Towards a comprehensive methodology for ecotoxicological assessment: Prioritizing plant protection products for mixture testing in edge-of-field surface waterbodies

Autores
Abrantes, Nelson; Pereira, Joana Luísa; Muñiz González, Ana Belén; Campos, Isabel; Navarro, Irene; De la Torre, Adrián; Martínez, María Ángeles; Osman, Rima; Khurshid, Chrow; Harkes, Paula; Aparicio, Virginia Carolina; Silva, Vera
Año de publicación
2024
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Pesticide applications in agriculture result in complex mixtures of Plant Protection Products (PPPs) in the environment. The ecotoxicological effects of these mixtures can occur at concentrations considered safe for in dividual chemicals, indicating potential risks underestimated by current regulatory assessments focused on in dividual active ingredients. To address this challenge, our study introduces a methodology for identifying priority PPPs for formulating mixtures, enabling further ecotoxicological testing in water and sediment com partments of edge-of-field surface water bodies, targeting pelagic and benthic organisms. This methodology was primarily based on the actual quantification of PPPs present in these compartments from selected case study sites (CSSs) in Europe and Argentina (11 and 4 for water and sediments, respectively). A conceptual framework was developed that discriminates and selects concerning PPPs based on their individual risk quotient and frequency of occurrence in each CSS, drawing upon two EU regulatory risk assessment approaches, i.e., the general approach under REACH for any environmental contaminant of concern – the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) approach; and that specifically focusing on PPPs – the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) approach. Irrespective of whether the focus is on water or sediments, the study revealed disparities in PPP rankings depending on the approach used to identify PPPs of concern, with the ECHA approach being more conservative than the EFSA approach. Despite this, the EFSA approach follows a more standardized assessment factor defi nition strategy, potentially allowing avoidance of risk overestimation, as well as resulting in a more balanced representation of different PPP classes for subsequent mixtures testing. Overall, the methodological development reported herein, along with the inconsistencies found when comparing different regulatory approaches to assess the risk of environmental contaminants, highlight the need for further discussion on the most appropriate di rections towards the standardization of the regulatory risk assessment of PPP mixtures.
EEA Balcarce
Fil: Abrantes, Nelson. University of Aveiro. Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM). Department of Biology; Portugal
Fil: Pereira, Joana Luísa. University of Aveiro. Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM). Department of Biology; Portugal
Fil: Muñiz González, Ana Belén. University of Aveiro. Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM). Department of Environment and Planning; Portugal
Fil: Muñiz González, Ana Belén. National Distance Education University (UNED). Department of Physics, Mathematics, and Fluids; España
Fil: Campos, Isabel. University of Aveiro. Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM). Department of Environment and Planning; Portugal
Fil: Navarro, Irene. Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT). Department of Environment. Unit of POPs and Emerging Pollutants in Environment; España
Fil: De la Torre, Adrián. Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT). Department of Environment. Unit of POPs and Emerging Pollutants in Environment; España
Fil: Martínez, María Ángeles. Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT). Department of Environment. Unit of POPs and Emerging Pollutants in Environment; España
Fil: Osman, Rima. Wageningen University & Research. Soil Physics and Land Management Group; Países Bajos
Fil: Khurshid, Chrow. Wageningen University & Research. Soil Physics and Land Management Group; Países Bajos
Fil: Harkes, Paula. Wageningen University & Research. Soil Physics and Land Management Group; Países Bajos
Fil: Aparicio, Virginia Carolina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce; Argentina
Fil: Silva, Vera. Wageningen University & Research (WUR). Soil Physics and Land Management Group; Países Bajos
Fuente
Science of The Total Environment 956 : 177322. (December 2024)
Materia
Protección de las Plantas
Ecotoxicología
Plaguicidas
Agua Superficial
Evaluación de Riesgos
Plant Protection
Ecotoxicology
Pesticides
Surface Water
Risk Assessment
Plant Protection Products (PPP)
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso restringido
Condiciones de uso
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Repositorio
INTA Digital (INTA)
Institución
Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
OAI Identificador
oai:localhost:20.500.12123/27660
Acceder
id INTADig_524f95ef210babde56f4534371a7c7cb
oai_identifier_str oai:localhost:20.500.12123/27660
network_acronym_str INTADig
repository_id_str l
network_name_str INTA Digital (INTA)
spelling Towards a comprehensive methodology for ecotoxicological assessment: Prioritizing plant protection products for mixture testing in edge-of-field surface waterbodiesAbrantes, NelsonPereira, Joana LuísaMuñiz González, Ana BelénCampos, IsabelNavarro, IreneDe la Torre, AdriánMartínez, María ÁngelesOsman, RimaKhurshid, ChrowHarkes, PaulaAparicio, Virginia CarolinaSilva, VeraProtección de las PlantasEcotoxicologíaPlaguicidasAgua SuperficialEvaluación de RiesgosPlant ProtectionEcotoxicologyPesticidesSurface WaterRisk AssessmentPlant Protection Products (PPP)Pesticide applications in agriculture result in complex mixtures of Plant Protection Products (PPPs) in the environment. The ecotoxicological effects of these mixtures can occur at concentrations considered safe for in dividual chemicals, indicating potential risks underestimated by current regulatory assessments focused on in dividual active ingredients. To address this challenge, our study introduces a methodology for identifying priority PPPs for formulating mixtures, enabling further ecotoxicological testing in water and sediment com partments of edge-of-field surface water bodies, targeting pelagic and benthic organisms. This methodology was primarily based on the actual quantification of PPPs present in these compartments from selected case study sites (CSSs) in Europe and Argentina (11 and 4 for water and sediments, respectively). A conceptual framework was developed that discriminates and selects concerning PPPs based on their individual risk quotient and frequency of occurrence in each CSS, drawing upon two EU regulatory risk assessment approaches, i.e., the general approach under REACH for any environmental contaminant of concern – the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) approach; and that specifically focusing on PPPs – the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) approach. Irrespective of whether the focus is on water or sediments, the study revealed disparities in PPP rankings depending on the approach used to identify PPPs of concern, with the ECHA approach being more conservative than the EFSA approach. Despite this, the EFSA approach follows a more standardized assessment factor defi nition strategy, potentially allowing avoidance of risk overestimation, as well as resulting in a more balanced representation of different PPP classes for subsequent mixtures testing. Overall, the methodological development reported herein, along with the inconsistencies found when comparing different regulatory approaches to assess the risk of environmental contaminants, highlight the need for further discussion on the most appropriate di rections towards the standardization of the regulatory risk assessment of PPP mixtures.EEA BalcarceFil: Abrantes, Nelson. University of Aveiro. Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM). Department of Biology; PortugalFil: Pereira, Joana Luísa. University of Aveiro. Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM). Department of Biology; PortugalFil: Muñiz González, Ana Belén. University of Aveiro. Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM). Department of Environment and Planning; PortugalFil: Muñiz González, Ana Belén. National Distance Education University (UNED). Department of Physics, Mathematics, and Fluids; EspañaFil: Campos, Isabel. University of Aveiro. Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM). Department of Environment and Planning; PortugalFil: Navarro, Irene. Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT). Department of Environment. Unit of POPs and Emerging Pollutants in Environment; EspañaFil: De la Torre, Adrián. Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT). Department of Environment. Unit of POPs and Emerging Pollutants in Environment; EspañaFil: Martínez, María Ángeles. Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT). Department of Environment. Unit of POPs and Emerging Pollutants in Environment; EspañaFil: Osman, Rima. Wageningen University & Research. Soil Physics and Land Management Group; Países BajosFil: Khurshid, Chrow. Wageningen University & Research. Soil Physics and Land Management Group; Países BajosFil: Harkes, Paula. Wageningen University & Research. Soil Physics and Land Management Group; Países BajosFil: Aparicio, Virginia Carolina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce; ArgentinaFil: Silva, Vera. Wageningen University & Research (WUR). Soil Physics and Land Management Group; Países BajosElsevier2026-09-04T14:13:06Z2026-09-04T14:13:06Z2024-12-15info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/27660https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00489697240747951879-1026 (online)0048-9697 (linking)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.177322Science of The Total Environment 956 : 177322. (December 2024)reponame:INTA Digital (INTA)instname:Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuariaenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccesshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)2026-09-24T11:43:45Zoai:localhost:20.500.12123/27660instacron:INTAInstitucionalhttp://repositorio.inta.gob.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://repositorio.inta.gob.ar/oai/requesttripaldi.nicolas@inta.gob.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:l2026-09-24 11:43:47.123INTA Digital (INTA) - Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuariafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Towards a comprehensive methodology for ecotoxicological assessment: Prioritizing plant protection products for mixture testing in edge-of-field surface waterbodies
title Towards a comprehensive methodology for ecotoxicological assessment: Prioritizing plant protection products for mixture testing in edge-of-field surface waterbodies
spellingShingle Towards a comprehensive methodology for ecotoxicological assessment: Prioritizing plant protection products for mixture testing in edge-of-field surface waterbodies
Abrantes, Nelson
Protección de las Plantas
Ecotoxicología
Plaguicidas
Agua Superficial
Evaluación de Riesgos
Plant Protection
Ecotoxicology
Pesticides
Surface Water
Risk Assessment
Plant Protection Products (PPP)
title_short Towards a comprehensive methodology for ecotoxicological assessment: Prioritizing plant protection products for mixture testing in edge-of-field surface waterbodies
title_full Towards a comprehensive methodology for ecotoxicological assessment: Prioritizing plant protection products for mixture testing in edge-of-field surface waterbodies
title_fullStr Towards a comprehensive methodology for ecotoxicological assessment: Prioritizing plant protection products for mixture testing in edge-of-field surface waterbodies
title_full_unstemmed Towards a comprehensive methodology for ecotoxicological assessment: Prioritizing plant protection products for mixture testing in edge-of-field surface waterbodies
title_sort Towards a comprehensive methodology for ecotoxicological assessment: Prioritizing plant protection products for mixture testing in edge-of-field surface waterbodies
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Abrantes, Nelson
Pereira, Joana Luísa
Muñiz González, Ana Belén
Campos, Isabel
Navarro, Irene
De la Torre, Adrián
Martínez, María Ángeles
Osman, Rima
Khurshid, Chrow
Harkes, Paula
Aparicio, Virginia Carolina
Silva, Vera
author Abrantes, Nelson
author_facet Abrantes, Nelson
Pereira, Joana Luísa
Muñiz González, Ana Belén
Campos, Isabel
Navarro, Irene
De la Torre, Adrián
Martínez, María Ángeles
Osman, Rima
Khurshid, Chrow
Harkes, Paula
Aparicio, Virginia Carolina
Silva, Vera
author_role author
author2 Pereira, Joana Luísa
Muñiz González, Ana Belén
Campos, Isabel
Navarro, Irene
De la Torre, Adrián
Martínez, María Ángeles
Osman, Rima
Khurshid, Chrow
Harkes, Paula
Aparicio, Virginia Carolina
Silva, Vera
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Protección de las Plantas
Ecotoxicología
Plaguicidas
Agua Superficial
Evaluación de Riesgos
Plant Protection
Ecotoxicology
Pesticides
Surface Water
Risk Assessment
Plant Protection Products (PPP)
topic Protección de las Plantas
Ecotoxicología
Plaguicidas
Agua Superficial
Evaluación de Riesgos
Plant Protection
Ecotoxicology
Pesticides
Surface Water
Risk Assessment
Plant Protection Products (PPP)
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Pesticide applications in agriculture result in complex mixtures of Plant Protection Products (PPPs) in the environment. The ecotoxicological effects of these mixtures can occur at concentrations considered safe for in dividual chemicals, indicating potential risks underestimated by current regulatory assessments focused on in dividual active ingredients. To address this challenge, our study introduces a methodology for identifying priority PPPs for formulating mixtures, enabling further ecotoxicological testing in water and sediment com partments of edge-of-field surface water bodies, targeting pelagic and benthic organisms. This methodology was primarily based on the actual quantification of PPPs present in these compartments from selected case study sites (CSSs) in Europe and Argentina (11 and 4 for water and sediments, respectively). A conceptual framework was developed that discriminates and selects concerning PPPs based on their individual risk quotient and frequency of occurrence in each CSS, drawing upon two EU regulatory risk assessment approaches, i.e., the general approach under REACH for any environmental contaminant of concern – the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) approach; and that specifically focusing on PPPs – the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) approach. Irrespective of whether the focus is on water or sediments, the study revealed disparities in PPP rankings depending on the approach used to identify PPPs of concern, with the ECHA approach being more conservative than the EFSA approach. Despite this, the EFSA approach follows a more standardized assessment factor defi nition strategy, potentially allowing avoidance of risk overestimation, as well as resulting in a more balanced representation of different PPP classes for subsequent mixtures testing. Overall, the methodological development reported herein, along with the inconsistencies found when comparing different regulatory approaches to assess the risk of environmental contaminants, highlight the need for further discussion on the most appropriate di rections towards the standardization of the regulatory risk assessment of PPP mixtures.
EEA Balcarce
Fil: Abrantes, Nelson. University of Aveiro. Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM). Department of Biology; Portugal
Fil: Pereira, Joana Luísa. University of Aveiro. Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM). Department of Biology; Portugal
Fil: Muñiz González, Ana Belén. University of Aveiro. Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM). Department of Environment and Planning; Portugal
Fil: Muñiz González, Ana Belén. National Distance Education University (UNED). Department of Physics, Mathematics, and Fluids; España
Fil: Campos, Isabel. University of Aveiro. Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM). Department of Environment and Planning; Portugal
Fil: Navarro, Irene. Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT). Department of Environment. Unit of POPs and Emerging Pollutants in Environment; España
Fil: De la Torre, Adrián. Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT). Department of Environment. Unit of POPs and Emerging Pollutants in Environment; España
Fil: Martínez, María Ángeles. Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT). Department of Environment. Unit of POPs and Emerging Pollutants in Environment; España
Fil: Osman, Rima. Wageningen University & Research. Soil Physics and Land Management Group; Países Bajos
Fil: Khurshid, Chrow. Wageningen University & Research. Soil Physics and Land Management Group; Países Bajos
Fil: Harkes, Paula. Wageningen University & Research. Soil Physics and Land Management Group; Países Bajos
Fil: Aparicio, Virginia Carolina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce; Argentina
Fil: Silva, Vera. Wageningen University & Research (WUR). Soil Physics and Land Management Group; Países Bajos
description Pesticide applications in agriculture result in complex mixtures of Plant Protection Products (PPPs) in the environment. The ecotoxicological effects of these mixtures can occur at concentrations considered safe for in dividual chemicals, indicating potential risks underestimated by current regulatory assessments focused on in dividual active ingredients. To address this challenge, our study introduces a methodology for identifying priority PPPs for formulating mixtures, enabling further ecotoxicological testing in water and sediment com partments of edge-of-field surface water bodies, targeting pelagic and benthic organisms. This methodology was primarily based on the actual quantification of PPPs present in these compartments from selected case study sites (CSSs) in Europe and Argentina (11 and 4 for water and sediments, respectively). A conceptual framework was developed that discriminates and selects concerning PPPs based on their individual risk quotient and frequency of occurrence in each CSS, drawing upon two EU regulatory risk assessment approaches, i.e., the general approach under REACH for any environmental contaminant of concern – the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) approach; and that specifically focusing on PPPs – the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) approach. Irrespective of whether the focus is on water or sediments, the study revealed disparities in PPP rankings depending on the approach used to identify PPPs of concern, with the ECHA approach being more conservative than the EFSA approach. Despite this, the EFSA approach follows a more standardized assessment factor defi nition strategy, potentially allowing avoidance of risk overestimation, as well as resulting in a more balanced representation of different PPP classes for subsequent mixtures testing. Overall, the methodological development reported herein, along with the inconsistencies found when comparing different regulatory approaches to assess the risk of environmental contaminants, highlight the need for further discussion on the most appropriate di rections towards the standardization of the regulatory risk assessment of PPP mixtures.
publishDate 2024
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2024-12-15
2026-09-04T14:13:06Z
2026-09-04T14:13:06Z
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/27660
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969724074795
1879-1026 (online)
0048-9697 (linking)
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.177322
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/27660
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969724074795
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.177322
identifier_str_mv 1879-1026 (online)
0048-9697 (linking)
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
eu_rights_str_mv restrictedAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Science of The Total Environment 956 : 177322. (December 2024)
reponame:INTA Digital (INTA)
instname:Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
reponame_str INTA Digital (INTA)
collection INTA Digital (INTA)
instname_str Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
repository.name.fl_str_mv INTA Digital (INTA) - Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
repository.mail.fl_str_mv tripaldi.nicolas@inta.gob.ar
_version_ 1877227356942237696
score 12.754232

Publicaciones similares