新土壤暴露框架下的生态毒理学土壤风险评估--影响评估。

IF 1.4 4区 农林科学 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
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
{"title":"新土壤暴露框架下的生态毒理学土壤风险评估--影响评估。","authors":"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","doi":"10.1080/03601234.2024.2319005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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<sub>SOIL</sub>) 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<sub>SOIL</sub>. This work investigates its potential impact on future soil RA. PEC<sub>SOIL</sub> 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<sub>SOIL</sub> 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<sub>SOIL</sub> were soil bulk density, crop interception and wash-off, next to obligatory modeling and scenario adjustment factors. Spatial PEC<sub>SOIL</sub> 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":15720,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part B-pesticides Food Contaminants and Agricultural Wastes","volume":" ","pages":"170-182"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ecotoxicological soil risk assessment under the new soil exposure framework - an impact assessment.\",\"authors\":\"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\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/03601234.2024.2319005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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<sub>SOIL</sub>) 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<sub>SOIL</sub>. This work investigates its potential impact on future soil RA. PEC<sub>SOIL</sub> 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<sub>SOIL</sub> 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<sub>SOIL</sub> were soil bulk density, crop interception and wash-off, next to obligatory modeling and scenario adjustment factors. Spatial PEC<sub>SOIL</sub> 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15720,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part B-pesticides Food Contaminants and Agricultural Wastes\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"170-182\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part B-pesticides Food Contaminants and Agricultural Wastes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/03601234.2024.2319005\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part B-pesticides Food Contaminants and Agricultural Wastes","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03601234.2024.2319005","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

欧洲对接触植物保护产品(PPPs)的土壤生物进行风险评估(RA)时,会将生态毒理学实验室研究的终点与土壤中的预测环境浓度(PECSOIL)进行第一级比较。必须满足安全系数,否则将触发更高级别的 RA(通常是土壤生物实地研究)。欧洲食品安全局发布了新的分级暴露建模指南,以确定 PECSOIL。这项工作研究了其对未来土壤 RA 的潜在影响。计算了 >50 种活性物质和代谢物的 PECSOIL 值,并将其与相应的土壤生物终点进行比较,以计算 RA 失败率。与当前的(FOCUS)暴露建模相比,所有欧盟监管区的 PECSOIL 值都大幅增加,例如,导致一级、二级和三级 A 建模的活性物质 RA 失败率分别为 67%、58% 和 36%。PECSOIL 升高的主要驱动因素是土壤容重、作物截流和冲刷,其次是强制性建模和情景调整因素。空间 PECSOIL 情景选择程序会导致非典型土壤特征(例如,Tier-3A 情景中的土壤容重值远远低于典型的欧洲农业区)。因此,暴露建模和生态毒理学研究的特征并不一致,这妨碍了在 RA 中对两者进行科学合理的比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ecotoxicological soil risk assessment under the new soil exposure framework - an impact assessment.

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 (PECSOIL) 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 PECSOIL. This work investigates its potential impact on future soil RA. PECSOIL 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, PECSOIL 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 PECSOIL were soil bulk density, crop interception and wash-off, next to obligatory modeling and scenario adjustment factors. Spatial PECSOIL 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
5.00%
发文量
87
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: 12 issues per year Abstracted/indexed in: Agricola; Analytical Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; BioSciences Information Service of Biological Abstracts (BIOSIS); CAB Abstracts; CAB AGBiotech News and Information; CAB Irrigation & Drainage Abstracts; CAB Soils & Fertilizers Abstracts; Chemical Abstracts Service Plus; CSA Aluminum Industry Abstracts; CSA ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology and Engineering; CSA ASFA 3 Aquatic Pollution and Environmental Quality; CSA ASSIA: Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts; CSA Ecology Abstracts; CSA Entomology Abstracts; CSA Environmental Engineering Abstracts; CSA Health & Safety Science Abstracts; CSA Pollution Abstracts; CSA Toxicology Abstracts; CSA Water Resource Abstracts; EBSCOhost Online Research Databases; Elsevier BIOBASE/Current Awareness in Biological Sciences; Elsevier Engineering Information: EMBASE/Excerpta Medica/ Engineering Index/COMPENDEX PLUS; Environment Abstracts; Environmental Knowledge; Food Science and Technology Abstracts; Geo Abstracts; Geobase; Food Science; Index Medicus/ MEDLINE; INIST-Pascal/ CNRS; NIOSHTIC; ISI BIOSIS Previews; Pesticides; Food Contaminants and Agricultural Wastes: Analytical Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; PubSCIENCE; Reference Update; Research Alert; Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE); and Water Resources Abstracts.
×
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