Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) Evaluation of Used Pesticides in Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Fields of Bandar-e-Turkeman County, Golestan Province

Document Type : Research Article


1 Department of Agriculture, Faculty of Plant Production, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Iran.

2 Department of Agrotechnology, Faculty of Agriculture,Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.


  Intensification of agriculture along with increasing use of chemical pesticides can have significant environmental effects on other non-target organisms as well as various environments such as air, soil and water. Increasing concerns about the negative effects of pesticide resulted some indicators that measure the environmental risk of each pesticide. One of these indicators is the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ), which has been used repeatedly to monitor environmental pesticides in a wide range of agricultural and horticultural fields. The purpose of this study is to investigate the environmental effects of pesticides used in wheat fields in Bandar-e-Turkeman county in 2019-2020 year.
Materials and Methods
To implement the model, information about the name, amount of consumption and times of application of pesticides used by farmers were collected in the form of questionnaires and face-to-face interviews with 59 farmers. The Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) of these pesticides was extracted from version 2021 of the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) site. The environmental effect of used pesticides in each wheat field was obtained from the sum of EIQ of pesticides in the amount of consumption and dose of pesticides per hectare. The calculations of this model were done in Excel version 2013.
Results and Discussion
The result showed that the final EIQ score for all toxins had the highest impact on the ecological section. Imidacloprid (92.88), Carbendazim (86.00), Acetamiprid (71.95), Cyproconazole (67.00) and Deltamethrin (65.15) had the highest toxicity for the ecological section, respectively. Based on the results, Carbendazim was introduced as the most dangerous and the insecticides Acetamiprid and Imidacloprid were the least dangerous toxin for the farm workers. Calculation of environmental impact of pesticides per hectare showed that there was a high numerical variation among surveyed fields. So that the lowest of index related to fields No. 25, 55 and 42 they had about 6.31, 7.01 and 7.02 environmental impact, respectively. In these fields, no pesticides were used during the wheat growing period and only at the time of planting, carboxin fungicide was used for seeds at the rate of 0.45 and 0.50 kg/ha. The fields No. 40, 10, 30 and 35 recorded with EIQ-FUR equal to 41.49, 33.20, 31.20, 30.85 and 30.67, respectively. In these fields, we were observed the highest environmental impact per hectare. In continue, the distribution map of this index in studied fields was produced. The results showed that there is a different variety in terms of pesticide application in fields, therefore target points can be determine to farmers for reduce of pesticide application and field with high environmental impact.
Among the three components of the EIQ index, including risk to farm workers, consumers, and ecology, the numerical values of these three components can vary depending on location. The current values of this index do not take into account differences in the technology of application or use of personal protective equipment. It can be concluded that the EIQ model requires changes in the direction of localization with the study areas, including the number of farm workers, specifying the type of tools and equipment used and separating the type of developed or developing countries. In general, in these fields, the management of pest, the identification and management of weeds diversity can be effective in controlling the amount of pesticide consumption and reduce environmental risks.
We would like to thank Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, wheat farmers and agricultural Jihad management of Bandar-e-Turkeman county for their cooperation in conducting this research.


Main Subjects

©2023 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source.

  1. Alame, Z., Shahriari Rad, A., Soltani, A., & Zeinali, A. (2013). Environmental evaluation of pesticides used in wheat, rapeseed, soy bean and cotton in Gorgan. The 1st National Conference on Solutions to Access Sustainable Development in Agriculture, Natural Resource and Environment. 10 March. Tehran, Iran. (In Persian)
  2. Arefi, R., Soltani, A., & Ajam Norozi, H. (2019). Assessment environmental impact of agricultural pesticides using in cotton fields (Gossypium herbaceum) in Golestan province. Journal of Agronomy, 10(4), 1135-1148. DOI: 10.22067/JAG.V10I4.61847 (In Persian)
  3. Bazrgar, A.B., Soltani, A., Koocheki, A., Zeinali, A., & Ghaemi, A. (2013). Evaluation of environmental effects of pesticides used in different sugar beet production systems in Khorasan provinces. Journal of Agroecology, 5(2), 122-133. DOI: 10.22067/JAG.V7I1.48270 (In Persian)
  4. Bulut, S., Erdogus, S.F., Konuk, M., & Cemek, M. (2010). The organochlorine pesticide residues in the drinking waters of Afyonkarahisar, Turkey. Ekoloji Dergisi, 19(74), 24–31. DOI:10.5072/ZENODO.37106
  5. Cross, P., & Edwards-Jones, G. (2011). Variation in pesticide hazard from arable crop production in Great Britain from 1992 to 2008: An extended time-series analysis. Crop Protection, 30, 1579-1585. DOI: 10.1016/j.cropro.2011.08.003
  6. Feola, G., Rahn, E., & Binder, C.R. (2011). Suitability of pesticide risk indicators for less developed countries: A comparison. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 142, 238–245. DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.05.014
  7. Hassani, S., Ramroodi, M., Asghripour, M.R., & Ahamadi, E. (2020). The main differences of irrigated and rainfed barley (Hordeum vulrare) in term of pollutants emissions in Khorramabad using LCA. Journal of Agroecology, 11(4), 1467-1481. DOI: 10.22067/jag.v11i4.72652 (In Persian with English Summary)
  8. Heidari, A., Tabrizian, M., Ramezani, M.K., Mahdavi, V., Heidari Alizadeh, B., & Faravardeh, L. (2015). Introduction, registration, formulation, tecniques of application of chemical pesticides, production of pheromones and research in the field of pesticides and determination of their allowable limit (MRLs) in agricultural products. Iranian Plant Protection Research Institute. 27 pages. (In Persian)
  9. Kim, K-H., Kabir, S., & Ara Jahan, S. (2017). Exposure to pesticides and the associated human health effects. Science of the Total Environment, 575, 525–535. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.009
  10. Kniss, A.R., & Coburn, C.W. (2015). Quantitative evaluation of the environmental impact quotient (EIQ) for comparing herbicides. Plos One, 10(6), e0131200. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131200.
  11. Kovach, J., Petzoldt, C., Degni, J., & Tette, J. (1992). A method to measure the environmental impact of pesticides. New York's Food and Life Sciences Bulletin, 139, 1-8.
  12. Kromann, P., Pradel, W., Cole, D., Taipe, A., & Forbes, G. (2011). Use of the environmental impact quotient to estimate health and environmental impacts of pesticide usage in Peruvian and Ecuadorian potato production. Journal of Environmental Protection, 2, 581-591. DOI:10.4236/jep.2011.25067
  13. Maleki, L., Sadr Abadi Haghighi, H.R., & Barzegar, A.B. (2015). Evaluation environment impact quotient (EIQ) pesticides used in wheat and barley production in Mashhad. Journal Agronomy, 7(1), 109-119. DOI: 10.22067/JAG.V7I1.48270 (In Persian)
  14. Masoumkhani, F., Abolhassani, L., Khorramdel, S., & Mohaddes Hosseini, S.A. (2019). Evaluation of environmental impacts of major agricultural products of Belherat rural district of Neyshabour using life cycle assessment. Journal of Agroecology, 11(3), 924-909. DOI: 10.22067/jag.v11i3.72459 (In Persian with English Summary)
  15. Moeinodini, S., Zand, E., Kambuziya, J., Mahdavi Damghani, A.M., & Deyhimfard, R. (2014). Environmental risk assessment of registered insecticide uses in Iran Using EIQ. Journal of Agroecology, 2(6), 250-256. DOI: 10.22067/JAG.V6I2.39367. (In Persian)
  16. NYSIPMA. (2020). A method to measure the environmental impact of pesticides, Table 2: List of Pesticides. Last Updated May 2020. https://nysipm.cornell.edu/eiq/
  17. Ramezani, M.K. (2013). Fate of pesticides & their risks assessment in the environment: A review. Journal of Weeds Research, 5(1), 97-121. (In Persian)
  18. Schreinemachers, P., Sringarm, S., & Sirijinda, A. (2011). The role of synthetic pesticides in the intensification of highland agriculture in Thailand. Crop Protection, 30, 1430-1437. DOI: 10.1016/j.cropro.2011.07.011
  19. Schreinemachers, P., & 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
  20. Székács, A., MáriaMörtl, M., & Darvas, B. (2015). Monitoring pesticide residues in surface and ground water in Hungary: surveys in 1990–2015. Journal of Chemistr, 717948. DOI: 10.1155/2015/717948.
  21. Tomlin, C.D.S. (2009). The Pesticide Manual: A World Compendium. British Crop Protection Council, 11th revised Ed., Alton, UK.
  22. Wan, N. (2015). Pesticides exposure modeling based on GIS and remote sensing land use data. Applied Geography. 56, 99-106. DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.11.012
  23. White, L.M., Ernst, W.R., Julien, G., Garron, C., & Leger, M. (2006). Ambient air concentrations of pesticides used in potato cultivation in Prince Edward Island, Canada. Pest Management Science, 62(2), 126–136. DOI: 10.1002/ps.1130
  24. Yadav, I.C., Devi, N.L., Syed, J.H., Cheng, Z., Li, J., Zhang, G., & Jones, K.C. (2015). Current status of persistent organic pesticides residues in air, water, and soil, and their possible effect on neighboring countries: A comprehensive review of India. Science of the Total Environment, 511, 123–137. DIO: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.12.041



Volume 15, Issue 4 - Serial Number 58
December 2024
Pages 809-823
  • Receive Date: 11 April 2022
  • Revise Date: 16 June 2022
  • Accept Date: 25 December 2022
  • First Publish Date: 25 December 2022