Alison Connolly1, Michelle Leahy2, Kate Jones3, Laura Kenny3, Marie A Coggins2. 1. Centre for Climate and Air Pollution Studies, School of Physics and the Ryan Institute, National University of Ireland, University Road, Galway H91 CF50, Ireland. Electronic address: a.connolly22@nuigalway.ie. 2. Centre for Climate and Air Pollution Studies, School of Physics and the Ryan Institute, National University of Ireland, University Road, Galway H91 CF50, Ireland. 3. Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Harpur Hill, Buxton SK17 9JN, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Glyphosate is the highest volume herbicide used globally and has recently been classified as a 2 A 'probably carcinogenic to humans' by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). There is limited data to evaluate the public health impacts from glyphosate exposure. The objective of this study is to conduct an exploratory glyphosate exposure assessment study among Irish adults, who were non-occupational users of glyphosate. STUDY DESIGN: A convenient sampling method was used, collecting one first morning void spot urine sample from each participant. METHODS: A biomonitoring survey involving the collection and analysis of 20 ml spot urine samples from 50 Irish adults was conducted in June 2017. Participants completed a short questionnaire to collect information on demographics, dietary habits and lifestyle. Glyphosate was extracted using solid phase extraction (SPE) and analysed by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MC/MS). RESULTS: Of the 50 urine samples analysed, 10 (20%) contained detectable levels of glyphosate (0.80-1.35 µg L-1). Exposure concentrations are higher than those reported in comparable studies of European and American adults. CONCLUSIONS: Glyphosate was detectable in 20% of the samples collected from Irish adults. The low proportion of detectable glyphosate levels could be due to lower localised use of pesticides, having a small sample size or the higher analytical detection limit used in this study (0.5 µg L-1), which could underestimate the true exposure and warrants further investigation. Given the widespread use of glyphosate, further information on population exposure is required to advance our understanding of the relationship between chronic low dose exposure to glyphosate and human health risk.
OBJECTIVES:Glyphosate is the highest volume herbicide used globally and has recently been classified as a 2 A 'probably carcinogenic to humans' by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). There is limited data to evaluate the public health impacts from glyphosate exposure. The objective of this study is to conduct an exploratory glyphosate exposure assessment study among Irish adults, who were non-occupational users of glyphosate. STUDY DESIGN: A convenient sampling method was used, collecting one first morning void spot urine sample from each participant. METHODS: A biomonitoring survey involving the collection and analysis of 20 ml spot urine samples from 50 Irish adults was conducted in June 2017. Participants completed a short questionnaire to collect information on demographics, dietary habits and lifestyle. Glyphosate was extracted using solid phase extraction (SPE) and analysed by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MC/MS). RESULTS: Of the 50 urine samples analysed, 10 (20%) contained detectable levels of glyphosate (0.80-1.35 µg L-1). Exposure concentrations are higher than those reported in comparable studies of European and American adults. CONCLUSIONS:Glyphosate was detectable in 20% of the samples collected from Irish adults. The low proportion of detectable glyphosate levels could be due to lower localised use of pesticides, having a small sample size or the higher analytical detection limit used in this study (0.5 µg L-1), which could underestimate the true exposure and warrants further investigation. Given the widespread use of glyphosate, further information on population exposure is required to advance our understanding of the relationship between chronic low dose exposure to glyphosate and human health risk.
Authors: Christina Gillezeau; Maaike van Gerwen; Rachel M Shaffer; Iemaan Rana; Luoping Zhang; Lianne Sheppard; Emanuela Taioli Journal: Environ Health Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 5.984
Authors: Simranjeet Singh; Vijay Kumar; Jatinder Pal Kaur Gill; Shivika Datta; Satyender Singh; Vaishali Dhaka; Dhriti Kapoor; Abdul Basit Wani; Daljeet Singh Dhanjal; Manoj Kumar; S L Harikumar; Joginder Singh Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-15 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Angelina Pena; Sofia Duarte; André M P T Pereira; Liliana J G Silva; Célia S M Laranjeiro; Marta Oliveira; Celeste Lino; Simone Morais Journal: Molecules Date: 2021-12-31 Impact factor: 4.411
Authors: Rachel M Lucia; Wei-Lin Huang; Khyatiben V Pathak; Marissa McGilvrey; Victoria David-Dirgo; Andrea Alvarez; Deborah Goodman; Irene Masunaka; Andrew O Odegaard; Argyrios Ziogas; Patrick Pirrotte; Trina M Norden-Krichmar; Hannah Lui Park Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2022-04-04 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Daniel Grau; Nicole Grau; Quentin Gascuel; Christian Paroissin; Cécile Stratonovitch; Denis Lairon; Damien A Devault; Julie Di Cristofaro Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int Date: 2022-01-12 Impact factor: 5.190
Authors: Sebastian T Soukup; Benedikt Merz; Achim Bub; Ingrid Hoffmann; Bernhard Watzl; Pablo Steinberg; Sabine E Kulling Journal: Arch Toxicol Date: 2020-03-30 Impact factor: 5.153