1 / 24

A Comparison of Pesticide Environmental Risk Indicators for Agriculture

A Comparison of Pesticide Environmental Risk Indicators for Agriculture. Thomas Greitens Esther Day. Ranking CHEMS 1 (USA) EIQ (USA) MATF (USA) PERI (Sweden). Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC) EPRIP (Italy) EYP (The Netherlands) SyPEP (Belgium) SYNOPS (Germany).

bailey
Download Presentation

A Comparison of Pesticide Environmental Risk Indicators for Agriculture

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. A Comparison of Pesticide Environmental Risk Indicators for Agriculture Thomas Greitens Esther Day

  2. Ranking CHEMS 1 (USA) EIQ (USA) MATF (USA) PERI (Sweden) Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC) EPRIP (Italy) EYP (The Netherlands) SyPEP(Belgium) SYNOPS (Germany) Risk Indicator Systems

  3. AFT’s Research Goals • Evaluate usability of environmental risk indicators. • Analyze potential applicability at farm level. • Assess accuracy.

  4. Methodology Data Collection: • 2000-2001 application data, 4 FL fields, tomatoes and peppers • Soil samples • Weather data • Pesticide parameters

  5. Results • Most models track reductions in potential risk consistently over time. • Some models are “outliers” but consistent with previous research.

  6. Usability • Ranking method simpler. • PEC method more data intensive, more complex but • PEC also gives more complete picture of potential risk.

  7. 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).

  8. Farmer Applicability Models can be used to: • Analyze past and future applications • Obtain certification.

  9. Research Concerns • Absence of data • Adaptability of models? • Non-transferable standards (e.g. European drinking water standards)

  10. SYNOPS as a Separate Model Synoptisches Bewertungsmodell für PflanzenSchutzmittel Federal Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, Institute for Technology Assessment in Plant Protection

  11. SYNOPS Modules SYNOPS Modules • SYNOPS calculates PEC over time in: • Soil • Surface water • Air • Bio-organisms (earthworms, fish, algae, daphnia) • Groundwater

  12. Soil Risk Potential - Paraquat

  13. Water Risk Potential - Paraquat

  14. 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.

  15. Acute – Fish

  16. Chronic – Fish* *all chemicals, one field

  17. Propensity to Leach

  18. Scale of SYNOPS • SYNOPS lends itself to larger scale evaluation • Possible to expand from farm-level, homogeneous environmental conditions to larger, heterogeneous conditions.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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

  22. Future AFT Research • Further integrate models in the concept of IPM program evaluation and environmental risk assessment.

  23. A Comparison of Pesticide Environmental Risk Indicators for Agriculture

More Related