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
but
• 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).
Farmer Applicability
Models can be used to:
• Analyze past and future applications
• Obtain certification.
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
Soil Risk Potential - Paraquat
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
IPM
Label
2
4.
0
7.
3.
01
12
.2
1.
01
10
.1
7.
00
12
.1
11
.
00
0
9.
mg chem/kg soil
1.2
IPM
Label
2
4.
0
7.
3.
01
12
.2
01
16
.
9.
7.
00
12
.1
11
.
00
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
9.
mg chem/l water
Water Risk Potential - Paraquat
Risk Potential to Organisms
• Acute: LD50 and LC50 of organisms and
short term predicted concentration.
• Chronic: based on NOEC of of organisms
and long term predicted concentrations.
Acute – Fish
19.41
20
17.11
14.43
unitless
15
10
7.41
5.23
5
0.32
0
IPM
Maneb
Label
Cyfluthrin
Chlorothalonil
Chronic – Fish*
10000
1000
100
10
1
0.1
*all chemicals, one field
Label
IPM
2
4.
0
7.
12
.2
3.
01
01
16
.
9.
7.
00
12
.1
9.
11
.
00
0.01
Paraquat Dichloride
02
30
.
6.
30
.
9.
14
.
20
0
0
01
7.E-08
6.E-08
5.E-08
4.E-08
3.E-08
2.E-08
1.E-08
0.E+00
9.
unitless
Propensity to Leach
Scale of SYNOPS
• SYNOPS lends itself to
larger scale evaluation
• Possible to expand from
farm-level, homogeneous
environmental conditions
to larger, heterogeneous
conditions.
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.
Conclusions
Models using:
• Ranking method  know potential risk before
application.
• PEC method  know potential risk after
application
therefore
Can be used by farmers to make strategic choices
Measure reductions achieved by IPM programs
Some models better reflect regional concerns
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