Is the chronic Tier-1 effect assessment approach for insecticides protective for aquatic ecosystems?

Brock, T.C.M.; Bhatta, Ramchandra; Wijngaarden, René Pa van; Rico, Andreu

doi:10.1002/ieam.1719

Cited by 20 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The exposure scenarios used for their evaluation and the different cropping systems simulated may not consider the variability of meteorological conditions and agricultural practices, and their spatiotemporal boundaries are not relevant for many aquatic organisms (Rico et al 2016). Moreover, particular pesticide classes (e.g., neonicotinoids, pyrethroids) have been shown to pose unacceptable toxic effects to nontarget organisms that were originally not covered by the standard test species used in the lower tiers of the prospective risk assessment (Vijver and van den Brink 2014;Brock et al 2016). Vijver et al (2017) proposed that the limitations in extrapolating prospective risk assessment results to the realworld could be tackled by implementing widespread postregistration monitoring programs of chemical concentrations and associated biological effects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of Postregistration Monitoring Data to Evaluate the Ecotoxicological Risks of Pesticides to Surface Waters: A Case Study with Chlorpyrifos in the Iberian Peninsula

Rico

Dafouz

Vighi

et al. 2020

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chemical monitoring data sets such as those provided by the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) offer opportunities to evaluate the ecological risks of pesticides under large spatiotemporal scales and to evaluate the protectiveness of the current prospective risk‐assessment framework. As a case study, we used the monitoring data set for the insecticide chlorpyrifos to perform a probabilistic risk assessment for Iberian surface‐water ecosystems. The specific objectives of the study were 1) to assess the occurrence of chlorpyrifos in relation to different agricultural production land uses, 2) to assess the spatiotemporal variation in the exceedance of the European WFD short‐ and long‐term environmental quality standards (maximum allowable concentration environmental quality standard [MAC‐EQS] and annual average [AA] EQS), and 3) to perform a probabilistic risk assessment for freshwater invertebrates. A database that contains chlorpyrifos concentrations from 14 600 surface water samples taken between 2012 and 2017 in the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) was analyzed, and chlorpyrifos was detected in 21% of these samples. The MAC‐EQS was exceeded in 2% of the cases, whereas the AA‐EQS was exceeded in 18% of the cases. The majority of the exceedances took place in the littoral areas of the eastern and southeastern parts of the Iberian Peninsula, particularly in areas with dominant citrus production during late spring, late summer, and autumn. The present study indicates unacceptable risks posed by chlorpyrifos to Iberian surface waters over the study period, although it was approved for use in Europe. The present study supports the need to perform further postregistration monitoring assessments with other pesticides following similar approaches, which can help to identify possible pesticide‐misuse practices and improvements of the prospective risk‐assessment framework. Environ Toxicol Chem 2021;40:500–512. © 2020 SETAC

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of Postregistration Monitoring Data to Evaluate the Ecotoxicological Risks of Pesticides to Surface Waters: A Case Study with Chlorpyrifos in the Iberian Peninsula

Rico

Dafouz

Vighi

et al. 2020

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Validation of first-tier regulatory acceptable concentrations with higher tier microcosm and mesocosm studies has previously been performed for insecticides [10,11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the tier‐1 effect assessment for herbicides protective for aquatic algae and vascular plant communities?

Wijngaarden

Arts

2017

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the aquatic tier-1 effect assessment for plant protection products with an herbicidal mode of action in Europe, it is usually algae and/or vascular plants that determine the environmental risks. This tier includes tests with at least 2 algae and 1 macrophyte (Lemna). Although such tests are considered to be of a chronic nature (based on the duration of the test in relation to the life cycle of the organism), the measurement endpoints derived from the laboratory tests with plants (including algae) and used in the first-tier effect assessment for herbicides are acute effect concentrations affecting 50% of the test organisms (EC50 values) and not no-observed-effect concentrations (NOECs) or effect concentrations affecting 10% of the test organisms (EC10) values. Other European legislative frameworks (e.g., the Water Framework Directive) use EC10 values. The present study contributes to a validation of the tiered herbicide risk assessment approach by comparing the standard first-tier effect assessment with results of microcosm and mesocosm studies. We evaluated EC50 and EC10 values for standard test algae and macrophytes based on either the growth rate endpoint (E r C50) or the lowest available endpoint for growth rate or biomass/yield (E r /E y C50). These values were compared with the regulatory acceptable concentrations for the threshold option as derived from microcosm and mesocosm studies. For these studies, protection is maintained if growth rate is taken as the regulatory endpoint instead of the lowest value of either growth rate or biomass/yield in conjunction with the standard assessment factor of 10. Based on a limited data set of 14 herbicides, we did not identify a need to change the current practice. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:175-183. C 2017 SETAC

show abstract

“…The tiered system as a whole should result in protective decisions that are consistent with specific protection goals. In Europe, higher tiers are also used to verify the protective nature of lower tier assessment methods (van Wijngaarden et al 2005;Solomon et al 2008;EFSA 2013;Brock et al 2016).…”

Section: Tiered Risk Assessment Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overcoming Challenges of Incorporating Higher Tier Data in Ecological Risk Assessments and Risk Management of Pesticides in the United States: Findings and Recommendations from the 2017 Workshop on Regulation and Innovation in Agriculture

Levine

Giddings²,

Valenti

et al. 2019

Integr Envir Assess & Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pesticide regulation requires regulatory authorities to assess the potential ecological risk of pesticides submitted for registration, and most risk assessment schemes use a tiered testing and assessment approach. Standardized ecotoxicity tests, environmental fate studies, and exposure models are used at lower tiers and follow well‐defined methods for assessing risk. If a lower tier assessment indicates that the pesticide may pose an ecological risk, higher tier studies using more environmentally realistic conditions or assumptions can be performed to refine the risk assessment and inform risk management options. However, there is limited guidance in the United States on options to refine an assessment and how the data will be incorporated into the risk assessment and risk management processes. To overcome challenges to incorporation of higher tier data into ecological risk assessments and risk management of pesticides, a workshop was held in Raleigh, North Carolina. Attendees included representatives from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, universities, commodity groups, consultants, nonprofit organizations, and the crop protection industry. Key recommendations emphasized the need for 1) more effective, timely, open communication among registrants, risk assessors, and risk managers earlier in the registration process to identify specific protection goals, address areas of potential concern where higher tier studies or assessments may be required, and if a higher tier study is necessary that there is agreement on study design; 2) minimizing the complexity of study designs while retaining high value to the risk assessment and risk management process; 3) greater transparency regarding critical factors utilized in risk management decisions with clearly defined protection goals that are operational; and 4) retrospective analyses of success–failure learnings on the acceptability of higher tier studies to help inform registrants on how to improve the application of such studies to risk assessments and the risk management process. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;15:714–725. © 2019 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

show abstract

Is the chronic Tier-1 effect assessment approach for insecticides protective for aquatic ecosystems?

Cited by 20 publications

References 45 publications

Use of Postregistration Monitoring Data to Evaluate the Ecotoxicological Risks of Pesticides to Surface Waters: A Case Study with Chlorpyrifos in the Iberian Peninsula

Use of Postregistration Monitoring Data to Evaluate the Ecotoxicological Risks of Pesticides to Surface Waters: A Case Study with Chlorpyrifos in the Iberian Peninsula

Is the tier‐1 effect assessment for herbicides protective for aquatic algae and vascular plant communities?

Overcoming Challenges of Incorporating Higher Tier Data in Ecological Risk Assessments and Risk Management of Pesticides in the United States: Findings and Recommendations from the 2017 Workshop on Regulation and Innovation in Agriculture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About