Calibration of laboratory derived indices for non-target arthropod risk assessment with field data for plant protection products.

Hazard Quotient Insects Pesticides Protection goals Risk assessment

Journal

Ecotoxicology and environmental safety
ISSN: 1090-2414
Titre abrégé: Ecotoxicol Environ Saf
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 7805381

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
15 Apr 2022
Historique:
received: 07 10 2021
revised: 08 03 2022
accepted: 14 03 2022
pubmed: 21 3 2022
medline: 6 4 2022
entrez: 20 3 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The Hazard Quotient (HQ) compares field application rate to intrinsic toxicity assessed with sensitive indicator species. As a hazard indicator for risk assessment, the HQ must be calibrated against measured effects under field conditions. Because protection goals may be context specific, we analyse how choice of acceptance criteria affects setting of the HQ and calibrate HQ for various scenarios under the strict condition that no false negative conclusions may be reached. We use Non-Target Arthropod toxicity data from laboratory studies on inert (Tier 1) and on natural substrates (Tier 2) and calibrate the HQ using application rates and arthropod abundance counts from field studies in orchards, arable fields, and hay meadows in 34 locations in Western Europe. With 21 formulations (17 active substances) tested in mostly multi-rate field studies, our reference data base has 120/121 values at Tier 1/Tier 2, respectively. We use the Proportion of Affected Taxa and Duration of Effect to jointly define acceptance criteria, starting with No Observed Effects. Absence of field effects is correctly predicted with HQ < 1.3 at Tier 1 and HQ < 0.48 at Tier 2, but these settings result in a high proportion of false positive outcomes. Increasing accepted duration of effect from 0 to 4 to 8 weeks results in HQ-threshold changes from 1.3 to 6.4 to 250 for Tier 1 studies and from 0.48 to 1.1 to 5.7 for Tier 2 studies. This coincides with a clear decrease in false positive outcomes. Recovery within a year is correctly concluded for 73% of the products passing the corresponding Tier 1 HQ < 2600 and for 92% of products at Tier 2 (HQ <230). Our analysis shows that the calibration is appropriate for a broad geographical range, for in-field and off-field situations and for phytophagous and non-phytophagous species alike.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35306212
pii: S0147-6513(22)00267-6
doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2022.113427
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

113427

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Frank Bakker (F)

Bakker Consultant, Lieu dit Pichoy, 32250 Fourcès, France. Electronic address: frankmbakker@icloud.com.

Saskia Aldershof (S)

Bioresearch and Evaluation, Clusiusweg 3, 9751PN Haren, The Netherlands. Electronic address: saskia.aldershof@gmail.com.

Sonja Braaker (S)

BASF S.A.S.;21 Chemin de la Sauvegarde, 69130 Ecully, France. Electronic address: sonja.braaker@basf.com.

Axel Dinter (A)

FMC Agricultural Solutions, Westhafenplatz 1, 60327 Frankfurt, Germany. Electronic address: axel.dinter@fmc.com.

Charlotte Elston (C)

Syngenta, Jealott's Hill International Research Station, Bracknell, Berkshire RG42 6EY, United Kingdom. Electronic address: charlotte.elston@syngenta.com.

Stefan Kroder (S)

Adama Deutschland GmbH, Edmund-Rumpler-Str. 6, 51149 Köln, Germany. Electronic address: stefan.kroder@adama.com.

Christoph-Julian Mayer (CJ)

BASF SE Agrarzentrum Limburgerhof, Speyerer Strasse 2, 67117 Limburgerhof, Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany. Electronic address: christoph-julian.mayer@basf.com.

Ed Pilling (E)

Corteva Agriscience, 3B Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire OX14 4RN, UK. Electronic address: edward.pilling@corteva.com.

Paul Neumann (P)

Bayer AG, Crop Science, Monheim, Germany. Electronic address: paul.neumann@bayer.com.

Articles similaires

Robotic Surgical Procedures Animals Humans Telemedicine Models, Animal

Odour generalisation and detection dog training.

Lyn Caldicott, Thomas W Pike, Helen E Zulch et al.
1.00
Animals Odorants Dogs Generalization, Psychological Smell
Animals TOR Serine-Threonine Kinases Colorectal Neoplasms Colitis Mice
Animals Tail Swine Behavior, Animal Animal Husbandry

Classifications MeSH