A Comparison of Pesticide Environmental Risk Indicators
for Agriculture
Thomas Greitens
Esther Day
Risk Indicator Systems
Ranking• CHEMS 1 (USA)
• EIQ (USA)
• MATF (USA)
• PERI (Sweden)
Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC)
• EPRIP (Italy)
• EYP (The Netherlands)
• SyPEP (Belgium)
• SYNOPS (Germany)
AFT’s Research Goals
• Evaluate usability of environmental risk indicators.
• Analyze potential applicability at farm level.
• Assess accuracy.
Methodology
Data Collection:
• 2000-2001 application data, 4 FL fields, tomatoes and peppers
• Soil samples
• Weather data
• Pesticide parameters
Results
• Most models track reductions in potential risk consistently over time.
• Some models are “outliers” but consistent with previous research.
Usability
• Ranking method simpler.
• PEC method more data intensive, more complex
butbut
• PEC also gives more complete picture of potential risk.
Models – Soil and Water
• Some consider potential risk to soil
• All consider potential risk to aquatic organisms.
• Some calculate potential groundwater leaching.
• Some consider potential risk to human health (e.g. cancer risks).
Models can be used to:
• Analyze past and future applications
• Obtain certification.
Farmer Applicability
Research Concerns
• Absence of data
• Adaptability of models?
• Non-transferable standards (e.g. European drinking water standards)
SYNOPS as a Separate Model
Synoptisches Bewertungsmodell für PflanzenSchutzmittel
Federal Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, Institute for
Technology Assessment in Plant Protection
SYNOPS Modules
• SYNOPS calculates PEC over time in:– Soil – Surface water– Air – Bio-organisms (earthworms, fish, algae,
daphnia)– Groundwater
SYNOPS Modules
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
mg
ch
em/k
g s
oil
IPM Label
Soil Risk Potential - Paraquat
00.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.09
mg
ch
em/l
wat
er
IPM Label
Water Risk Potential - Paraquat
• Acute: LD50 and LC50 of organisms and short term predicted concentration.
• Chronic: based on NOEC of of organisms and long term predicted concentrations.
Risk Potential to Organisms
0.32
5.237.41
19.41
14.43
17.11
0
5
10
15
20
un
itle
ss
IPM Label
Maneb Cyfluthrin Chlorothalonil
Acute – Fish
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
Label IPM
Chronic – Fish*
*all chemicals, one field
0.E+001.E-08
2.E-083.E-084.E-085.E-08
6.E-087.E-08
un
itle
ss
Paraquat Dichloride
Propensity to Leach
• SYNOPS lends itself to larger scale evaluation
• Possible to expand from farm-level, homogeneous environmental conditions to larger, heterogeneous conditions.
Scale of SYNOPS
Validation of Model
• ENVIROMAP project - German-South African collaboration.
• Comparison between actual and predicted concentrations in orchards in the tributaries of the Lourens River catchment.
Prediction vs. Measurement
• Regression analysis: significant positive correlation (R2=0.95) between predicted and measured average runoff loads in the tributaries.
• Basic drift deposition values proved accurate (R2=0.96) in predicting in-stream loads.
results indicate applicability to South African conditions.
ConclusionsModels using:• Ranking method know potential risk before
application. • PEC method know potential risk after
applicationtherefore therefore
Can be used by farmers to make strategic choices Measure reductions achieved by IPM programs Some models better reflect regional concerns
But…But… Limited to pesticides, no nutrient impact
assessment
Future AFT Research
• Further integrate models in the concept of IPM program evaluation and environmental risk assessment.
A Comparison of Pesticide Environmental Risk Indicators
for Agriculture