2000
DOI: 10.1007/bf02956443
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A hazard quotient approach for assessing the risk to non-target arthropods from

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Each winegrower provided two vineyards, one planted with cultivars susceptible towards powdery and downy mildew (e.g., Riesling, Pinot blanc) and one with fungus‐resistant varieties (e.g., Cabernet blanc, Regent), resulting in 16 vineyard pairs with different fungicide intensity but otherwise similar management (see Table S2). To display the acute toxicity of spraying regimes, hazard quotients for applied pesticides (HQ hereafter) were calculated by dividing the amount of applied active ingredients (g or mL per ha) by their corresponding contact acute median lethal dose (LD 50 ) 45 values for honeybees (μg or μL per bee) and summed over all sprayings of the sampling year for each vineyard (see Table S2). Contact acute LD 50 values for honeybees were obtained through the Pesticide Properties DataBase 46 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each winegrower provided two vineyards, one planted with cultivars susceptible towards powdery and downy mildew (e.g., Riesling, Pinot blanc) and one with fungus‐resistant varieties (e.g., Cabernet blanc, Regent), resulting in 16 vineyard pairs with different fungicide intensity but otherwise similar management (see Table S2). To display the acute toxicity of spraying regimes, hazard quotients for applied pesticides (HQ hereafter) were calculated by dividing the amount of applied active ingredients (g or mL per ha) by their corresponding contact acute median lethal dose (LD 50 ) 45 values for honeybees (μg or μL per bee) and summed over all sprayings of the sampling year for each vineyard (see Table S2). Contact acute LD 50 values for honeybees were obtained through the Pesticide Properties DataBase 46 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At Tier 1, laboratory worst-case dose-response studies are performed (Grimm et al, 2001) and the in-and off-field ERA is performed using a Hazard Quotient (HQ) approach (Campbell et al, 2000;Candolfi et al, 2001). If the HQ is above a certain threshold value, unacceptable risk cannot be excluded and higher-tier studies and ERAs with the affected and additional species (one or two additional species depending if only in-field or also off-field risk is identified) have to be performed.…”
Section: Non-target Risk Assessment Of Chemical Pesticides: the Europ...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, DSI represents physiological selectivity, 11,27 whereas RQ is an indicator of the ecological risk imposed on the natural enemy by the applied insecticide. [27][28][29] 29 The determination of these indices subsidizes a recommendation of insecticides less toxic to natural enemies compared to the target pests.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…RQ requires knowledge about the median lethal concentration (LC 50 ) calculated for the natural enemy and the labeled rate of the insecticide against the target pest. Therefore, DSI represents physiological selectivity, 11,27 whereas RQ is an indicator of the ecological risk imposed on the natural enemy by the applied insecticide 27–29 . The determination of these indices subsidizes a recommendation of insecticides less toxic to natural enemies compared to the target pests.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%