Comparison of the toxicity and potential ecological risks of various pesticides for nurses of honey bee (Apis mellifera. L)

IF 9 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Euijin You , JooHeon Cha , HeeJin Kim , Young Ho Kim
{"title":"Comparison of the toxicity and potential ecological risks of various pesticides for nurses of honey bee (Apis mellifera. L)","authors":"Euijin You ,&nbsp;JooHeon Cha ,&nbsp;HeeJin Kim ,&nbsp;Young Ho Kim","doi":"10.1016/j.enceco.2025.04.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The honey bee (<em>Apis mellifera</em>. L) is an important pollinator worldwide, but it is facing significant population declines due to the influence of various factors, particularly the use of pesticides. Forager bees come into contact with pesticides during their foraging activity, while nurse bees are exposed to pesticides within the hive when they consume contaminated food sources. Based on established pesticide exposure routes, the present study assessed the oral toxicity and ecotoxic risks of 13 pesticides, including two organophosphates [coumaphos (COU) and fenitrothion (FEN)], two pyrethroids [τ-fluvalinate (τFLU) and cypermethrin (CYP)], four neonicotinoids [acetamiprid (ACE), imidacloprid (IMI), thiamethoxam (THIA), and flupyradifurone (FLU)], two carbamates [carbaryl (CAR) and carbofuran (CAB)], two avermectins [abamectin (ABA) and ivermectin (IVE)], and one phenyl pyrazole, fipronil (FIP) for nurse bees using the median lethal dose (LD<sub>50</sub>) and hazard quotients (HQs), respectively. Based on LD<sub>50</sub> data from bioassays and previous reports, ranking pesticides by their toxicity for nurse bees resulted in the following order: FIP = THIA &gt; ABA &gt; IVE &gt; CAB &gt; IMI = FEN &gt; CAR &gt; CYP &gt; FLU &gt; ACE &gt; COU = τFLU. The HQs were calculated using the LD<sub>50</sub> and arithmetic field-detected concentration for each pesticide in bee bread and honey based on the previous studies. The HQ results indicated THIA had the highest potential risk for honey bees, followed by FIP, CAR, FLU, CYP, CAB, FEN, IMI, COU, τFLU, and ACE. Quadrant-based analysis subsequently revealed that high LD<sub>50</sub> values were not necessarily associated with high HQs for nurse honey bees. These findings suggest that differences in the residue concentration of the pesticides due to differences in their chemical properties and usages can influence their actual risk in natural systems, which is not in direct accordance with their toxicity. This study thus highlights the importance of assessing the effect of agrochemicals on honey bees in an ecological context.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100480,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology","volume":"7 ","pages":"Pages 791-801"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259018262500044X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The honey bee (Apis mellifera. L) is an important pollinator worldwide, but it is facing significant population declines due to the influence of various factors, particularly the use of pesticides. Forager bees come into contact with pesticides during their foraging activity, while nurse bees are exposed to pesticides within the hive when they consume contaminated food sources. Based on established pesticide exposure routes, the present study assessed the oral toxicity and ecotoxic risks of 13 pesticides, including two organophosphates [coumaphos (COU) and fenitrothion (FEN)], two pyrethroids [τ-fluvalinate (τFLU) and cypermethrin (CYP)], four neonicotinoids [acetamiprid (ACE), imidacloprid (IMI), thiamethoxam (THIA), and flupyradifurone (FLU)], two carbamates [carbaryl (CAR) and carbofuran (CAB)], two avermectins [abamectin (ABA) and ivermectin (IVE)], and one phenyl pyrazole, fipronil (FIP) for nurse bees using the median lethal dose (LD50) and hazard quotients (HQs), respectively. Based on LD50 data from bioassays and previous reports, ranking pesticides by their toxicity for nurse bees resulted in the following order: FIP = THIA > ABA > IVE > CAB > IMI = FEN > CAR > CYP > FLU > ACE > COU = τFLU. The HQs were calculated using the LD50 and arithmetic field-detected concentration for each pesticide in bee bread and honey based on the previous studies. The HQ results indicated THIA had the highest potential risk for honey bees, followed by FIP, CAR, FLU, CYP, CAB, FEN, IMI, COU, τFLU, and ACE. Quadrant-based analysis subsequently revealed that high LD50 values were not necessarily associated with high HQs for nurse honey bees. These findings suggest that differences in the residue concentration of the pesticides due to differences in their chemical properties and usages can influence their actual risk in natural systems, which is not in direct accordance with their toxicity. This study thus highlights the importance of assessing the effect of agrochemicals on honey bees in an ecological context.

Abstract Image

比较各种杀虫剂对蜜蜂(Apis mellifera.)
蜜蜂(蜜蜂科)L)是世界范围内重要的传粉媒介,但由于各种因素的影响,特别是农药的使用,其数量正面临显著下降。觅食蜂在觅食过程中会接触到农药,而看护蜂在蜂巢内食用受污染的食物时也会接触到农药。基于已建立的农药暴露途径,本研究评估了13种农药的口服毒性和生态毒性风险,包括两种有机磷[coumaphos (COU)和非硝硫磷(FEN)],两种拟除虫菊酯[τ-氟戊酸(τFLU)和氯氰菊酯(CYP)],四种新烟碱类[acetamiprid (ACE),吡虫啉(IMI),噻虫嗪(THIA)和氟吡呋酮(FLU)],两种氨基甲酸酯[carviyl (CAR)和carbofuran (CAB)],两种阿维菌素[阿维菌素(ABA)和伊维菌素(IVE)],和一种苯基吡唑,氟虫腈(FIP),分别使用中位致死剂量(LD50)和危害商数(hq)。根据生物测定的LD50数据和以前的报告,根据农药对护工蜂的毒性进行排序,结果如下:ABA的在我的在出租车比;IMI = FEN >;汽车比;CYP祝辞流感比;ACE祝辞τ流感。在前人研究的基础上,利用蜜蜂面包和蜂蜜中各农药的LD50和算法田间检测浓度计算出蜂群质量分数。HQ结果显示,蜜蜂的潜在风险最高的是THIA,其次是FIP、CAR、FLU、CYP、CAB、FEN、IMI、COU、τFLU和ACE。基于象限的分析随后显示,高LD50值并不一定与护理蜜蜂的高智商相关。这些发现表明,由于农药的化学性质和用途不同,农药残留浓度的差异会影响其在自然系统中的实际风险,而这与它们的毒性并不直接相关。因此,这项研究强调了在生态环境中评估农用化学品对蜜蜂的影响的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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