René P A van Wijngaarden1, Lorraine Maltby2, Theo C M Brock1. 1. Alterra, Ecological Risk Assessment, Wageningen UR, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this paper is to evaluate whether the acute tier-1 and tier-2 methods as proposed by the Aquatic Guidance Document recently published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) are appropriate for deriving regulatory acceptable concentrations (RACs) for insecticides. The tier-1 and tier-2 RACs were compared with RACs based on threshold concentrations from micro/mesocosm studies (ETO-RAC). A lower-tier RAC was considered as sufficiently protective, if less than the corresponding ETO-RAC. RESULTS: ETO-RACs were calculated for repeated (n = 13) and/or single pulsed applications (n = 17) of 26 insecticides to micro/mesocosms, giving a maximum of 30 insecticide × application combinations (i.e. cases) for comparison. Acute tier-1 RACs (for 24 insecticides) were lower than the corresponding ETO-RACs in 27 out of 29 cases, while tier-2 Geom-RACs (for 23 insecticides) were lower in 24 out of 26 cases. The tier-2 SSD-RAC (for 21 insecticides) using HC5 /3 was lower than the ETO-RAC in 23 out of 27 cases, whereas the tier-2 SSD-RAC using HC5 /6 was protective in 25 out of 27 cases. CONCLUSION: The tier-1 and tier-2 approaches proposed by EFSA for acute effect assessment are sufficiently protective for the majority of insecticides evaluated. Further evaluation may be needed for insecticides with more novel chemistries (neonicotinoids, biopesticides) and compounds that show delayed effects (insect growth regulators).
BACKGROUND: The objective of this paper is to evaluate whether the acute tier-1 and tier-2 methods as proposed by the Aquatic Guidance Document recently published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) are appropriate for deriving regulatory acceptable concentrations (RACs) for insecticides. The tier-1 and tier-2 RACs were compared with RACs based on threshold concentrations from micro/mesocosm studies (ETO-RAC). A lower-tier RAC was considered as sufficiently protective, if less than the corresponding ETO-RAC. RESULTS: ETO-RACs were calculated for repeated (n = 13) and/or single pulsed applications (n = 17) of 26 insecticides to micro/mesocosms, giving a maximum of 30 insecticide × application combinations (i.e. cases) for comparison. Acute tier-1 RACs (for 24 insecticides) were lower than the corresponding ETO-RACs in 27 out of 29 cases, while tier-2 Geom-RACs (for 23 insecticides) were lower in 24 out of 26 cases. The tier-2 SSD-RAC (for 21 insecticides) using HC5 /3 was lower than the ETO-RAC in 23 out of 27 cases, whereas the tier-2 SSD-RAC using HC5 /6 was protective in 25 out of 27 cases. CONCLUSION: The tier-1 and tier-2 approaches proposed by EFSA for acute effect assessment are sufficiently protective for the majority of insecticides evaluated. Further evaluation may be needed for insecticides with more novel chemistries (neonicotinoids, biopesticides) and compounds that show delayed effects (insect growth regulators).
Authors: Nadja Stadlinger; Håkan Berg; Paul J Van den Brink; Nguyen T Tam; Jonas S Gunnarsson Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int Date: 2016-11-16 Impact factor: 4.223