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