 Restricted (02 Jan 2008) Carbofuran 1563-66-2 Carbamate Insecticide 2,10,13 Restricted (02 Jan 2008) Mancozeb 8018-01-7. Carbamate Fungicide 1,5,7,14
Methomyl 16752-77-5 Carbamate Insecticide 1,13 Restricted (27 Dec 2007) Butachlor 23184-66-9 Chloroacetanilide Herbicide 7
Pendimethalin 40487-42-1 Dinitroaniline Herbicide 1,9 Daminozide 1596-84-5 Hydrazide Growth regulator 13 Restricted (7 April 1992)
Boron 7440-42-8 Mineral Fertilizer 5 Cyhexatin 13121-70-5 Mineral (tin) Insecticide 13 Prohibited (13 April 1999)
Copper oxychloride 1332-65-6 Mineral Fungicide 5,14 Magnesium 7439-95-4 Mineral Fertilizer 5 Mercury 7439-97-6 Mineral Fungicide 9,13 Prohibited (13 April 1999)
Zinc 7440-66-6 Mineral Fertilizer 5 Bentazone 25057-89-0 Miscellaneous Herbicide 12 Clomazone 81777-89-1 Miscellaneous Herbicide 5 Imazalil 35554-44-0 Miscellaneous Fungicide 1,2,10 Imazapic 104098-48-8 Miscellaneous Herbicide 6 Imazapyr 81334-34-1 Miscellaneous Herbicide 6 Oxadiazon 19666-30-9 Miscellaneous Herbicide 1 Quinclorac 84087-01-4 Miscellaneous Herbicide 1,5,6 Tridemorph 81412-43-3 Morpholine Fungicide 1 Thiacloprid 111988-49-9 Neonicotinoid Insecticide 12 Thiamethoxam 153719-23-4 Neonicotinoid insecticide 5 Nitrofen 1836-75-5 Nitric chloride Herbicide 13 Prohibited (13 April 1999)
Methyl bromide 74-83-9 Organobromide Herbicide 1 2,4'-DDD 53-19-0 Organochlorine Breakdown product 8 Prohibited (13 April 1999)
2,4'-DDE 3424-82-6 Organochlorine Breakdown product 8 Prohibited (13 April 1999) 2,4'-DDT 789-02-6 Organochlorine Breakdown product 8 Prohibited (13 April 1999) 4,4'-DDD 72-54-8 Organochlorine Breakdown product 8 Prohibited (13 April 1999) 4,4'-DDE 72-55-9 Organochlorine Breakdown product 8 Prohibited (13 April 1999) 4,4'-DDT 50-29-3 Organochlorine Insecticide 1,3,8,13 Prohibited (13 April 1999) Aldrin 309-00-2 Organochlorine Insecticide 3,8,13 Prohibited (13 April 1999) Chlordane (Technical) 12789-03-6 Organochlorine Insecticide 3,8,13 Prohibited (13 April 1999) Chlordane, alpha(cis) 5103-71-9 Organochlorine Breakdown product 8 Prohibited (13 April 1999) Chlordane, gamma(trans) 5103-74-2 Organochlorine Breakdown product 8 Prohibited (13 April 1999) Chlordane, oxy- 27304-13-8 Organochlorine Breakdown product 8 Prohibited (13 April 1999)
51
Chemical CAS number Chem class (15) Use (15) Ref
Restricted or Prohibited in Costa Rica (Year)
Chlordecone 143-50-0 Organochlorine Insecticide 3,13 Prohibited (13 April 1999) Chlordimeform 6164-98-3 Organochlorine Insecticide 3,13 Prohibited (13 April 1999) Chlorothalonil 1897-45-6 Organochlorine Fungicide 1,2,7,8,10
Dacthal* 1861-32-1 Organochlorine Herbicide 8 Dieldrin 60-57-1 Organochlorine Insecticide 1,3,8,13 Prohibited (13 April 1999)
Endosulfan 115-29-7 Organochlorine Insecticide 6,7,13 Prohibited for rice (9 Oct 2008) Endosulphan sulphate 1031-07-8 Organochlorine Breakdown product 8 Prohibited for rice (9 Oct 2008) Endosulphan, alpha- 959-98-8 Organochlorine Breakdown product 8 Prohibited for rice (9 Oct 2008) Endosulphan, beta- 33213-65-9 Organochlorine Breakdown product 8 Prohibited for rice (9 Oct 2008) Endrin 72-20-8 Organochlorine Insecticide 3,8,13 Prohibited (13 April 1999) Endrin ketone 53494-70-5 Organochlorine Breakdown product 8 Prohibited (13 April 1999) Glyphosate 1071-83-6 Organochlorine Herbicide 1,7
HCH, alpha 319-84-6 Organochlorine Insecticide 8 HCH, beta 319-85-7 Organochlorine Insecticide 8 HCH, delta 319-86-8 Organochlorine Insecticide 8 HCH, gamma-, Lindane 58-89-9 Organochlorine Insecticide 3,8,13 Prohibited (13 April 1999)
Heptachlor 76-44-8 Organochlorine Insecticide 1,3,8,13 Prohibited (13 April 1999) HeptachlorEpoxide 1024-57-3 Organochlorine Breakdown product 8 Prohibited (13 April 1999) Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 Organochlorine Fungicide 1,8
Methoxychlor 72-43-5 Organochlorine Insecticide 8,9 Mirex/Declorano 2385-85-5 Organochlorine Insecticide 8,13 Prohibited (13 April 1999)
Nonachlor, cis- 5103-73-1 Organochlorine Breakdown product 8 Prohibited (13 April 1999) Nonachlor, trans- 39765-80-5 Organochlorine Breakdown product 8 Prohibited (13 April 1999) Octachlorostyrene 29082-74-4 Organochlorine Breakdown product 8,9
Organochlorines Various Organochlorine Various 13 Prohibited for cattle (3 Oct 1988) Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 Organochlorine Insecticide 3,13 Prohibited (13 April 1999) Perthane* (ethylan) 72-56-0 Organochlorine Insecticide 8
Quintozene (PCNB) 82-68-8 Organochlorine Fungicide 8
Tecnazene 117-18-0 Organochlorine Fungicide, Plant growth regulator 8
Toxaphene 8001-35-2 Organochlorine Insecticide 1,3,13 Prohibited (13 April 1999) Anilofos 64249-01-0 Organophosphate Herbicide 5
Azinphos-Methyl 86-50-0 Organophosphate Insecticide 8 Cadusafos 95465-99-9 Organophosphate insecticide 1,2,10
Chlorpyriphos 2921-88-2 Organophosphate Insecticide 1,2,7,8,10,1
3 Restricted (27 Dec 2007) Chlorpyriphos-Methyl* 5598-13-0 Organophosphate Breakdown product 8,12 Restricted (27 Dec 2007) Chlorpyriphos-Oxon* 5598-15-2 Organophosphate Breakdown product 8 Restricted (27 Dec 2007) Diazinon 333-41-5 Organophosphate Insecticide 2,8,10,14
Diazinon-Oxon 962-58-3 Organophosphate Breakdown product 8 Dimethoate* 60-51-5 Organophosphate Insecticide 8,14 Disulfoton* 298-04-4 Organophosphate Insecticide 8 DisulfotonSulfone* 2497-06-5. Organophosphate Breakdown product 8 Edifenphos 17109-49-8 Organophosphate Fungicide 1 Ethephon 16672-87-0 Organophosphate Growth regulator 13 Prohibited for coffee (13 April 1999)
Ethion* 563-12-2 Organophosphate Insecticide 8 Ethoprophos 13194-48-4 Organophosphate Insecticide 2,10,13 Restricted (26 Dec 2007)
Fenamiphos 22224-92-6 Organophosphate Nematocide 10
52
Chemical CAS number Chem class (15) Use (15) Ref
Restricted or Prohibited in Costa Rica (Year)
Fenitrothion* 122-14-5 Organophosphate Insecticide 8 Fonofos 944-22-9 Organophosphate Insecticide 8 Malathion 121-75-5 Organophosphate Insecticide 1,8 Methamidophos 10265-92-6 Organophosphate Insecticide 1,7,8 Methylparathion 298-00-0 Organophosphate Insecticide 1,8,13 Restricted (26 Dec 2007)
Monocrotofos 6923-22-4 Organophosphate Insecticide 7,13 Prohibited (27 Dec 2007) Parathion-Ethyl* 56-38-2 Organophosphate insecticide 1
Phorate* 298-02-2 Organophosphate Insecticide 8 Phosmet* 732-11-6 Organophosphate Insecticide 8 Pirimiphos-Methyl* 29232-93-7 Organophosphate Insecticide 8 Profenophos 41198-08-7 Organophosphate insecticide 5 SulfoTEPP 3689-24-5 Organophosphate Insecticide, Breakdown product 11 Terbufos 13071-79-9 Organophosphate Insecticide 1,2,8,10,13 Restricted (27 Dec 2007)
Triazophos 24017-47-8 Organophosphate Insecticide 6, 14 Paraffinic oil 64742-46-7 Petroleum Insecticide, Surfactant 7
Dinoseb 88-85-7 Phenol Herbicide, Insecticide, Fungicide 13 Prohibited (13 April 1999)
Mecoprop 7085-19-0 Phenoxy Herbicide 1 2,4,5- trichlorophenoxyacetic
acid 93-76-5 Phenoxyacetic acid Herbicide 1,13 Prohibited (22 April 1987) 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 94-75-7 Phenoxyacetic acid Herbicide 1,7 Prohibited (13 April 1999) Dichlorprop 7547-66-2 Phenoxyacetic acid Herbicide 13 Prohibited (22 Nov 2004) MCPA 94-74-6 Phenoxyacetic acid Herbicide 7
Aluminum phosphide 20859-73-8 Phosphide Fungicide 13 Restricted (12 Dec 2007) Captafol .2425-06-1 Phthalamide Fungicide 13 Prohibited (13 April 1999) Captan* 133-06-2 Phthalamide Fungicide 8,13 Prohibited (13 April 1999) Octylphenoxypolyethoxyethanol 9036-19-5 Polyalkyloxy compound Surfactant 5
Fipronil 120068-37-3 Pyrazole Insecticide 12 Cyhalothrin, Lambda 91465-08-6 Pyrethroid Insecticide 5,8,12 Cypermethrin 52315-07-8 Pyrethroid Insecticide 1,7,8,12 Deltamethrin 52918-63-5 Pyrethroid Insecticide 1,6,8 Etofenprox 80844-07-1 Pyrethroid Insecticide 5 Permethrin 52645-53-1 Pyrethroid Insecticide 8 Azoxystrobin 131860-33-8 Strobin Fungicide 12 Trifloxystrobin 141517-21-7 Strobin Fungicide 12 Metsulfuron-methyl 74223-64-6 Sulfonylurea Herbicide 7 Ametryn 834-12-8 Triazine Herbicide 1,2,8,10 Atrazine 1912-24-9 Triazine Herbicide 1,7,8 Atrazine, desethyl- 6190-65-4 Triazine Breakdown product 8 Cyanazine* 21725-46-2 Triazine Herbicide 8 Hexazinone* 51235-04-2 Triazinone Herbicide 8 Metribuzin* 21087-64-9 Triazole Herbicide 8 Propiconazole 60207-90-1 Triazole Fungicide 1,2,5,10 Simazine 122-34-9 Triazole Herbicide 8 Tebuconazole 107534-96-3 Triazole Fungicide 5, 14 Triadimenol 55219-65-3 Triazole Fungicide 5, 14 Diflubenzuron 35367-38-5 Urea Insecticide 12 Diuron 330-54-1 Urea Herbicide 7
53
Chemical CAS number Chem class (15) Use (15) Ref
Restricted or Prohibited in Costa Rica (Year)
Calcium cyanide (Cianoga [Spanish]) Cyanogas [English])
592-01-8 Cyanide Fungicide, Rodenticide 13 Prohibited (22 Oct 1960)
Agriful
Fertilizer 6 Fertilizer
Fertilizer 7
Kaytar
pH buffer 5,14 Silver citrate 126-45-4
? 14
Ref Title
1 (Castillo et al. 1997) Castillo, L. E., De La Cruz, E. & Ruepert, C. (1997). Ecotoxicology and pesticides in tropical aquatic ecosystems of Central America. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 16, 41-51.
2 (Castillo et al. 2006) Castillo, L. E., Martínez, E., Ruepert, C., Savage, C., Gilek, M., Pinnock, M. & Solis, E. (2006). Water quality and macroinvertebrate community response following pesticide applications in a banana plantation, limon, Costa Rica. Science of the Total Environment 367, 418-432.
3 Castillo, L. E. (no year) Persistent Organic Pesticides in Costa Rica, http://www.chem.unep.ch/pops/pops_inc/proceedings/cartagena/CASTILLO.html 4 World Health Organization (2009). The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification. ISBN 978 92 4 154796 3
(http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/pesticides_hazard_2009.pdf) 5 Rainforest Alliance - "Agroquemicos de Arroz Primer Siembra 2009 - Herman Fabrega” 6 Bottle or label found in Rice Paddy by SWRC scientists - August & November 2011 7 Recommendations for rice in Costa Rica from http://www.crystal-chemical.com/ (accessed 2011) 8 US EPA (Dec. 2007) Method 1699: Pesticides in Water, Soil, Sediment, Biosolids, and Tissue by HRGC/HRMS (EPA-821-R-08-001) 9 US EPA PBT/TRI priority 10 (Castillo et al. 2000) Castillo, L.E., Ruepert, C. and Solis, E. (2000) Pesticide residues in the aquatic environment of banana plantation areas in the North Atlantic Zone of
Costa Rica. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 19, 1942–1950. 11 Sulfotep is a stable breakdown product of Diazinon, and may also be used a pesticide 12 FAO/WHO Food Standards, Pesticide Residues in Food and Feed - Commodity Details - GC 0649 - Rice
(http://www.codexalimentarius.net/pestres/data/commodities/details.html?id=158) 13 PLAGUICIDAS PROHIBIDOS Y RESTRINGIDOS EN COSTA RICA (22/03/11) 14 Pesticides observed in storage shed on rice farm, Nov. 2011 15 PAN (Pesticide Action Network) www.pesticideinfo.org (June 27, 2012)
54
Appendix Table 3: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to test for effect of species, lipid content
and total length (TL) on pesticide concentration. Model tested: Log10(Sum[Pesticide]+0.0001) =
Species + TL + Lipid + Species * TL + Species * Lipid + TL * Lipid + Species * TL * Lipid
ORGANOCHLORINES Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
Species 4 8.418 2.1045 7.879 0.000424
TL 1 0.165 0.1649 0.618 0.440331
Lipid 1 1.846 1.8464 6.913 0.015318
Species*TL 3 2.411 0.8036 3.009 0.051996
Species*Lipid 3 0.572 0.1908 0.714 0.553851
TL*Lipid 1 0.019 0.0185 0.069 0.794762
Species*TL*Lipid 3 0.161 0.0538 0.201 0.894294
Residuals 22 5.876 0.2671
ORGANOPHOSPHATES Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
Species 4 33.02 8.254 3.271 0.0301
TL 1 0.39 0.393 0.156 0.6971
Lipid 1 0.85 0.849 0.336 0.5678
Species*TL 3 0.95 0.315 0.125 0.9443
Species*Lipid 3 2.48 0.828 0.328 0.805
TL*Lipid 1 0.1 0.099 0.039 0.8451
Species*TL*Lipid 3 5.9 1.967 0.78 0.5179
Residuals 22 55.51 2.523
PYRETHROIDS Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
Species 4 28.274 7.069 31.467 8.19E-09
TL 1 0.022 0.022 0.098 0.7569
Lipid 1 5.408 5.408 24.074 6.61E-05
Species*TL 3 25.052 8.351 37.174 8.66E-09
Species*Lipid 3 2.84 0.947 4.215 0.0169
TL*Lipid 1 0.843 0.843 3.752 0.0657
Species*TL*Lipid 3 3.058 1.019 4.538 0.0127
Residuals 22 4.942 0.225
TRIAZINE Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
Species 4 22.488 5.622 18.855 7.41e-07
TL 1 0.03 0.03 0.1 0.755
Lipid 1 0.002 0.002 0.006 0.939
Species*TL 3 0.49 0.163 0.548 0.655
Species*Lipid 3 0.106 0.035 0.118 0.948
TL*Lipid 1 0.008 0.008 0.026 0.875
Species*TL*Lipid 3 0.264 0.088 0.295 0.828
Residuals 22 6.56 0.298
55
Appendix Table 4: Pesiticide residue concentration of individual fish filet or composited whole animals (ng/g wet weight). Zero values were below
the detection limit. Watershed Rio Sierpe Rio Sierpe Rio Sierpe Rio Sierpe Rio Térraba Rio Térraba Rio Térraba Ocean Ocean Ocean
Map# 14 18 19 24 6 6 10 1 1 1
Date 11/4/2011 11/4/2011 11/4/2011 11/4/2011 11/5/2011 11/5/2011 8/20/2011 11/7/2011 11/7/2011 11/7/2011
Name Machaca/Sabalo Machaca/Sabalo Machaca/Sabalo Machaca/Sabalo Machaca/Sabalo Machaca/Sabalo Machaca/Sabalo Pargo colorado Pargo colorado Pargo colorado
Species Brycon behreae Brycon behreae Brycon behreae Brycon behreae Brycon behreae Brycon behreae Brycon behreae Lutjanus colorado Lutjanus colorado Lutjanus colorado
No. in sample 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Tissue Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet
TL (mm) 297 350 281 350 327 298 151 383 402 370
Wt (g) - - 242.0 392.0 - - 29.5 860.0 800.0 -
% Lipid 5.9 7.53 5.24 4.08 2.17 3.11 6.66 0.9 0.48 0.71
Tecnazene 117-18-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 0.041 0.039 0.025 0.03 0.016 0.028 0.039 0.005 0 0.006
Quintozene 82-68-8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Heptachlor 76-44-8 0.018 0 0 0 0.001 0.004 0.062 0 0 0
HCH, alpha 319-84-6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HCH, gamma 58-89-9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HCH, beta 319-85-7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HCH, delta 319-86-8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorothalonil * 1897-45-6 0.017 0.054 0 0.012 0.006 0.001 0.007 0.005 0 0
Aldrin 309-00-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dacthal * 1861-32-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Octachlorostyrene 29082-74-4 0.007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlordane, oxy- 27304-13-8 0.007 0 0 0 0 0.006 0.016 0.002 0 0
Heptachlor Epoxide 1024-57-3 0.106 0.018 0 0.007 0.003 0.025 0.053 0 0 0
Chlordane, gamma (trans) 5103-74-2 0.112 0 0 0 0 0.008 0.129 0 0 0
Chlordane, alpha (cis) 5103-71-9 0.022 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0 0 0
Nonachlor, trans- 39765-80-5 0.041 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nonachlor, cis- 5103-73-1 0.035 0 0 0.005 0.005 0 0 0 0 0
alpha-Endosulphan 959-98-8 0.232 0.088 0.198 0.139 0.12 0.143 0.708 0.036 0.158 0.149
beta-Endosulphan 33213-65-9 0.009 0.037 0.195 0 0.009 0.158 9.378 0.005 0 0.119
Dieldrin 60-57-1 7.653 0.075 0.341 0.068 0.007 0.048 5.133 0.055 0.021 0.066
2,4'-DDD 53-19-0 0.246 0.005 0.013 0.026 0 0 0.097 0 0 0
4,4'-DDD 72-54-8 2.028 0.12 0.128 0.096 0.008 0.033 0.588 0 0 0
2,4'-DDE 3424-82-6 0.047 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4,4'-DDE 72-55-9 6.195 0.965 0.603 0.273 0.1 0.105 0.985 0.013 0 0.051
2,4'-DDT 789-02-6 0.079 0 0 0 0 0 0.024 0 0 0
4,4'-DDT 50-29-3 1.143 0.037 0.123 0.022 0 0.027 0.489 0 0 0
Captan * 133-06-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.843 0 0 0
Perthane * 72-56-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Endrin 72-20-8 0.273 0 0.015 0.014 0.011 0.001 0.016 0.002 0.011 0.01
Endosulphan Sulphate 1031-07-8 0.101 0.031 0.076 0 0 0.105 0.586 0.163 0.009 0
Mirex 2385-85-5 0.123 0.031 0.028 0.009 0.019 0.008 0.029 0.007 0.006 0.005
Methoxychlor 72-43-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Endrin Ketone 53494-70-5 0.017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Desethylatrazine 6190-65-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Simazine 122-34-9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Atrazine 1912-24-9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ametryn * 834-12-8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Metribuzin * 21087-64-9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cyanazine * 21725-46-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hexazinone * 51235-04-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Methamidophos * 10265-92-6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Phorate * 298-02-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Terbufos * 13071-79-9 0.104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diazinon-Oxon 962-58-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diazinon 333-41-5 0 0.208 0 0 0.32 0.371 0 0 0 0
Disulfoton * 298-04-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fonofos 944-22-9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dimethoate * 60-51-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorpyriphos-Methyl * 5598-13-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Parathion-Methyl * 298-00-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pirimiphos-Methyl * 29232-93-7 0.294 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorpyriphos * 2921-88-2 0 0.017 0.082 0.089 0.747 0.736 0.348 0.2 0.104 0.14
Fenitrothion * 122-14-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Malathion * 121-75-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Parathion-Ethyl * 56-38-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorpyriphos-Oxon * 5598-15-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disulfoton Sulfone * 2497-06-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ethion * 563-12-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Phosmet * 732-11-6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Azinphos-Methyl 86-50-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Permethrin 52645-53-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.053 0 0 0
Cypermethrin 52315-07-8 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.558 0 0 0
56
Appendix Table 4 (Continued) Watershed Rio Sierpe Rio Sierpe Market Market Rio Sierpe Rio Sierpe Rio Sierpe Rio Sierpe Mangalar Mangalar
Map# 17 22 M M 13 23 24 24 2 2
Date 8/18/2011 8/17/2011 8/18/2011 8/18/2011 8/19/2011 11/4/2011 11/4/2011 11/4/2011 8/20/2011 8/20/2011
Name
Pargo colorado Pargo colorado Robalo aleta manchada/ Robalo chucumite
Robalo aleta
manchada/
Robalo
chucumite Robalo negro Robalo negro
Robalo
chucumite
Robalo
chucumite
Species
Lutjanus colorado Lutjanus colorado Centropomus medius Centropomus armatus
Centropomus
medius
Centropomus
armatus
Centropomus
nigrescens
Centropomus
nigrescens
Centropomus
armatus
Centropomus
armatus
No. fish in sample 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Tissue Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet
TL (mm) 248 168 384 350 290 304 434 408 171 155
Wt (g) - - - - 178.6 323.0 637.0 525.0 - -
% Lipid 0.67 0.76 0.69 0.47 0.45 1.76 1.18 0.91 0.57 0.54
Tecnazene 117-18-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.002 0.006 0.021 0 0.005 0.004 0.003
Quintozene 82-68-8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Heptachlor 76-44-8 0 0.001 0 0 0 0.002 0 0 0 0
HCH, alpha 319-84-6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HCH, gamma 58-89-9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HCH, beta 319-85-7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HCH, delta 319-86-8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorothalonil * 1897-45-6 0 0 0 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0
Aldrin 309-00-2 0 0 0.004 0 0.026 0 0.002 0 0.002 0
Dacthal * 1861-32-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Octachlorostyrene 29082-74-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlordane, oxy- 27304-13-8 0 0 0.011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Heptachlor Epoxide 1024-57-3 0.015 0 0 0.012 0 0 0 0 0 0.012
Chlordane, gamma (trans) 5103-74-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlordane, alpha (cis) 5103-71-9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nonachlor, trans- 39765-80-5 0 0 0 0 0 0.007 0 0 0 0
Nonachlor, cis- 5103-73-1 0.005 0 0 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0
alpha-Endosulphan 959-98-8 0.068 0.184 0 0.027 0.039 0 0 0 0.002 0.022
beta-Endosulphan 33213-65-9 0.019 0 0.065 0.043 0.011 0 0 0 0.244 0.1
Dieldrin 60-57-1 0.017 0.007 0 0.028 0.726 0.018 0 0.026 0.009 0
2,4'-DDD 53-19-0 0 0 0 0 0.011 0 0 0 0 0
4,4'-DDD 72-54-8 0 0 0 0.007 0.563 0.037 0.009 0.005 0 0
2,4'-DDE 3424-82-6 0 0 0 0 0.001 0 0 0 0 0
4,4'-DDE 72-55-9 0 0.169 0.043 0.033 5.826 0.44 0.279 0.226 0.036 0
2,4'-DDT 789-02-6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4,4'-DDT 50-29-3 0 0 0 0 0.422 0.011 0.004 0 0 0
Captan * 133-06-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perthane * 72-56-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Endrin 72-20-8 0 0 0.014 0 0.041 0.001 0 0 0 0.001
Endosulphan Sulphate 1031-07-8 0.039 0 0 0.338 0 0.021 0.003 0 0.565 0.481
Mirex 2385-85-5 0.003 0.037 0.008 0.001 0.13 0.033 0.034 0.021 0 0.002
Methoxychlor 72-43-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Endrin Ketone 53494-70-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Desethylatrazine 6190-65-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Simazine 122-34-9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Atrazine 1912-24-9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ametryn * 834-12-8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Metribuzin * 21087-64-9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cyanazine * 21725-46-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hexazinone * 51235-04-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Methamidophos * 10265-92-6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Phorate * 298-02-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Terbufos * 13071-79-9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diazinon-Oxon 962-58-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diazinon 333-41-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.062 0
Disulfoton * 298-04-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fonofos 944-22-9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dimethoate * 60-51-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorpyriphos-Methyl * 5598-13-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Parathion-Methyl * 298-00-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pirimiphos-Methyl * 29232-93-7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorpyriphos * 2921-88-2 0.036 0.069 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.246 0.124
Fenitrothion * 122-14-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Malathion * 121-75-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Parathion-Ethyl * 56-38-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorpyriphos-Oxon * 5598-15-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disulfoton Sulfone * 2497-06-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ethion * 563-12-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Phosmet * 732-11-6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Azinphos-Methyl 86-50-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Permethrin 52645-53-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cypermethrin 52315-07-8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
57
Appendix Table 4 (Continued)
Watershed Mangalar Mangalar Mangalar Rio Térraba Rio Térraba Rio Térraba Rio Térraba Rio Térraba Ocean Ocean
Map# 2 7 7 6 10 10 10 10 1 1
Date 8/20/2011 8/16/2011 8/16/2011 11/5/2011 8/20/2011 8/20/2011 8/20/2011 8/20/2011 11/7/2011 11/7/2011
Name
Robalo chucumite/ Robalo chucumitek Robalo chucumite/ Robalo chucumite/
Robalo
chucumite/ Robalo negro Robalo negro Robalo negro Robalo negro Robalo negro
Species
Centropomus armatus Centropomus armatus Centropomus armatus Centropomus armatus
Centropomus
armatus
Centropomus
nigrescens
Centropomus
nigrescens
Centropomus
nigrescens
Centropomus
nigrescens
Centropomus
nigrescens
No. fish in sample 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Tissue Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet
TL (mm) 150 276 331 313 237 451 172 160 632 523
Wt (g) - - 413.9 - 157.8 650.0 38.5 31.0 2100.0 990.0
% Lipid 0.78 0.56 0.62 0.74 0.88 0.70 0.56 0.81 1.29 0.93
Tecnazene 117-18-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 0 0.002 0.001 0.004 0.005 0.001 0.004 0.005 0 0.007
Quintozene 82-68-8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Heptachlor 76-44-8 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.006
HCH, alpha 319-84-6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HCH, gamma 58-89-9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HCH, beta 319-85-7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HCH, delta 319-86-8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorothalonil * 1897-45-6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Aldrin 309-00-2 0 0.003 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0
Dacthal * 1861-32-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Octachlorostyrene 29082-74-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlordane, oxy- 27304-13-8 0.016 0.022 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Heptachlor Epoxide 1024-57-3 0 0.008 0 0.006 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlordane, gamma (trans) 5103-74-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlordane, alpha (cis) 5103-71-9 0 0 0 0 0.016 0 0 0 0 0
Nonachlor, trans- 39765-80-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nonachlor, cis- 5103-73-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
alpha-Endosulphan 959-98-8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.054 0.086 0 0.085
beta-Endosulphan 33213-65-9 0.169 0.215 0.119 0.115 0.146 0 0.041 0 0 0.016
Dieldrin 60-57-1 0.003 0.014 0.031 0.008 0.002 0.106 0.001 0.005 0.053 0.031
2,4'-DDD 53-19-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4,4'-DDD 72-54-8 0 0 0 0 0.066 1.456 0.064 0.039 0.018 0
2,4'-DDE 3424-82-6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4,4'-DDE 72-55-9 0 0 0 0.001 0.644 3.189 1.426 0.508 0.561 0.105
2,4'-DDT 789-02-6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4,4'-DDT 50-29-3 0 0 0 0 0.081 1.159 0.331 0.175 0 0
Captan * 133-06-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perthane * 72-56-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Endrin 72-20-8 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.246 0.016 0 0 0
Endosulphan Sulphate 1031-07-8 0.615 0 0 0.009 0.408 0.12 0.239 0.07 0 0.024
Mirex 2385-85-5 0.005 0 0.003 0.005 0.037 0.038 0.032 0.021 0.019 0
Methoxychlor 72-43-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Endrin Ketone 53494-70-5 0 0 0 0 0 0.101 0 0 0 0
Desethylatrazine 6190-65-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Simazine 122-34-9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Atrazine 1912-24-9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ametryn * 834-12-8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Metribuzin * 21087-64-9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cyanazine * 21725-46-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hexazinone * 51235-04-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Methamidophos * 10265-92-6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Phorate * 298-02-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Terbufos * 13071-79-9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diazinon-Oxon 962-58-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diazinon 333-41-5 0.067 0 0 0.114 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disulfoton * 298-04-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fonofos 944-22-9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dimethoate * 60-51-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorpyriphos-Methyl * 5598-13-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Parathion-Methyl * 298-00-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pirimiphos-Methyl * 29232-93-7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorpyriphos * 2921-88-2 0.145 0 0.035 0.096 0.126 0.018 0 0 0 0.071
Fenitrothion * 122-14-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Malathion * 121-75-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Parathion-Ethyl * 56-38-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorpyriphos-Oxon * 5598-15-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disulfoton Sulfone * 2497-06-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ethion * 563-12-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Phosmet * 732-11-6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Azinphos-Methyl 86-50-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Permethrin 52645-53-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cypermethrin 52315-07-8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
58
Appendix Table 4 (Continued)
Watershed Ocean Rio Térraba Rio Sierpe Rio Sierpe Rio Sierpe Rio Térraba Rio Térraba Rio Térraba Rio Térraba Mangrove
Map# 1 6 15 20 21 10 10 10 10 2
Date 11/7/2011 8/21/2011 11/3/2011 8/19/2011 8/19/2011 8/20/2011 8/20/2011 8/20/2011 8/20/2011 8/21/2011
Name Robalo negro Sea catfish Tilapia Tilapia Tilapia Tilapia Tilapia Tilapia Tilapia Piangua
Species
Centropomus nigrescens Cathorops sp. Oreochromis niloticus Oreochromis niloticus
Oreochromis
niloticus
Oreochromis
niloticus
Oreochromis
niloticus
Oreochromis
niloticus
Oreochromis
niloticus
Anadara
tuberculosa
No. fish in sample 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
Tissue Skin-on fillet Whole fish (N=3), 15 grams Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Skin-on fillet Whole clam
TL (mm) 581 63-85 149 208 187 321 321 223 184 -
Wt (g) 1600.0 1.9-4.53 71.5 187.3 138.4 660.0 660.0 271.2 143.9 -
% Lipid 0.27 2.29 0.67 0.38 0.86 1.53 1.03 1.25 0.82 0.60
Tecnazene 117-18-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 0.005 0.02 0.019 0.017 0 0.133 0.059 0.039 0.07 0.009
Quintozene 82-68-8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.036 0 0
Heptachlor 76-44-8 0 0.002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HCH, alpha 319-84-6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HCH, gamma 58-89-9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HCH, beta 319-85-7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.022 0 0
HCH, delta 319-86-8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorothalonil * 1897-45-6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Aldrin 309-00-2 0.004 0 0 0 0 0.013 0 0.012 0 0
Dacthal * 1861-32-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Octachlorostyrene 29082-74-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlordane, oxy- 27304-13-8 0 0 0 0 0 0.054 0.054 0.038 0.022 0
Heptachlor Epoxide 1024-57-3 0 0 0 0 0 0.346 0.178 0.115 0.071 0
Chlordane, gamma (trans) 5103-74-2 0 0 0 0 0 0.063 0.035 0 0 0
Chlordane, alpha (cis) 5103-71-9 0 0 0 0 0 0.111 0.034 0.052 0 0
Nonachlor, trans- 39765-80-5 0 0 0 0 0 0.301 0.159 0.126 0.076 0
Nonachlor, cis- 5103-73-1 0 0 0 0 0 0.102 0.058 0.063 0.047 0
alpha-Endosulphan 959-98-8 0.023 0.211 0.015 0.063 0 0.081 0 0.056 0 0.083
beta-Endosulphan 33213-65-9 0.023 0.213 0.057 0 0 0.069 0.06 0.03 0.086 0.107
Dieldrin 60-57-1 0.025 0.078 0.025 0.137 0.281 1.601 0.906 0.677 0.515 0.001
2,4'-DDD 53-19-0 0 0 0 0 0 0.31 0.156 0.082 0.073 0
4,4'-DDD 72-54-8 0 0.017 0.146 0.12 0.082 21.964 12.664 8.794 6.464 0
2,4'-DDE 3424-82-6 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.034 0 0 0
4,4'-DDE 72-55-9 0.224 0.277 1.066 0.847 0.44 19.146 10.546 9.216 7.176 0
2,4'-DDT 789-02-6 0 0 0 0 0 0.121 0.029 0 0.012 0
4,4'-DDT 50-29-3 0 0.03 0 0 0 7.598 4.038 2.878 1.598 0
Captan * 133-06-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perthane * 72-56-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Endrin 72-20-8 0 0.004 0 0 0 1.655 0.924 0.527 0.475 0.011
Endosulphan Sulphate 1031-07-8 0 3.162 0.046 0.051 0.036 0.081 0.085 0.13 0.052 0.328
Mirex 2385-85-5 0.024 0.163 0 0 0 0.019 0.014 0.016 0 0
Methoxychlor 72-43-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Endrin Ketone 53494-70-5 0 0 0 0 0 0.357 0.382 0.052 0.169 0
Desethylatrazine 6190-65-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Simazine 122-34-9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Atrazine 1912-24-9 0 5.718 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ametryn * 834-12-8 0 0.2 0 0 0.089 0 0 0 0 0
Metribuzin * 21087-64-9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cyanazine * 21725-46-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hexazinone * 51235-04-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Methamidophos * 10265-92-6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Phorate * 298-02-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Terbufos * 13071-79-9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diazinon-Oxon 962-58-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diazinon 333-41-5 0 0.724 5.237 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disulfoton * 298-04-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fonofos 944-22-9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dimethoate * 60-51-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorpyriphos-Methyl * 5598-13-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Parathion-Methyl * 298-00-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pirimiphos-Methyl * 29232-93-7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorpyriphos * 2921-88-2 0.074 3.53 0 0 0 0.055 0.121 0 0.027 0
Fenitrothion * 122-14-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Malathion * 121-75-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Parathion-Ethyl * 56-38-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorpyriphos-Oxon * 5598-15-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disulfoton Sulfone * 2497-06-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ethion * 563-12-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Phosmet * 732-11-6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Azinphos-Methyl 86-50-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Permethrin 52645-53-1 0 2.118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cypermethrin 52315-07-8 0 0.154 0 0 0 0.113 0.305 1.066 0 0
59
Appendix Table 4 (Continued)
Watershed Mangalar Mangrove Mangrove Mangalar Rio Sierpe Rio Sierpe
Map# 2 3 4 4 12 22
Date 11/5/2011 8/17/2011 8/16/2011 11/5/2011 8/22/2011 8/21/2011
Name Piangua Piangua Piangua Piangua Shrimp Shrimp
Species Anadara tuberculosa Anadara tuberculosa Anadara tuberculosa Anadara tuberculosa Shrimp Shrimp
No. fish in sample 6 3 3 4 15 13
Tissue Whole clam Whole clam Whole clam Whole clam Whole shrimp Whole shrimp
TL (mm) - - - - - -
Wt (g) - - - - - -
% Lipid 0.36 0.52 0.56 0.54 3.54 2.45
Tecnazene 117-18-0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 0 0.011 0.003 0 0.024 0.007
Quintozene 82-68-8 0 0 0 0 0 0
Heptachlor 76-44-8 0 0.006 0.002 0 0 0
HCH, alpha 319-84-6 0 0 0 0 0 0
HCH, gamma 58-89-9 0 0 0 0 0 0
HCH, beta 319-85-7 0 0 0 0 0 0
HCH, delta 319-86-8 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorothalonil * 1897-45-6 0 0 0 0 0 0
Aldrin 309-00-2 0 0.001 0 0 0 0
Dacthal * 1861-32-1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Octachlorostyrene 29082-74-4 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlordane, oxy- 27304-13-8 0 0 0 0 0 0
Heptachlor Epoxide 1024-57-3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlordane, gamma (trans) 5103-74-2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlordane, alpha (cis) 5103-71-9 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nonachlor, trans- 39765-80-5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nonachlor, cis- 5103-73-1 0 0 0 0 0 0
alpha-Endosulphan 959-98-8 0 0.069 0.027 0 0 0
beta-Endosulphan 33213-65-9 0 0 0.07 0 0 0
Dieldrin 60-57-1 0 0 0 0.013 0 0.152
2,4'-DDD 53-19-0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4,4'-DDD 72-54-8 0 0 0 0 0 0
2,4'-DDE 3424-82-6 0 0 0 0 0 0
4,4'-DDE 72-55-9 0 0 0 0 0.005 0.89
2,4'-DDT 789-02-6 0 0 0 0 0 0
4,4'-DDT 50-29-3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Captan * 133-06-2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perthane * 72-56-0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Endrin 72-20-8 0 0 0 0 0 0
Endosulphan Sulphate 1031-07-8 0.049 0 0 0 0 0
Mirex 2385-85-5 0.001 0 0 0 0.005 0.016
Methoxychlor 72-43-5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Endrin Ketone 53494-70-5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Desethylatrazine 6190-65-4 0 0 0 0 0 0
Simazine 122-34-9 0 0 0 0 0 0
Atrazine 1912-24-9 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ametryn * 834-12-8 0 0 0 0 0 0
Metribuzin * 21087-64-9 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cyanazine * 21725-46-2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hexazinone * 51235-04-2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Methamidophos * 10265-92-6 0 0 0 0 0 0
Phorate * 298-02-2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Terbufos * 13071-79-9 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diazinon-Oxon 962-58-3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diazinon 333-41-5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disulfoton * 298-04-4 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fonofos 944-22-9 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dimethoate * 60-51-5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorpyriphos-Methyl * 5598-13-0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Parathion-Methyl * 298-00-0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pirimiphos-Methyl * 29232-93-7 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorpyriphos * 2921-88-2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fenitrothion * 122-14-5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Malathion * 121-75-5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Parathion-Ethyl * 56-38-2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorpyriphos-Oxon * 5598-15-2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disulfoton Sulfone * 2497-06-5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ethion * 563-12-2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Phosmet * 732-11-6 0 0 0 0 0 0
Azinphos-Methyl 86-50-0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Permethrin 52645-53-1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cypermethrin 52315-07-8 0 0 0 0 0 0
60
Appendix Table 5: Consumption recommendations to avoid non-carcinogenic health effects of pesticides. Values are the recommended maximum
number of 227 g (0.5 lb) meals per month of contaminanted fish or shellfish for a 70 kg (154 lbs) person. Analysis was limited to chemicals that were
above detection limits. Species Machaca
Pargo colorado
Robalo
robalo
Robalo
chucumite
Robalo
robalo
Robalo
chucumite
Robalo
negro
Robalo
chucumite
Waterbody Rio Sierpe Rio Térraba Ocean Rio Sierpe Market Rio Sierpe Mangrove Rio Térraba
Map # 14 18 19 24 6 10 1 17 22 M M 13 23 24 2 7 6 10
Season Nov. Nov. Nov. Nov. Nov. Aug. Nov. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Nov. Nov. Aug. Aug. Nov. Aug.
Number 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 1
% Lipid - - - - - - - 0.67 0.76 0.69 0.47 0.45 1.76 1.04 0.63 0.59 0.74 0.88
Captan
9125052
Chlordane
Chlordane, oxy- 670485
1564464 293337 7040088
426672
880011 426672 Chlordane, gamma (trans) 41905
1173348 36383
Chlordane, alpha (cis) 213336
117335
293337
Nonachlor, trans- 114473
670485 Nonachlor, cis- 134097
938678 1877357
938678
156446
Chlorothalonil 8282457 2607440
11733480 40229075 20114537 84481057
140801762 4,4'-DDT 4106 126848 38158 213336 347659 9598
11122 426672 2346696
57943
2,4'-DDD 19079 938678 361030 180515
48385
426672 4,4'-DDD 2314 39112 36667 48890 228946 7982
670485 8336 126848 670485
71112
2,4'-DDE 99859
4693392 4,4'-DDE 758 4864 7783 17192 45789 4765 220003
27772 109149 142224 806 10667 18588 391116
4693392 7288
2,4'-DDT 59410
195558 Dieldrin 61 6258 1376 6902 17067 91 9916 27608 67048
16762 646 26074 36103 117335 20860 58667 234670
Aldrin
70401
10831
281604 422405 187736
28160
Endosulfan
alpha-Endosulphan 242762 640008 284448 405185 428294 79549 492601 828246 306091
2085952 1444121
7040088 beta-Endosulphan 6257856 1522181 288824
674499 6006 1362598 2964248
866472 1309784 5120064
329361 337250 489745 385758
Endosulphan sulphate 557631 1816797 741062
1072775 96110 982338 1444121
166629
2681938 37547137 101723
6257856 138041
Endrin 10315
187736 201145 469339 176002 367309
201145
68684 2816035
8448106
2816035
Endrin ketone 165649 HCH, beta
Heptachlor 260744
1877357 75700
4693392
2346696
14080176 Heptachlor Epoxide 1151 6779
17433 8716 2302
8135
10169
30507 30507 20338
Hexachlorobenzene 183157 192549 300377 250314 341338 192549 2048026 1877357 1501885 1877357 3754714 1251571 357592 3003771 3218326 5006285 1877357 1501885
Mirex 15263 60560 67048 208595 139063 64736 312893 625786 50739 234670 1877357 14441 56890 68268 804581 1251571 375471 50739
Octachlorostyrene 1340969163 Quintozene
Ametryn
Atrazine
Chlorpyriphos
165649 34342 31641 3798 8092 19027 78223 40812
16404 160916 29334 22349
Diazinon
31590
19018
152808
57638
Pirimiphos-Methyl 319278
Terbufos 1805
Cypermethrin
12420
Permethrin
8855457
61
Appendix Table 5 (Continued).
Species Robalo negro Sea catfish Tilapia Piangua Shrimp
Waterbody Rio Térraba Ocean Rio Térraba Rio Sierpe Rio
Térraba
Mangrove Rio Sierpe
Map # 10 1 6 15 20 21 10 2 3 4 12 22
Season Aug. Nov. Aug. Nov. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Nov. Aug. Aug. Nov. Aug. Aug.
Number 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
% Lipid 0.69 0.83 2.29 0.67 0.38 0.86 1.2 0.6 0.36 0.52 0.56 0.54 3.54 2.45
Captan
Chlordane
Chlordane, oxy-
111747
Chlordane, gamma (trans)
191567
Chlordane, alpha (cis)
95297
Nonachlor, trans-
28359
Nonachlor, cis-
69532
Chlorothalonil
4,4'-DDT 8457 156446
1165
2,4'-DDD
30231
4,4'-DDD 9032 782232 276082 32147 39112 57236 376
2,4'-DDE
140101
4,4'-DDE 2748 15820 16944 4403 5541 10667 407
938678 5273
2,4'-DDT
115886
Dieldrin 12572 12918 6017 18774 3426 1670 508 469339
36103
3088
Aldrin 211203
45057
281604
Endosulfan
alpha-Endosulphan 1206872 1564464 266923 3754714 893979
1644400 678563
816242 2085952
beta-Endosulphan 4121027 4332362 264416 988083
919522 526362
804581
Endosulphan sulphate 393851 7040088 17812 1224363 1104328 1564464 647364 171709 1149402
Endrin 32245 704009
3146 256003
Endrin ketone 83645
11733
HCH, beta
1706688026
Heptachlor 2346696 2346696
782232 2346696
Heptachlor epoxide
687
Hexachlorobenzene 2252828 1877357 375471 395233 441731
99793 834381
682675 2503142
312893 1072775
Mirex 61891 130978 11518
153254
1877357
375471 117335
Octachlorostyrene
Quintozene
3128928
Ametryn 422405
949225 Atrazine 57457
Chlorpyriphos 469339 58263 798
55488
Diazinon 9076 1255
Pirimiphos-Methyl
Terbufos
Cypermethrin 609531
253013
Permethrin 221595
62
Appendix Table 6: Consumption recommendations to avoid carcinogenic health effects of pesticides. Values are the recommended maximum
number of 227 g (0.5 lb) meals per month of contaminanted fish or shellfish for a 70 kg (154 lbs) person. Analysis was limited to chemicals that were
above detection limits.
Species Machaca Pargo
colorado
Robalo
robalo
Robalo
chucumite
Robalo
robalo
Robalo
chucumite
Robalo
negro
Robalo
chucumite
Robalo
negro
Waterbody Rio Sierpe Rio Térraba Ocean Rio Sierpe Market Rio Sierpe Mangrove Rio Térraba Ocean
Site # 14 18 19 24 6 10 1 17 22 M M 13 23 24 2 7 6 10 10 1
Season Nov. Nov. Nov. Nov. Nov. Aug. Nov. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Nov. Nov. Aug. Aug. Nov. Aug. Aug. Nov.
Number 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 3 3
% Lipid - - - - - - - 0.67 0.76 0.69 0.47 0.45 1.76 1.04 0.63 0.59 0.74 0.88 0.69 0.83
Chlordane
Chlordane, oxy- 38313
89398 16762 402291
24381
50286 24381
Chlordane, gamma
(trans) 2395
67048 2079
Chlordane, alpha (cis) 12191
6705
16762
Nonachlor, trans- 6541
38313
Nonachlor, cis- 7663
53639 107278
53639
8940
4,4'-DDT 242 7462 2245 12549 20451 565
654 25098 138041
3408 497
2,4'-DDD 1122 55216 21237 10619
2846
25098
4,4'-DDD 136 2301 2157 2876 13467 470
39440 490 7462 39440
4183 531 46014
2,4'-DDE 5874
276082
4,4'-DDE 45 286 458 1011 2693 280 12941
1634 6421 8366 47 627 1093 23007
276082 429 162 931
2,4'-DDT 3495
11503
Dieldrin 0.8 78 17 86 213 1.1 124 345 838
210 8 326 451 1467 261 733 2933 157 161
Aldrin
1467
226
5867 8800 3911
587
4400
Heptachlor 4011
28882 1165
72206
36103
216618
36103
Heptachlor epoxide 97 573
1474 737 195
688
860
2579 2579 1719
63
Appendix Table 6 (Continued)
Species Sea catfish Tilapia Piangua Shrimp
Waterbody Rio Térraba Rio Sierpe Rio Térraba Mangrove Rio Sierpe
Site # 6 15 20 21 10 2 3 4 12 22
Season Aug. Nov. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Nov. Aug. Aug. Nov. Aug. Aug.
Number 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
% Lipid 2.29 0.67 0.38 0.86 1.2 0.6 0.36 0.52 0.56 0.54 3.54 2.45
Chlordane
Chlordane, oxy- 6386
Chlordane, gamma (trans) 10947
Chlordane, alpha (cis) 5446
Nonachlor, trans- 1621
Nonachlor, cis- 3973
4,4'-DDT 9203 69
2,4'-DDD 1778
4,4'-DDD 16240 1891 2301 3367 22
2,4'-DDE 8241
4,4'-DDE 997 259 326 627 24 55216 310
2,4'-DDT 6817
Dieldrin 75 235 43 21 6 5867 451 39
Aldrin 939 5867
Heptachlor 36103 12034 36103
Heptachlor epoxide 58
64
Appendix Figure 1: Sample sites and gear used to sample fish and shellfish
Site 1 (8.87721, -83.65120) Ocean
Gear – Gill net (fish collected by family of Marcelo Angelos)
Site 2 (8.95252, -83.61710) Isla Boca Brava
Gear – Piangua by hand, fish by cast net
Site 3 (8.93108, -83.61389) Isla Boca Chica
Gear – Piangua by hand
Site 4 (8.88943 -83.60350) Isla Zacate
Gear – Piangua by hand
Site 5 (8.85064, -83.59220) Boca Guarumal
Gear – Beach seine, hook and line
Site 6 (8.98812, -83.59155) Estero Tagual, Estero Rey
Gear – Gill net
65
Site 7 (8.90578, -83.57911389) Estero Camibar
Gear – Hook and line
Site 8 (8.96253, -83.55042) Rice canal, Rio Terraba
Gear – Cast net
Site 9 (8.86305, -83.53841) Estero Guarumal
Gear – Hook and line
Site 10 (8.95388, -83.52421) Rio Belsar Puerto Cortez
Gear – Cast net, hook and line
Site 11 (8.85630, -83.49246) Rio Sierpe
Gear – Hook and line
Site 12 (8.84253, -83.47831) Toma agua
Gear – Dip net, cast net
66
Site 13 (8.87863, -83.46943) Estero Azul
Gear – Hook and line
Site 14 (8.89475, -83.46643) Estero Azul
Gear – Hook and line
Site 15 (8.88128, -83.46402) Eleotrid
Gear – Cast net
Site 16 (8.89669, -83.46178) Finca Julia
Gear – Cast net
Site 17 (8.85247, -83.45369)Rio Tigre
Gear – Hook and line
Site 18 (8.85792, -83.44739) Estero Negro
Gear – Gill net
67
Site 19 (8.82039, -83.44031) Rio Chacuaco
Gear – Gill net
Site 20 (8.90364, -83.44158) Rice canal
Gear – Cast net
Site 21 (8.90414, -83.43083) Rice channel
Gear – Cast net, Seine
Site 22 (8.84683, -83.40781) Estero Olla
Gear – Hook and line, Shrimp seine
Site 23 (8.80410, -83.39712) Rio Tabago
Gear – Gill net
Site 24 (8.83542, -83.3743) Patagallena
Gear – Gill net
68
Appendix Figure 2. Overnight 18-19 Aug. 2011 temperature and dissolved oxygen recorded at 2 minute
intervals in the Rio Sierpe headwaters (N8.80415, W83.32253). A rain storm passed over the site between
approximately 13:00 and 18:00 hours.
69
Appendix Figure 3. Overnight 21-22 Aug. 2011 temperature, dissolved oxygen and specific conductivity
recorded at 15 minute intervals in the Rio Sierpe at the village of Sierpe (N8.857511, W83.472607). A small
blip in specific conductance between 22:26 and 1:11 hours corresponds with the daily high tide.
70
Appendix Figure 4. Water physiochemistry in the mainstem Rio Sierpe at a depth of 0.5m (solid line and empty
symbols) and 4m (dashed line and filled symbols). Measurements taken 13:15-14:47 17 Aug 2011 (5-9 river
kilometers upstream from the ocean at Boca Zacate) and 8:15-10:04 18 Aug 2011 (9-23 river kilometers
upstream from the ocean at Boca Guarumal).
71
Appendix Figure 5. Average daily temperature at tidally influenced locations of transplanted piangua on Isla
Zacate (N8.85064, W83.59220) and Isla Boca Brava (N8.95252, W83.61710).
