Acute and repeated exposure toxicity of the insecticide sulfoxaflor on hymenopteran pollinators; sulfoxaflor environmental science review part III.

IF 6.4 2区 医学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
J R Purdy, K R Solomon, V J Kramer, J P Giesy
{"title":"Acute and repeated exposure toxicity of the insecticide sulfoxaflor on hymenopteran pollinators; sulfoxaflor environmental science review part III.","authors":"J R Purdy, K R Solomon, V J Kramer, J P Giesy","doi":"10.1080/10937404.2025.2478969","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To support regulatory risk assessment, standardized laboratory tests of toxicity to representative species including honeybees (<i>Apis mellifera L.)</i>, orchard bees (<i>Osmia spp</i>.), and bumblebees (<i>Bombus spp</i>.) provide the benchmark toxicity values for use in preliminary Tier 1 assessments and more detailed and realistic higher-tier assessments. In this analysis, we summarize the results of studies of toxicity of SFX to pollinators conducted registrant as well as results published in the literature. The geometric mean of 48-hr adult acute oral LD<sub>50</sub> values for SFX for honeybees was 0.0740 μg SFX bee<sup>- 1</sup> (<i>n</i> = 5). Toxicity values for technical grade SFX (SFX-T) and formulated products were not significantly different. The geometric mean 48 hr adult acute contact LD<sub>50</sub> values for SFX-T and several formulated products were 0.432 (<i>n</i> = 2) and 0.202 (<i>n</i> = 3) μg SFX bee<sup>- 1</sup>, respectively. Exposures sprayed foliage was not significant after the spray had dried did not cause significant toxicity. Transformation products were not significantly toxic to adult or larval honeybees or other representative bee species. Results showed that, to complete the risk assessment, higher-tier studies were required. Differences in results between standard test methods and the nonstandard methods used in published work affect the outcome of the risk assessment. An understanding of these differences reconciled the differences in the reported findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":49971,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health-Part B-Critical Reviews","volume":" ","pages":"1-28"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health-Part B-Critical Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2025.2478969","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To support regulatory risk assessment, standardized laboratory tests of toxicity to representative species including honeybees (Apis mellifera L.), orchard bees (Osmia spp.), and bumblebees (Bombus spp.) provide the benchmark toxicity values for use in preliminary Tier 1 assessments and more detailed and realistic higher-tier assessments. In this analysis, we summarize the results of studies of toxicity of SFX to pollinators conducted registrant as well as results published in the literature. The geometric mean of 48-hr adult acute oral LD50 values for SFX for honeybees was 0.0740 μg SFX bee- 1 (n = 5). Toxicity values for technical grade SFX (SFX-T) and formulated products were not significantly different. The geometric mean 48 hr adult acute contact LD50 values for SFX-T and several formulated products were 0.432 (n = 2) and 0.202 (n = 3) μg SFX bee- 1, respectively. Exposures sprayed foliage was not significant after the spray had dried did not cause significant toxicity. Transformation products were not significantly toxic to adult or larval honeybees or other representative bee species. Results showed that, to complete the risk assessment, higher-tier studies were required. Differences in results between standard test methods and the nonstandard methods used in published work affect the outcome of the risk assessment. An understanding of these differences reconciled the differences in the reported findings.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.80
自引率
6.90%
发文量
13
审稿时长
>24 weeks
期刊介绍: "Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health: Part B - Critical Reviews" is an academic journal published by Taylor & Francis, focusing on the critical examination of research in the areas of environmental exposure and population health. With an ISSN identifier of 1093-7404, this journal has established itself as a significant source of scholarly content in the field of toxicology and environmental health. Since its inception, the journal has published over 424 articles that have garnered 35,097 citations, reflecting its impact and relevance in the scientific community. Known for its comprehensive reviews, the journal also goes by the names "Critical Reviews" and "Journal of Toxicology & Environmental Health, Part B, Critical Reviews." The journal's mission is to provide a platform for in-depth analysis and critical discussion of the latest findings in toxicology, environmental health, and related disciplines. By doing so, it contributes to the advancement of knowledge and understanding of the complex interactions between environmental factors and human health, aiding in the development of strategies to protect and improve public health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信