Sohail Khan

ENT 153
ID# 993129962

DDT: An Anthropologenic Blessing or Environmental Nightmare

Abstract
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, better known as DDT, is a persistent
organochlorine that has a history riddled with controversy. It’s controversy lies in
its extraordinary effectiveness as an anti-malarial agent while at the same time
being an environmental disaster. It persists in the environment in various
ecological levels and it is easily transported via natural processes. DDT has
apparent ecotoxicological effects. On the other end, DDT has been a blessing in
public health applications. It is an effective contact poison on disease-carrying
arthropods such as mosquitoes, ticks, and sand flies. It has been used to keep
malaria outbreaks in check. However, The World Health Organization has
pushed for the complete phase out of DDT in vector control efforts. Should one
agree with the environmentalists or with those concerned with public health? In
this paper I will discuss the benefits and shortcomings of DDT.

DDT: The Three-Letter Punch

DDT was first synthesized in 1874, however it gained recognition as a contact

poison in 1942 when the Swiss entomologist Paul Muller found that it was
effective against several arthropod species. It was first used as a public health
tool against louse-borne typhus during World War II (Walker et al. 2003). It was
so efficient at curbing large-scale outbreaks of typhus that it was soon
commercialized for agricultural use (Mellanby 1992). Prior to commercialization
only enough DDT was being produced to protect allied troops against vector-
carried diseases, however production skyrocketed when DDT became an
agricultural pest management solution (Walker et al. 2003).
DDT was such a magnificent compound in the public health arena that its
environmental consequences were not fully studied prior to its widespread
utilization. Some of the first studies regarding its environmental toxicity were
documented in 1945. In a letter from the Fish and Wildlife services on August
22, 1945, DDT was described as having detrimental effects on birds and marine
organisms (US F&WS 1945). DDT certainly wasn’t the first insecticide employed
in vector control, however it was the most cost effective and least toxic
compound available (Walker 2000).

DDT and it’s derivatives DDE and DDD, which are all constituents of the mixture
“total DDT,” operate at the physiological level by opening the neuronal sodium
channels of insects. This causes a rapid influx of the depolarizing sodium ions
causing neurons to send out action potentials to effectors. These action
potentials lead to involuntary movement known as spasms. The sodium
channels remain open and cause the neuronal ionic concentrations to equilibrate.
Eventually the organism dies (Doherty 1979).

Today DDT is allowed for inside residual spraying or IRS. IRS involves spraying
the inside of dwellings. IRS is effective since anopheles mosquitoes rest on
walls prior to and after feeding. However, IRS has it’s own set of complications
such as the dwelling inhabitant’s resistance towards the spraying and the death
of domestic felines (O’Shaughnessy 2008). The World Health Organization
promoted the widespread use of IRS in anti-malarial campaigns in September
2006. Still, The WHO wants the use of DDT in disease-prevention programs to
eventually end (O’Shaughnessy 2008), but prior to the cessation of DDT,
implementation of alternative methods of vector control will be put into place
(Walker et al. 2003). A decrease in DDT usage will bring about the resurgence
of malarial outbreaks so a smooth transition to the use of a less ecotoxic
insecticide will be necessary.
DDT is highly persistent, environmentally toxic, prone to bioaccumulation,
and easily transportable.

The soil half-life of DDT depends on environmental conditions. Generally the

colder the climate is, the longer is the half-life of DDT and it’s constituents. In
some cases the half-life is as long 20 to 30 years. In warmer climates the half-
life in soil can be as short as a year (Walker et al. 2003). A longer half-life can
result in a persistent residual effect. It can still be potent years from when it has
been released in spraying efforts. Some efforts to enhance the metabolism of
DDT to less harmful compounds are being examined one of which uses high
frequency sound beams to disrupt the chemical structure of DDT and ultimately
destroys the compound entirely. However, large-scale implementation still needs
to be tweaked to be efficient (Thangavadivel 2009).

Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring raised public consciousness in regards to DDT’s

cascade effect on the environment. The book illustrates images in which the
environment is essentially dead due to chronic uses of chemical control, hence
“silent spring.” It became the forerunner of the environmentalist movement that
led to public outcry against the uncontrolled use of pesticides (Rudd 1962).
Since prior knowledge of DDT contamination was not available and since DDT
was extremely effective in protecting soldiers from typhus and malaria during
World War II it was used extensively during 1945 and the latter half of the 1960s
(Walker et al. 2003).

Later reports and studies confirmed that DDT was in fact a biohazard. It caused
eggshell thinning in predatory birds and developmental deformations in marine
organisms (O’Shaughnessy 2008). Eggshell thinning caused a rapid decline in
predatory birds. Bald Eagles, Peregrine Falcons, and other birds of prey became
endangered (Ellis et al 1989). The eggshell thinning effect was one of the prime
reasons that prompted the banning of DDT in 1972 (O’Shaughnessy 2008). DDT
is facilitated to the tissues of birds of prey because of its extreme lipophilic
behavior. Through the process of bioaccumulation, DDT is found in much higher
concentration in apex predators (Walker et al. 2003, O’Shaughnessy 2008).
Bioaccumulation works in a reverse coffee-filter fashion. For example, a mouse
can eat plenty of insects killed by DDT. This mouse can then be a reservoir of
DDT. A Peregrine Falcon can then come along and take up all of the DDT that
resided inside the mouse. Once inside vertebrate animals, it exhibits toxic
effects such as disrupting endocrine activity (Smith 2000).

A positive feedback loop can be established. With a decrease in the amount of

predatory species, rodents or other inferior predators can proliferate. This
proliferation of rodents can result in an even more intense bioaccumulation
process since DDT is extremely lipophilic. More DDT contaminated rodents will
lead to an increase percentage of DDT consumed by predatory animals. In turn,
a decline of predatory animals will result in more rodents. This adverse effect
was seen in Borneo in the 1950s. Cats were dying because they ingested lethal
doses of DDT. A decline in cat populations resulted an increase in rodent
populations. So, although malaria declined significantly, a new outbreak of
Bolivian hemorrhagic fever plagued the inhabitants of Borneo. Cats were
reportedly parachuted (in cages) into the vicinity to reverse this effect
(O’Shaughnessy 2008).

With a soil-half life of about 20 years in some regions, DDT is highly susceptible
for long-range transport. Remote regions of the world such as the Arctic have
been found to have higher concentrations of DDT even though these regions
occur thousands of miles away from spraying sites (Walker et al. 2003). These
discoveries can be explained by the grasshopper effect. DDT is volatile in
warmer regions so it turns to gaseous form. It is transported via weather patterns
and condenses in colder regions such as the tropics. It is possible to picture a
particle flying to a colder environment and then resting for several days. This
particle can then fly again when the appropriate conditions are met (Semeena
and Lammel 2005). The grasshopper effect and other sources of transportation
(oceanic) have increased the range of distribution of DDT across the globe
(Tanabe et al. 1994).
DDT: Angel of Malaria Eradication

Malaria has long been a burden on many parts of the world. DDT was first used
for the sole purpose of controlling malaria during World War II (Walker et al.
2003). In the Eight World Health Assembly held in Mexico in 1955, malaria
eradication was deemed possible (O’Shaughnessy 2008). Significant reductions
in death rates due to malaria were observed as a result of a global effort to
reduce malaria through IRS. It is the long lasting residual effect of DDT coupled
with its inexpensive manufacturing price that salvaged much of the developing
world from economic turmoil (Walker et. al 2003, Breman et al. 2004). DDT
inhibits the transmission of the Plasmodium parasite from Anopheles mosquitoes
by destroying the vector. As explained earlier, the behavior of Anopheles to rest
prior to and after blood feeding, results in a decreased biting and transmission
rate. Humans profit off of DDT through economic and livelihood benefits. Less
sickened workers equates to a larger workforce and a larger workforce equates
into a more productive economy and less poverty (Breman 2004).

DDT is cheap. It allows developing countries that can’t afford expensive

treatment methods stay on their feet. Other methods of Anopheles control can
run up to 3 to 23 times the cost of DDT (Walker 2000). With a vaccine for
malaria still years away IRS spraying is still one of the prime vector control
methods still being employed. Another promising tool against malaria is the use
of pyrethroid insecticide coated nets and curtains. These are more efficient and
use less insecticide, however it’s users may see them as a bit too cumbersome
(Walker et al. 2003, O’Shaughnessy 2008). In addition to insecticides, public
education can also decrease instances of malaria outbreaks. Proper sanitation
and housekeeping can go a long ways because malaria vectors tend to use
grimy areas such as that neglected bucket of water in your backyard as breeding
sites (Walker 2003).
DDT is not as harmful to humans as people may imagine based on what it does
to pests. Few cases if any have probably been directly attributed to DDT
poisoning. Soldiers during WWII bathed in DDT and they didn’t suffer any severe
consequences except having a longer life only to defend their beliefs (Smith
2000). It can be transferred to infants through breast-feeding though no acute
toxicity links have been found (Smith 2000).

A decline in malarial control efforts in some parts of the world has led to a
malarial resurgence (Walker et al. 2003). The WHO ban of DDT gives specific
leeway to countries that are burdened with malaria (O’Shaughnessy 2008). If a
country needs to ever return to the use of DDT as a primary means to control
DDT, they just need to ask The WHO for permission (Walker et al. 2003). The
WHO plans for the EVENTUAL phase-out of DDT. Other protocols in vector
control are going to be put into place before DDT is outright outlawed (Walker et
al. 2003).

Concluding words

I am saying this as an appreciator of natural life, not as a hipster

environmentalist, the negative effects of DDT on the environment aren’t worth the
continual use of DDT when other means of vector control are available. Only in
dire necessity should a stringent use of DDT be used. DDT will have lasting
effects on the environment but at the same time it also probably saved millions of
people from death. Out of these millions of people there could be several that
have propagated environmentalist efforts. The future promises of a vaccine for
malarial eradication efforts as well as less ecotoxic alternatives to DDT. In
addition for alternative methods of vector control, remediation efforts are also
making great strides. Complete remediation will take global willpower and
determination. Only time will tell as to what DDT has ultimately accomplished;
will it be honored or will it be looked at with regret?
 Literature Cited

Breman J.G., M. S. Alilio, and A. Mills. 2004. Conquering the intolerable burden
of Malaria: what’s new, what’s needed: A Summary. 71(suppl 2). 1-15
Doherty J.D. 1979. Insecticides affecting ion transport. Pharmac. Ther. 7: 123-
151
Ellis D.H., R. Deweese, T.G. Grubb, L.F. Kiff, G. Smith, W.M. Jarman, and D.B.
Peakall. 1989. Pesticide Residues in Arizona Peregrine Falcon Eggs
and Prey. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 42:57-64

Mellanby A.K. 1992. The regulation of DDT: a choice between evils. Vanderbilt
Journal of translational law. 41(2): 677-704

O’Shaughnessy P.T. 2008. Parachuting Cats and Crushed Eggs: The

Controversy Over the Use of DDT to Control Malaria. American Journal of Public
Health. 98: 1940-1948
Rudd R.L. 1962. The Chemical Countryside. Houghton Mifflin.

Semeena V.S. and G. Lammel. 2005. The significance of the grasshopper

effect on the atmospheric distribution of persistent organic substances.
Geophysical Research Letters. 32

Smith A.G. 2000. How toxic is DDT?. Lancet. 356: 267-268

Tanabe S., H. Iwata, and R. Tatsukawa. Global contamination by persistent

organochlorines and their exotoxicological impact on marine mammals. The
Science of the Total Environment. 154: 163-177

Thangavadivel K., M. Megharaj, R.St.C. Smart, P.J. Lesniewski, and R. Naidu.

2009. Application of high frequency ultrasound in the destruction of DDT
in contaminated sand and water. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 168: 1380-
1386

US Fish and Wildlife Service. Letter Date: August 22, 1945. I really don’t know
how to cite this.
Walker K.R. 2000. Cost-comparison of DDT and alternative insecticides for
malaria control. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. 14: 345-354
Walker K.R., M.D. Ricciardone, and J. Jensen. 2003. Developing an
international consensus on DDT: a balance of environmental protection and
disease control. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health. 206:
423-435