Improvements in Modelling Bystander and Resident Exposure to Pesticide Spray Drift: Investigations into New Approaches for Characterizing the ‘Collection Efficiency’ of the Human Body

Ellis, M. C. B.; Kennedy, Marc C.; Küster, Christian; Alanis, Rafael; Tuck, Clive R

doi:10.1093/annweh/wxy017

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to the BROWSE model, the EFSA guidance for determining non-dietary exposures of humans to plant protection products presents other probabilistic bystander and resident exposure assessment models built for regulatory purposes [4]. Some of them are discussed [28,29]. One article described a model not mentioned by EFSA estimating aggregate exposure (e.g.…”

Section: Assessment Of Residential Exposures In Risk Assessment Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of residential exposures to agricultural pesticides: A scoping review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The assessment of residential exposure to agricultural pesticides is a major issue for public health, regulatory and management purposes. In recent years, research into this field has developed considerably. The purpose of this scoping review is to provide an overview of scientific literature characterizing residential exposure to agricultural pesticides and to identify potential gaps in this research area. This work was conducted according to the JBI and PRISMA guidelines. Three databases were consulted. At least two experts selected the eligible studies. Our scoping review enabled us to identify 151 articles published between 1988 and 2019 dealing with the assessment of residential exposure to agricultural pesticides. Of these, 98 (64.9%) were epidemiological studies investigating possible links between pesticide exposure and the onset of adverse health effects, principally cancers and reproductive outcomes. They predominantly used Geographic Information Systems and sometimes surveys or interviews to calculate surrogate exposure metrics, the most common being the amounts of pesticides applied or the surface area of crops around the dwelling. Twenty-six (17.2%) were observational measurement studies conducted to quantify levels of pesticide exposure and identify their possible determinants. These studies assessed exposure by measuring pesticides in biological and environmental matrices, mostly in urines and house dust. Finally, we found only eight publications (5.3%) that quantified the risk to human health due to residential exposure for management purposes, in which exposure was mainly determined using probabilistic models. Pesticide exposure appears to be largely correlated with the spatial organization of agriculture activities in a territory. The determinants and routes of exposure remain to be explored to improve the conduct of epidemiological and risk assessment studies and to help prevent future exposures. Improvement could be expected from small-scale studies combining different methods of exposure assessment.

show abstract

Section: Assessment Of Residential Exposures In Risk Assessment Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of residential exposures to agricultural pesticides: A scoping review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The wind tunnel testing was carried out in the Silsoe Spray Applications Unit wind tunnel facility (Wrest Park, Silsoe, Bedford, UK), based on the method used for classifying the drift reduction of nozzles in the UK (Butler Ellis et al, 2018; Butler Ellis, Lane, O'Sullivan, Hamey, & MacDonald, 2020). The protocol included a single moving nozzle, operated at a controlled speed across the wind tunnel.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It was incorporated into the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) guidance for determining non‐dietary exposures to drift of bystanders and residents to plant protection products in a tier 1 approach (EU, 2009). A refined version of BREAM has been recently developed, called BREAM2 (Butler Ellis, Kennedy, Kuster, Alanis, & Tuck, 2018), which differs from the original BREAM calculator regarding the correlation between airborne spray and potential dermal exposure. BREAM2 is a better predictor of potential dermal exposures, whereby the predicted 75th and 95th percentiles of potential dermal exposure are reduced compared with BREAM under normal operating conditions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurements of the dermal exposure to bystanders from direct off‐crop drift during the application of plant protection products

Küster

Hewitt²,

Ellis

et al. 2021

Annals of Applied Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We determined the dermal exposure of plant protection products containing prothioconazole (PTZ) after spraying a standard crop using a tractor‐operated boom sprayer. Dermal exposure of adult and child bystanders to PTZ and its metabolite, PTZ‐desthio was quantified in bystander drift studies. Exposure was greater on mannequins placed 2 m from the zero line, compared with 5 m or 8 m. When the overall boom height above the ground was the same, the relative boom and canopy heights had no impact on the spray drift, allowing pooling of data from different studies. Wind tunnel experiments were used to compare two flat fan nozzle types, which allowed dermal exposure measured in early bystander field studies using the flat fan TeeJet XR 110 03 nozzle to be adjusted using a conversion factor to reflect exposure from Hypro F110‐03 nozzles. Values from studies using both flat fan nozzle types were pooled and compared with exposure using drift reduction nozzles. For the first time, 3D life‐size mannequins used in field studies have shown that drift reduction nozzles exceed the EFSA‐recommended 50% reduction in drift (potential exposure was reduced by 58–67%). The BREAM2 (Bystander and Resident Exposure Assessment Model) model resulted in better predictions of measured dermal exposure of PTZ equivalents than BREAM, albeit producing more conservative values for the 75th and 95th percentiles of potential dermal exposure compared to field studies (2.6‐fold higher than measured values). Our results using measured potential and actual exposures indicate that the EFSA calculation of 18% protection by light clothing was too conservative.

show abstract

“…Uncertainty is associated with unknown parameters of a sub-model that calculates the collection efficiency of a human bystander in contact with airborne spray. Further uncertainty is due to an unknown scale correction factor that is inferred from a combination of wind tunnel and field data (Butler Ellis et al 2018). These parameters were estimated using a limited set of measurements, and the impact of the uncertainty should be assessed.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the main analysis, the independent software developed in the EU FP7 Browse project (Butler Ellis et al 2017, www.browseproject.eu) was used to generate non-dietary exposures for the relevant population. In a second analysis, the Bream2 model (Butler Ellis et al 2018) was modified to quantify variability and uncertainty of residential exposures within the population. The purpose of demonstrating both analyses was to show how MCRA is flexible enough to include different types of non-dietary exposure models, including those that quantify uncertainty.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modelling aggregate exposure to pesticides from dietary and crop spray sources in UK residents

Kennedy

Garthwaite

Boer

et al. 2019

Environ Sci Pollut Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human exposure to pesticide mixtures can occur from the diet and other sources. Realistic exposure and risk assessments should include multiple sources and compounds and include the relative hazards of the different compounds. The EU-funded Euromix project is developing new web-based tools to facilitate these calculations. A case study is presented that exemplifies their use for a population of UK residents, including exposure from crop-spraying. A UK pesticide usage survey provided information on real pesticide combinations applied to crops of wheat, potatoes, sugar beet and dessert apples. This information was combined with outputs from two alternative simulation models of spray drift to estimate dermal, oral and inhalation exposures of residents. These non-dietary exposures were combined with dietary exposure estimates using the Monte Carlo Risk Assessment software to produce a distribution of aggregated and cumulative exposures. Compounds are weighted by relative potency to generate a measure of overall risk. Uncertainty quantification was also included in the distribution of exposures. These tools are flexible to allow diverse sources of exposure and can provide important information to decision-makers and help to prioritise testing of pesticide mixtures. Including non-dietary sources changed the prioritisation of pesticide mixtures, when compared to dietary exposure alone. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11356-019-04440-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Improvements in Modelling Bystander and Resident Exposure to Pesticide Spray Drift: Investigations into New Approaches for Characterizing the ‘Collection Efficiency’ of the Human Body

Cited by 10 publications

References 3 publications

Assessment of residential exposures to agricultural pesticides: A scoping review

Assessment of residential exposures to agricultural pesticides: A scoping review

Measurements of the dermal exposure to bystanders from direct off‐crop drift during the application of plant protection products

Modelling aggregate exposure to pesticides from dietary and crop spray sources in UK residents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About