Overhaul environmental risk assessment for pesticides

C J Topping,A Aldrich,P Berny,C. J. Topping,A. Aldrich,P. Berny

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay1144

IF: 56.9

2020-01-24

Science

Abstract:Align regulation with environmental reality and policy

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

A systems-based analysis to rethink the European environmental risk assessment of regulated chemicals using pesticides as a pilot case

Johan Axelman,Annette Aldrich,Sabine Duquesne,Thomas Backhaus,Stephan Brendel,Andreas Focks,Sheila Holz,Saskia Knillmann,Silvia Pieper,Emilia Silva,Maria Schmied-Tobies,Christopher John Topping,Louise Wipfler,James Williams,José Paulo Sousa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.174526

2024-10-20

Abstract:A growing body of scientific literature stresses the need to advance current environmental risk assessment (ERA) methodologies and associated regulatory frameworks to better address the landscape-scale and long-term impact of pesticide use on biodiversity and the ecosystem. Moreover, more collaborative and integrative approaches are needed to meet sustainability goals. The One Health approach is increasingly applied by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to support the transition towards safer, healthier and more sustainable food. To this end, EFSA commissioned the development of a roadmap for action to establish a European Partnership for next-generation, systems-based Environmental Risk Assessment (PERA). Here, we summarise the main conclusions and recommendations reported in the 2022 PERA Roadmap. This roadmap highlights that fragmentation of data, knowledge and expertise across regulatory sectors results in suboptimal processes and hinders the implementation of integrative ERA approaches needed to better protect the environment. To advance ERA, we revisited the underlying assumptions of the current ERA paradigm; that chemical risks are generally assessed and managed in isolation with a substance-by-substance, realistic worst-case and tiered approach. We suggest optimising the use of the vast amount of information and expertise available with pesticides as a pilot area. It is recommended to as soon as possible adopt a systems-based approach, i.e. within the current regulatory framework, to spark a step-wise transition towards an ERA framed at a system level of ecological and societal relevance. Tangible systems-based and integrative steps are available. For instance, the rich sources of existing data for prospective and retrospective ERA of pesticides could be used to reality-benchmark existing and new ERA methods. To achieve these goals, collaboration among stakeholders across scientific disciplines and regulatory sectors must be strengthened.
A conceptual framework for landscape-based environmental risk assessment (ERA) of pesticides

Jose V Tarazona,Mercedes de Alba-Gonzalez,Carole Bedos,Pierre Benoit,Colette Bertrand,Olivier Crouzet,Cécile Dagès,Jean-Lou Cm Dorne,Ana Fernandez-Agudo,Andreas Focks,Maria Del Carmen Gonzalez-Caballero,Alexandra Kroll,Matthias Liess,Susana Loureiro,Manuel E Ortiz-Santaliestra,Jes J Rasmussen,Raphaël Royauté,Maj Rundlöf,Ralf B Schäfer,Stephen Short,Ayesha Siddique,José Paulo Sousa,Dave Spurgeon,Pierre-François Staub,Chris J Topping,Marc Voltz,Johan Axelman,Annette Aldrich,Sabine Duquesne,Vanessa Mazerolles,Yann Devos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108999

Abstract:While pesticide use is subject to strict regulatory oversight worldwide, it remains a main concern for environmental protection, including biodiversity conservation. This is partly due to the current regulatory approach that relies on separate assessments for each single pesticide, crop use, and non-target organism group at local scales. Such assessments tend to overlook the combined effects of overall pesticide usage at larger spatial scales. Integrative landscape-based approaches are emerging, enabling the consideration of agricultural management, the environmental characteristics, and the combined effects of pesticides applied in a same or in different crops within an area. These developments offer the opportunity to deliver informative risk predictions relevant for different decision contexts including their connection to larger spatial scales and to combine environmental risks of pesticides, with those from other environmental stressors. We discuss the needs, challenges, opportunities and available tools for implementing landscape-based approaches for prospective and retrospective pesticide Environmental Risk Assessments (ERA). A set of "building blocks" that emerged from the discussions have been integrated into a conceptual framework. The framework includes elements to facilitate its implementation, in particular: flexibility to address the needs of relevant users and stakeholders; means to address the inherent complexity of environmental systems; connections to make use of and integrate data derived from monitoring programs; and options for validation and approaches to facilitate future use in a regulatory context. The conceptual model can be applied to existing ERA methodologies, facilitating its comparability, and highlighting interoperability drivers at landscape level. The benefits of landscape-based pesticide ERA extend beyond regulation. Linking and validating risk predictions with relevant environmental impacts under a solid science-based approach will support the setting of protection goals and the formulation of sustainable agricultural strategies. Moreover, landscape ERA offers a communication tool on realistic pesticide impacts in a multistressors environment for stakeholders and citizens.
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

Steven L Levine,Jeffrey Giddings,Theodore Valenti,George P Cobb,Danesha Seth Carley,Laura L McConnell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4173

Abstract: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).
Progresses of Ecological Risk Assessment

CHEN Hui,LIU Jin-Song,CAO Yu,LI Shuang-Cheng,OUYANG Hua

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2006.05.034

2006-01-01

Acta Ecologica Sinica

Abstract:Risk assessment beginning at 1980s has developed greatly in content, scale and methods of assessment from one chemical and one receptor to its current application at large spatial and temporal scales in the 20 years. In the 1980s, the main assessment content was from toxicity of one chemical to human health risk. In the 1990s, risk assessment as a management tool had to be applied to populations, communities, and eventually to the ecological landscape at large scales. The risk analysis of multiple stressors, not just multiple chemicals but multiple types of agents, was also taken into account. During the late part of 1990s and early 2000s, the ecological risk assessment was broadening to include not only chemicals and ecological affairs but also a wide variety stressors, such as the impacts of human activities(urbanization, land use and land cover change, fishery and climate change, etc.) and the assessment scale was expanding to region and landscape scales. Frameworks and statistical models are the key of regional ecological risk assessment. The risk assessment framework presented in the National Research Council(NRC) Red Book played a key role in the development of ecological risk assessment. After years of modification, the assessment framework had been improved to be perfect till 1998. The Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) framework proposed an integrated framework that covered both human health and ecological risk assessment including a detailed description of the process and showing how the process could be applied to a broad range of situations. Since then, various ERA framework have been developed for use in some countries(e.g. Netherlands, Australia, United Kingdom) and for specific situations. The statistical methods are the quantitative methods of ecological risk assessment. For one chemical stressor, the ratio value model and exposure-response model are adopted, but for the multiple stressors, multiple receptors, large scale of complex regional landscape, the methods aren't suitable because many uncertainties will appear during the extending from one stressor small scale to multiple stressors large scale. In the regional ecological risk assessment, Relative Risk Assessment(RRA) based on weight-of-evidence(WOE) are used widely. WOE approaches reported in the literature vary broadly from subjective and qualitative to quantitative and the categories of which include qualitative combination, expert ranking, consensus ranking, semi-quantitative ranking and sediment quality triad. WOE approaches could be used in retrospect assessment, causation assessment and the whole process of ecological risk assessment. In the future, as a universal framework for ecological management, ecological risk assessment should develop deeply in resolving the problems of scale extending, uncertainty and assessment standard. At the background of global ecological crisis, regional ecological risk assessment will emphasized the fields and aspects in close relationship with global changes, such as human activities, geological disasters and climate affairs and ecological risk resulting from policy error and ecology safety, etc. Regional ecological risk assessment has the potential of becoming quantitative tools of management decision if it integrated with economy, society and culture.
Insect Pest Management and Environmental Risk

Robert K D Peterson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-121123-021252

2024-09-11

Abstract:Insect pests and insect pest management tactics impose risks to the environment. Environmental risk assessment is a formalized paradigm for the objective evaluation of risk in which assumptions and uncertainties are clearly presented. Therefore, a better understanding of the environmental risks and especially the comparative risks posed by insect pests and management tactics will improve integrated pest management. Risk assessments for insect pest management tactics are much more common for pesticides and genetically engineered crops than for biological control, cultural control, and semiochemicals. The reasons for this discrepancy include evidence of deleterious effects and data availability for pesticides and genetically engineered crops, public perceptions of tactics, and politics. Regardless of the regulatory oversight and frequency of risk assessments, all tactics should be subject to the risk assessment paradigm to assist in societal decisions.
Applying a tiered environmental risk assessment framework to estimate the risk of pesticides to soil organisms in Latin America

Flavio Tincani,Ana Paola Cione,Fábio Casallanovo,Melanie Bottoms,Tania Alvarez,Stefania Loutseti,Richard Mackenzie,Helen Thompson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4669

Abstract:This work investigates the application of a tiered risk assessment scheme for soil organisms based on the risk quotient (RQ) and the toxicity exposure ratio (TER). Forty-five pesticides registered in Latin America were chosen and the ecotoxicological endpoints for earthworms, Collembola, and microorganisms were collated. Tier I assessment was made on conservative assumptions in which no refinements were applied. There, 14 pesticides (31%) exceed the RQ regulatory trigger indicating unacceptable risk, whereas 27 (60%) indicate unacceptable risk on the TER approach. In a Tier II evaluation when refinement options such as foliar interception, field half-life, and the dissipation following the peak estimated environmental concentration are considered, eight (18%) pesticides indicate unacceptable risk based on the RQ, and 15 (33%) indicate unacceptable risk based on the TER. A nonmetric multidimensional scaling evaluation was performed to understand the relevant characteristics involved in how each pesticide poses a risk to soil organisms. Based on the outcome of this analysis, we observed that, for a given pesticide, the combination of high persistence, low or no crop interception, and high toxicity are likely to require higher tier risk assessment. Refinement options can consider either or both the exposure and/or the effect side of the framework. Exposure refinements are potentially simpler and can be conducted with data already available to risk assessors, whereas effect refinements involving further testing with the organisms potentially at risk are still under discussion for intermediate and higher tiers. A sensitive, simple, and logical environmental risk assessment framework can be used to adequately identify risks based on the relevant protection goals that, in turn, will help to protect the desired soil multifunctionality of the ecosystem. We encourage academia and industry to further investigate these topics to provide the most scientifically robust and evidence-based information to decision makers. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2023;19:446-460. © 2022 SETAC.
In silico environmental risk assessment improves efficiency for pesticide safety management

Yang-Yang Gao,Wei Zhao,Yuan-Qin Huang,Vinit Kumar,Xiao Zhang,Ge-Fei Hao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167878

IF: 9.8

2023-11-08

The Science of The Total Environment

Abstract:Pesticides are indispensable to maintain crop quality and food production worldwide, but their use also poses environmental risks. Pesticide risk assessment involves a series of complex, expensive and time-consuming toxicity tests. To improve the efficiency and accuracy for assessing the environmental impact of pesticides, numerous computational tools have been developed. However, there is a notable deficiency in critical analysis or a systematic summary of environmental risk assessment tools and their applicable contexts. Here, many of the current approaches and tools for assessing environmental risks posed by pesticides are reviewed, and the question of whether these tools are fit for use on complex multicomponent scenarios is discussed. We analyze the adaptations of these tools to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, followed by the provision of resources for predicting pesticide concentrations in environmental medias, including air, soil and water. The successful application of computational tools for risk assessment and interpretation of predicted results will also be discussed. This assessment serves as a valuable resource, enabling scientists to utilize suitable models to enhance the robustness of pesticides risk assessments.

environmental sciences
A Technique for Assessing Environmental Impact Risks of Agricultural Systems

Olha Sydorovych,Charles W. Raczkowski,Ada Wossink,J. Paul Mueller,Nancy G. Creamer,Shuijin Hu,Melissa Bell,Cong Tu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s174217050999010x

2009-01-01

Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems

Abstract:AbstractConventional agriculture often aims to achieve high returns without allowing for sustainable natural resource management. To prevent environmental degradation, agricultural systems must be assessed and environmental standards need to be developed. This study used a multi-factor approach to assess the potential environmental impact risk of six diverse systems: five production systems and a successional system or abandoned agronomic field. Assessment factors were soil quality status, amount of pesticide and fertilizer applied and tillage intensity. The assessment identified the best management practices (BMP)–conventional tillage system as a high-risk system mostly because of extensive tillage. The certified organic system was also extensively tilled and was characterized by P build-up in the soil, but performed well based on other assessment factors. Conversely, the BMP–no tillage and the crop–animal integrated system were characterized as low risk mainly because of reduced tillage. The paper discusses assessment strengths and weaknesses, ways to improve indicators used, and the need for additional indicators. We concluded that with further development the technique will become a resourceful tool to promote agricultural sustainability and environmental stewardship and assist policy-making processes.
A review of ecological risk assessment of pesticides at home and abroad

CHENG Yan,ZHOU Jun-ying,SHAN Zheng-jun,CHEN Jian-qun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1673-4831.2005.03.015

2005-01-01

Abstract:Ecological risk assessments(ERA)of pesticides in China,USA and OECD are introduced from such aspects as guidelines,methods, and models of the assessments and the important role of risk assessment in pesticide registration,and researches in these fields are reviewed.Shortages of the country in this aspect are exposed and recommendations are brought forth to make up the shortages.
Incorporating climate projections in the environmental risk assessment of pesticides in aquatic ecosystems

Rik Oldenkamp,Rasmus E. Benestad,John D. Hader,Sophie Mentzel,Rory Nathan,Anders L. Madsen,S. Jannicke Moe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4849

2023-10-07

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management

Abstract:Global climate change will significantly impact the biodiversity of freshwater ecosystems, both directly and indirectly via the exacerbation of impacts from other stressors. Pesticides form a prime example of chemical stressors that are expected to synergise with climate change. Aquatic exposures to pesticides might change in magnitude due to increased runoff from agricultural fields, and in composition as application patterns will change due to changes in pest pressures and crop types. Any prospective chemical risk assessment that aims to capture the influence of climate change should properly and comprehensively account for the variabilities and uncertainties that are inherent to projections of future climate. This is only feasible if they probabilistically propagate extensive ensembles of climate model projections. However, current prospective risk assessments typically make use of process‐based models of chemical fate that do not typically allow for such high‐throughput application. Here we describe a Bayesian network model that does. It incorporates a two‐step univariate regression model based on a thirty‐day antecedent precipitation index, circumventing the need for computationally laborious mechanistic models. We show its feasibility and application potential in a case study with two pesticides in a Norwegian stream: the fungicide trifloxystrobin and herbicide clopyralid. Our analysis showed that variations in pesticide application rates as well as precipitation intensity lead to variations in in‐stream exposures. When relating to aquatic risks, the influence of these processes reduces and distributions of risk are dominated by effect‐related parameters. Predicted risks for clopyralid were negligible, but the probability of unacceptable future environmental risks due to exposure to trifloxystrobin (i.e., a risk quotient > 1) was 8‐12%. This percentage further increases to 30‐35% when a more conservative precautionary factor of 100 instead of 30 was used.

environmental sciences,toxicology
Ecotoxicological soil risk assessment under the new soil exposure framework – an impact assessment

Agnes Schimera,Sebastian Multsch,Olga I Guevara Montemayor,Philip Branford,Melanie Bottoms,Sian Ellis,Gregor Ernst,Stefania Loutseti,Michael T Marx,David Patterson,Amanda Sharples,Frank Staab,Bernhard Gottesbueren,Agnes SchimeraSebastian MultschOlga I Guevara MontemayorPhilip BranfordMelanie BottomsSian EllisGregor ErnstStefania LoutsetiMichael T MarxDavid PattersonAmanda SharplesFrank StaabBernhard Gottesbuerena Environmental Safety,ADAMA Deutschland GmbH,Cologne,Germanyb Agricultural Solutions,BASF SE,Limburgerhof,Germanyc Environmental Fate and Modelling,Knoell Germany GmbH,Mannheim,Germanyd Environmental Safety,ADAMA Agricultural Solutions,Reading,UKe Ecotoxicology,Syngenta,Jealott's Hill International Research Centre,Bracknell,UKf Regulatory Ecotoxicology,Corteva Agriscience,Abingdon,UKg Environmental Safety,Bayer AG Crop Science Division,Monheim,Germanyh Global Regulatory Sciences,FMC Corporation,Philadelphia,Pennsylvania,USA

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03601234.2024.2319005

2024-03-02

Abstract:For the European risk assessment (RA) for soil organisms exposed to plant protection products (PPPs) endpoints from ecotoxicological laboratory studies are compared with predicted environmental concentrations in soil (PEC SOIL ) at first tier. A safety margin must be met; otherwise, a higher tier RA is triggered (usually soil organism field studies). A new tiered exposure modeling guidance was published by EFSA to determine PEC SOIL . This work investigates its potential impact on future soil RA. PEC SOIL values for >50 active substances and metabolites were calculated and compared with the respective endpoints for soil organisms to calculate the RA failure rate. Compared to the current (FOCUS) exposure modeling, PEC SOIL values for all EU regulatory zones considerably increased, e.g., resulting in active substance RA failure rates of 67%, 58% and 36% for modeling Tier-1, Tier-2 and Tier-3A, respectively. The main driving factors for elevated PEC SOIL were soil bulk density, crop interception and wash-off, next to obligatory modeling and scenario adjustment factors. Spatial PEC SOIL scenario selection procedures result in agronomically atypical soil characteristics (e.g., soil bulk density values in Tier-3A scenarios far below typical European agricultural areas). Consequently, exposure modeling and ecotoxicological study characteristics are inconsistent, which hinders scientifically reasonable comparison of both in the RA.
Use of Prospective and Retrospective Risk Assessment Methods That Simplify Chemical Mixtures Associated with Treated Domestic Wastewater Discharges

Jerome Diamond,Rolf Altenburger,Anja Coors,Scott D. Dyer,Michael Focazio,Karen Kidd,Albert A. Koelmans,Kenneth M. Y. Leung,Mark R. Servos,Jason Snape,Johannes Tolls,Xiaowei Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4013

2017-01-01

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

Abstract:A framework is presented that is intended to facilitate the evaluation of potential aquatic ecological risks resulting from discharges of down-the-drain chemicals. A scenario is presented using representatives of many of the types of chemicals that are treated domestically. Predicted environmental chemical concentrations are based on reported loading rates and routine removal rates for 3 types of treatment: trickling filter, activated sludge secondary treatment, and activated sludge plus advanced oxidation process as well as instream effluent dilution. In tier I, predicted effluent concentrations were compared with the lowest predicted-no-effect concentration (PNEC) obtained from the literature using safety factors as needed. A cumulative risk characterization ratio (cumRCR) < 1.0 indicates that risk is unlikely and no further action is needed. Otherwise, a tier 2 assessment is used, in which PNECs are based on trophic level. If tier 2 indicates a possible risk, then a retrospective assessment is recommended. In tier 1, the cumRCR was > 1.0 for all 3 treatment types in our scenario, even though no chemical exceeded a hazard quotient of 1.0 in activated sludge or advanced oxidation process. In tier 2, activated sludge yielded a lower cumRCR than trickling filter because of higher removal rates, and the cumRCR in the advanced oxidation process was << 1.0. Based on the maximum cumulative risk ratio (MCR), more than one-third of the predicted risk was accounted for by one chemical, and at least 90% was accounted for by 3 chemicals, indicating that few chemicals influenced the mixture risk in our scenario. We show how a retrospective assessment can test whether certain chemicals hypothesized as potential drivers in the prospective assessment could have, or are having, deleterious effects on aquatic life. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:690-702. © 2017 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.
A New Method for Environmental Risk Assessment of Pollutants Based on Multi-Dimensional Risk Factors

Le Li,Yuying Dong,Yuting Chen,Jian Jiao,Xuejun Zou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10110659

2022-10-31

Toxics

Abstract:Pollutant discharge causing the deterioration of the watershed environment has seriously threatened human health and ecosystem function. The importance of improving the risk warning system is becoming more and more prominent. Traditional chemical risk assessment methods focused on toxicity and the exposure of pollutants without considering the impact of persistent pollutants in different environmental media. In this study, a new approach was proposed to reflect multi-dimensional evaluation with a synthetic risk factor (SRF) of pollutants. The integrating parameters of SRF include toxicity endpoint values, environmental exposure level, persistent properties, and compartment features. Selected pesticides, perfluorinated compounds, organophosphate esters and endocrine disruptors were analyzed by the proposed and traditional methods. The results showed a higher risk outcome using SRF analysis for PFOS, imazalil, testosterone, androstenedione and bisphenol A, which were different from those obtained by the traditional method, which were consistent with existing risk management. The study demonstrated that the SRF method improved the risk assessment of various pollutants in different environmental media in a more robust fashion, and also provided a more accurate decision basis for ecological environment protection.

environmental sciences,toxicology
Using emerging science to inform risk characterizations for wildlife within current regulatory frameworks

Mark S. Johnson,Michael Beking,Eric M. J. Verbruggen,Emily A. McVey,Beth Power,Clare Kilgour,Thomas G. Bean,Dwayne R. J. Moore,Marc S. Greenberg,Janet Burris,David Charters

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4906

2024-03-08

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management

Abstract:Many jurisdictions have regulatory frameworks that seek to reduce the effects of environmental exposures of anthropogenic chemicals on terrestrial wildlife (i.e., mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians). The frameworks apply for new and existing chemicals, including pesticides (prospective assessments), and to environmental contamination from releases (retrospective risk assessments). Relatively recently, there have been many scientific advances that could improve risk estimates for wildlife. Here, we briefly describe current regulations from North America (United States and Canada) and from Europe that include risk assessments for wildlife to ascertain whether they are conducive to the use of emerging science and new methods. We also provide examples where new and emerging science may be used to improve wildlife risk characterization and identify areas in need of future research. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;00:1–15. © 2024 His Majesty the King in Right of Canada and The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management © 2024 Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

environmental sciences,toxicology
Advances in Risk Assessment of Pesticide Residue

Cun-zheng ZHANG,Xian-jin LIU,Chang-fu WU,Ying LIANG

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-4440.2010.06.056

2010-01-01

Abstract:Risk assessment,as a means of pesticide safety evaluation,has been widely employed in pesticide management.It is critical not only for scientific use of pesticide and protection of ecological environment and human health,but for safeguarding food safety.This paper reviews the current advances in the risk assessment model of pesticide residue and introduces the procedures of human health risk assessment,helping to assist the final decision of pesticide registration and food safety management.
Trans-disciplinary diagnosis for an in-depth reform of regulatory expertise in the field of environmental toxicology and security

Joël Spiroux de Vendômois,Jean-Paul Bourdineaud,Arnaud Apoteker,Nicolas Defarge,Emilie Gaillard,Corinne Lepage,Jacques Testart,Christian Vélot

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43188-020-00075-w

2021-01-25

Abstract:Repeated health and environmental scandals, the loss of biodiversity and the recent burst of chronic diseases constantly remind us the inability of public authorities and risk assessment agencies to protect health and the environment. After reviewing the main shortcomings of our evaluation system of chemicals and new technologies, supported by some concrete examples, we develop a number of proposals to reform both the risk assessment agencies and the evaluation processes. We especially propose the establishment of an independent structure, a High Authority of Expertise, supervising, either at European level or at national level, all the evaluation agencies, and ensuring the transparency, the methodology and the deontology of the expertise. In addition to modifying the evaluation protocols, both in their nature and in their content, especially in order to adapt them to current pollutants such as endocrine disruptors, we propose a reform of the expertise processes based on transparency, contradiction, and greater democracy, including close collaboration between the institutional and scientific parties on the one hand and the whole civil society on the other. All the proposals we make are inspired by the desire to prevent, through appropriate mechanisms, the human, health, ecological, but also economic consequences of contemporary technological choices.
Coordinating ecological risk assessment with natural resource damage assessment: A panel discussion

Brenda Sanders,Mike Ammann,Rebecca Hoff,Mark Huston,Kenneth Jenkins,Tony Palagyi,Karen Pelto,Todd Rettig,Anne Wagner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1721

Abstract:Contaminated sites in the United States undergo remediation and restoration through regulatory programs that lead the 2 processes through independent but often parallel pathways with different objectives. The objective of remediation is to reduce risk to human health and the environment, whereas that of restoration is to restore injured resources and compensate the public for lost use of the services that natural resources provide. More complex sites, such as those associated with large river systems and urban waterways, have resulted in increasingly larger-scale ecological risk assessments (ERAs) and natural resource damage assessments (NRDAs) that take many years and involve diverse practitioners including scientists, economists, and engineers. Substantial levels of effort are now frequently required, creating a need for more efficient and cost-effective approaches to data collection, analyses, and assessments. Because there are commonalities in the data needs between ERAs and NRDAs, coordination of the design and implementation of site-specific studies that meet the needs of both programs could result in increased efficiency and lower costs. The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences Foundation convened a panel of environmental practitioners from industry, consulting, and regulatory bodies to examine the benefits and challenges associated with coordinating ERA and NRDA activities in the context of a broad range of regulatory programs. This brief communication presents the opinions and conclusions of the panelists on these issues and reports 2 case studies for which coordinated ERA and NRDA activities produced a positive outcome. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2016;12:616-621. © 2015 SETAC.
<i>In</i><i> silico</i> environmental risk assessment improves efficiency for pesticide safety management

Yang-Yang Gao,Wei Zhao,Yuan-Qin Huang,Vinit Kumar,Xiao Zhang,Ge-Fei Hao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167878

IF: 9.8

2024-01-01

The Science of The Total Environment

Abstract:Pesticides are indispensable to maintain crop quality and food production worldwide, but their use also poses environmental risks. Pesticide risk assessment involves a series of complex, expensive and time-consuming toxicity tests. To improve the efficiency and accuracy for assessing the environmental impact of pesticides, numerous computational tools have been developed. However, there is a notable deficiency in critical analysis or a systematic summary of environmental risk assessment tools and their applicable contexts. Here, many of the current approaches and tools for assessing environmental risks posed by pesticides are reviewed, and the question of whether these tools are fit for use on complex multicomponent scenarios is discussed. We analyze the adaptations of these tools to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, followed by the provision of resources for pre-dicting pesticide concentrations in environmental medias, including air, soil and water. The successful appli-cation of computational tools for risk assessment and interpretation of predicted results will also be discussed. This assessment serves as a valuable resource, enabling scientists to utilize suitable models to enhance the robustness of pesticides risk assessments.
A quantitative screening-level approach to incorporate chemical exposure and risk into alternative assessment evaluations

Scott M Arnold,Bill Greggs,Katy O Goyak,Bryce D Landenberger,Ann M Mason,Brett Howard,Rosemary T Zaleski

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1926

Abstract:As the general public and retailers ask for disclosure of chemical ingredients in the marketplace, a number of hazard screening tools were developed to evaluate the so-called "greenness" of individual chemical ingredients and/or formulations. The majority of these tools focus only on hazard, often using chemical lists, ignoring the other part of the risk equation: exposure. Using a hazard-only focus can result in regrettable substitutions, changing 1 chemical ingredient for another that turns out to be more hazardous or shifts the toxicity burden to others. To minimize the incidents of regrettable substitutions, BizNGO describes "Common Principles" to frame a process for informed substitution. Two of these 6 principles are: "reduce hazard" and "minimize exposure." A number of frameworks have emerged to evaluate and assess alternatives. One framework developed by leading experts under the auspices of the US National Academy of Sciences recommended that hazard and exposure be specifically addressed in the same step when assessing candidate alternatives. For the alternative assessment community, this article serves as an informational resource for considering exposure in an alternatives assessment using elements of problem formulation; product identity, use, and composition; hazard analysis; exposure analysis; and risk characterization. These conceptual elements build on practices from government, academia, and industry and are exemplified through 2 hypothetical case studies demonstrating the questions asked and decisions faced in new product development. These 2 case studies-inhalation exposure to a generic paint product and environmental exposure to a shampoo rinsed down the drain-demonstrate the criteria, considerations, and methods required to combine exposure models addressing human health and environmental impacts to provide a screening level hazard and exposure (risk) analysis. This article informs practices for these elements within a comparative risk context to improve alternatives assessment evaluation and decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:1007-1022. © 2017 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Overhaul environmental risk assessment for pesticides

A systems-based analysis to rethink the European environmental risk assessment of regulated chemicals using pesticides as a pilot case

A conceptual framework for landscape-based environmental risk assessment (ERA) of pesticides

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

Progresses of Ecological Risk Assessment

Insect Pest Management and Environmental Risk

Applying a tiered environmental risk assessment framework to estimate the risk of pesticides to soil organisms in Latin America

In silico environmental risk assessment improves efficiency for pesticide safety management

A Technique for Assessing Environmental Impact Risks of Agricultural Systems

A review of ecological risk assessment of pesticides at home and abroad

Incorporating climate projections in the environmental risk assessment of pesticides in aquatic ecosystems

Ecotoxicological soil risk assessment under the new soil exposure framework – an impact assessment

Use of Prospective and Retrospective Risk Assessment Methods That Simplify Chemical Mixtures Associated with Treated Domestic Wastewater Discharges

A New Method for Environmental Risk Assessment of Pollutants Based on Multi-Dimensional Risk Factors

Using emerging science to inform risk characterizations for wildlife within current regulatory frameworks

Advances in Risk Assessment of Pesticide Residue

Trans-disciplinary diagnosis for an in-depth reform of regulatory expertise in the field of environmental toxicology and security

Coordinating ecological risk assessment with natural resource damage assessment: A panel discussion

<i>In</i><i> silico</i> environmental risk assessment improves efficiency for pesticide safety management

A quantitative screening-level approach to incorporate chemical exposure and risk into alternative assessment evaluations