A critical examination of the protection level for primary producers in the first tier of the aquatic risk assessment for plant protection products
Background The aim of environmental risk assessment (ERA) for pesticides is to protect ecosystems by ensuring that specific protection goals (SPGs) are met. The ERA follows a prospective tiered approach, starting with the most conservative and simple step in risk assessment (RA) (so-called tier 1) u...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Autor*in: |
Sabine, Duquesne [verfasserIn] |
---|
Format: |
E-Artikel |
---|---|
Sprache: |
Englisch |
Erschienen: |
2023 |
---|
Schlagwörter: |
---|
Anmerkung: |
© The Author(s) 2023 |
---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Umweltwissenschaften und Schadstoff-Forschung - Heidelberg : Springer, 1989, 35(2023), 1 vom: 18. Aug. |
---|---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:35 ; year:2023 ; number:1 ; day:18 ; month:08 |
Links: |
---|
DOI / URN: |
10.1186/s12302-023-00767-8 |
---|
Katalog-ID: |
SPR052794601 |
---|
LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
001 | SPR052794601 | ||
003 | DE-627 | ||
005 | 20231118064720.0 | ||
007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
008 | 230819s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s12302-023-00767-8 |2 doi | |
035 | |a (DE-627)SPR052794601 | ||
035 | |a (SPR)s12302-023-00767-8-e | ||
040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
041 | |a eng | ||
100 | 1 | |a Sabine, Duquesne |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
245 | 1 | 2 | |a A critical examination of the protection level for primary producers in the first tier of the aquatic risk assessment for plant protection products |
264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
500 | |a © The Author(s) 2023 | ||
520 | |a Background The aim of environmental risk assessment (ERA) for pesticides is to protect ecosystems by ensuring that specific protection goals (SPGs) are met. The ERA follows a prospective tiered approach, starting with the most conservative and simple step in risk assessment (RA) (so-called tier 1) using the lowest available appropriate endpoint derived from ecotoxicological tests. In 2015, for the tier 1 RA of aquatic primary producers, the recommendation was changed from using the lowest of the 50% inhibition (EC50) values based on biomass (area under the curve—$ E_{b} %$ C_{50} $), increase in biomass (yield- $ E_{y} %$ C_{50} $) or growth rate ($ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $) to only using the growth rate inhibition endpoint ($ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $) because it is independent of the test design and thus more robust. This study examines the implications of this such on the level of conservatism provided by the tier 1 RA and evaluates whether it ensures a suitable minimum protection level. Results Our analysis shows that replacing the lowest endpoint with the growth rate inhibition endpoint while maintaining the assessment factor (AF) of 10 significantly reduces the conservatism in the tier 1 RA. Comparing protection levels achieved with different endpoints reveals that the current assessment is less protective. To maintain the previous level of protection, and since the protection goals have not changed, we recommend to multiply the default AF of 10 by an extra factor of minimum 2.4 in the tier 1 RA based on $ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $. Independently of the endpoint selected in tier 1 RA, several issues in the general RA of pesticides contribute to uncertainties when assessing the protection levels, e.g., lack of appropriate comparison of the higher tier experimental studies (i.e., best achievable approximation of field situation, so-called surrogate reference tier) with field conditions or the regulatory framework's failure to consider realistic conditions in agricultural landscapes with multiple stressors and pesticide mixtures. Conclusions We advise to consider adjusting the risk assessment in order to reach at least the previous protection level for aquatic primary producers. Indeed continuing using an endpoint with a higher value and without adjustment of the assessment factor is likely to jeopardize the need of halting biodiversity loss in surface waters. | ||
650 | 4 | |a Micro-/mesocosm study |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a Tier 1 standard test |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a Tiered approach |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a Regulatory acceptable concentration (RAC) |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a Endpoint |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a E |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a C |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a E |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a C |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a Calibration |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a Algae |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a Macrophytes |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
700 | 1 | |a Stephan, Brendel |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Linda, Hönemann |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Marco, Konschak |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Magali, Solé |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Joern, Wogram |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Silvia, Pieper |4 aut | |
773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Umweltwissenschaften und Schadstoff-Forschung |d Heidelberg : Springer, 1989 |g 35(2023), 1 vom: 18. Aug. |w (DE-627)319337200 |w (DE-600)2014183-X |x 1865-5084 |7 nnns |
773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:35 |g year:2023 |g number:1 |g day:18 |g month:08 |
856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12302-023-00767-8 |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_370 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2360 | ||
951 | |a AR | ||
952 | |d 35 |j 2023 |e 1 |b 18 |c 08 |
author_variant |
d s ds b s bs h l hl k m km s m sm w j wj p s ps |
---|---|
matchkey_str |
article:18655084:2023----::ciiaeaiainfhpoetolvlopiayrdcriteisteoteqairsas |
hierarchy_sort_str |
2023 |
publishDate |
2023 |
allfields |
10.1186/s12302-023-00767-8 doi (DE-627)SPR052794601 (SPR)s12302-023-00767-8-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Sabine, Duquesne verfasserin aut A critical examination of the protection level for primary producers in the first tier of the aquatic risk assessment for plant protection products 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 Background The aim of environmental risk assessment (ERA) for pesticides is to protect ecosystems by ensuring that specific protection goals (SPGs) are met. The ERA follows a prospective tiered approach, starting with the most conservative and simple step in risk assessment (RA) (so-called tier 1) using the lowest available appropriate endpoint derived from ecotoxicological tests. In 2015, for the tier 1 RA of aquatic primary producers, the recommendation was changed from using the lowest of the 50% inhibition (EC50) values based on biomass (area under the curve—$ E_{b} %$ C_{50} $), increase in biomass (yield- $ E_{y} %$ C_{50} $) or growth rate ($ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $) to only using the growth rate inhibition endpoint ($ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $) because it is independent of the test design and thus more robust. This study examines the implications of this such on the level of conservatism provided by the tier 1 RA and evaluates whether it ensures a suitable minimum protection level. Results Our analysis shows that replacing the lowest endpoint with the growth rate inhibition endpoint while maintaining the assessment factor (AF) of 10 significantly reduces the conservatism in the tier 1 RA. Comparing protection levels achieved with different endpoints reveals that the current assessment is less protective. To maintain the previous level of protection, and since the protection goals have not changed, we recommend to multiply the default AF of 10 by an extra factor of minimum 2.4 in the tier 1 RA based on $ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $. Independently of the endpoint selected in tier 1 RA, several issues in the general RA of pesticides contribute to uncertainties when assessing the protection levels, e.g., lack of appropriate comparison of the higher tier experimental studies (i.e., best achievable approximation of field situation, so-called surrogate reference tier) with field conditions or the regulatory framework's failure to consider realistic conditions in agricultural landscapes with multiple stressors and pesticide mixtures. Conclusions We advise to consider adjusting the risk assessment in order to reach at least the previous protection level for aquatic primary producers. Indeed continuing using an endpoint with a higher value and without adjustment of the assessment factor is likely to jeopardize the need of halting biodiversity loss in surface waters. Micro-/mesocosm study (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tier 1 standard test (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tiered approach (dpeaa)DE-He213 Regulatory acceptable concentration (RAC) (dpeaa)DE-He213 Endpoint (dpeaa)DE-He213 E (dpeaa)DE-He213 C (dpeaa)DE-He213 E (dpeaa)DE-He213 C (dpeaa)DE-He213 Calibration (dpeaa)DE-He213 Algae (dpeaa)DE-He213 Macrophytes (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stephan, Brendel aut Linda, Hönemann aut Marco, Konschak aut Magali, Solé aut Joern, Wogram aut Silvia, Pieper aut Enthalten in Umweltwissenschaften und Schadstoff-Forschung Heidelberg : Springer, 1989 35(2023), 1 vom: 18. Aug. (DE-627)319337200 (DE-600)2014183-X 1865-5084 nnns volume:35 year:2023 number:1 day:18 month:08 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12302-023-00767-8 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_2360 AR 35 2023 1 18 08 |
spelling |
10.1186/s12302-023-00767-8 doi (DE-627)SPR052794601 (SPR)s12302-023-00767-8-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Sabine, Duquesne verfasserin aut A critical examination of the protection level for primary producers in the first tier of the aquatic risk assessment for plant protection products 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 Background The aim of environmental risk assessment (ERA) for pesticides is to protect ecosystems by ensuring that specific protection goals (SPGs) are met. The ERA follows a prospective tiered approach, starting with the most conservative and simple step in risk assessment (RA) (so-called tier 1) using the lowest available appropriate endpoint derived from ecotoxicological tests. In 2015, for the tier 1 RA of aquatic primary producers, the recommendation was changed from using the lowest of the 50% inhibition (EC50) values based on biomass (area under the curve—$ E_{b} %$ C_{50} $), increase in biomass (yield- $ E_{y} %$ C_{50} $) or growth rate ($ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $) to only using the growth rate inhibition endpoint ($ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $) because it is independent of the test design and thus more robust. This study examines the implications of this such on the level of conservatism provided by the tier 1 RA and evaluates whether it ensures a suitable minimum protection level. Results Our analysis shows that replacing the lowest endpoint with the growth rate inhibition endpoint while maintaining the assessment factor (AF) of 10 significantly reduces the conservatism in the tier 1 RA. Comparing protection levels achieved with different endpoints reveals that the current assessment is less protective. To maintain the previous level of protection, and since the protection goals have not changed, we recommend to multiply the default AF of 10 by an extra factor of minimum 2.4 in the tier 1 RA based on $ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $. Independently of the endpoint selected in tier 1 RA, several issues in the general RA of pesticides contribute to uncertainties when assessing the protection levels, e.g., lack of appropriate comparison of the higher tier experimental studies (i.e., best achievable approximation of field situation, so-called surrogate reference tier) with field conditions or the regulatory framework's failure to consider realistic conditions in agricultural landscapes with multiple stressors and pesticide mixtures. Conclusions We advise to consider adjusting the risk assessment in order to reach at least the previous protection level for aquatic primary producers. Indeed continuing using an endpoint with a higher value and without adjustment of the assessment factor is likely to jeopardize the need of halting biodiversity loss in surface waters. Micro-/mesocosm study (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tier 1 standard test (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tiered approach (dpeaa)DE-He213 Regulatory acceptable concentration (RAC) (dpeaa)DE-He213 Endpoint (dpeaa)DE-He213 E (dpeaa)DE-He213 C (dpeaa)DE-He213 E (dpeaa)DE-He213 C (dpeaa)DE-He213 Calibration (dpeaa)DE-He213 Algae (dpeaa)DE-He213 Macrophytes (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stephan, Brendel aut Linda, Hönemann aut Marco, Konschak aut Magali, Solé aut Joern, Wogram aut Silvia, Pieper aut Enthalten in Umweltwissenschaften und Schadstoff-Forschung Heidelberg : Springer, 1989 35(2023), 1 vom: 18. Aug. (DE-627)319337200 (DE-600)2014183-X 1865-5084 nnns volume:35 year:2023 number:1 day:18 month:08 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12302-023-00767-8 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_2360 AR 35 2023 1 18 08 |
allfields_unstemmed |
10.1186/s12302-023-00767-8 doi (DE-627)SPR052794601 (SPR)s12302-023-00767-8-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Sabine, Duquesne verfasserin aut A critical examination of the protection level for primary producers in the first tier of the aquatic risk assessment for plant protection products 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 Background The aim of environmental risk assessment (ERA) for pesticides is to protect ecosystems by ensuring that specific protection goals (SPGs) are met. The ERA follows a prospective tiered approach, starting with the most conservative and simple step in risk assessment (RA) (so-called tier 1) using the lowest available appropriate endpoint derived from ecotoxicological tests. In 2015, for the tier 1 RA of aquatic primary producers, the recommendation was changed from using the lowest of the 50% inhibition (EC50) values based on biomass (area under the curve—$ E_{b} %$ C_{50} $), increase in biomass (yield- $ E_{y} %$ C_{50} $) or growth rate ($ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $) to only using the growth rate inhibition endpoint ($ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $) because it is independent of the test design and thus more robust. This study examines the implications of this such on the level of conservatism provided by the tier 1 RA and evaluates whether it ensures a suitable minimum protection level. Results Our analysis shows that replacing the lowest endpoint with the growth rate inhibition endpoint while maintaining the assessment factor (AF) of 10 significantly reduces the conservatism in the tier 1 RA. Comparing protection levels achieved with different endpoints reveals that the current assessment is less protective. To maintain the previous level of protection, and since the protection goals have not changed, we recommend to multiply the default AF of 10 by an extra factor of minimum 2.4 in the tier 1 RA based on $ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $. Independently of the endpoint selected in tier 1 RA, several issues in the general RA of pesticides contribute to uncertainties when assessing the protection levels, e.g., lack of appropriate comparison of the higher tier experimental studies (i.e., best achievable approximation of field situation, so-called surrogate reference tier) with field conditions or the regulatory framework's failure to consider realistic conditions in agricultural landscapes with multiple stressors and pesticide mixtures. Conclusions We advise to consider adjusting the risk assessment in order to reach at least the previous protection level for aquatic primary producers. Indeed continuing using an endpoint with a higher value and without adjustment of the assessment factor is likely to jeopardize the need of halting biodiversity loss in surface waters. Micro-/mesocosm study (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tier 1 standard test (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tiered approach (dpeaa)DE-He213 Regulatory acceptable concentration (RAC) (dpeaa)DE-He213 Endpoint (dpeaa)DE-He213 E (dpeaa)DE-He213 C (dpeaa)DE-He213 E (dpeaa)DE-He213 C (dpeaa)DE-He213 Calibration (dpeaa)DE-He213 Algae (dpeaa)DE-He213 Macrophytes (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stephan, Brendel aut Linda, Hönemann aut Marco, Konschak aut Magali, Solé aut Joern, Wogram aut Silvia, Pieper aut Enthalten in Umweltwissenschaften und Schadstoff-Forschung Heidelberg : Springer, 1989 35(2023), 1 vom: 18. Aug. (DE-627)319337200 (DE-600)2014183-X 1865-5084 nnns volume:35 year:2023 number:1 day:18 month:08 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12302-023-00767-8 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_2360 AR 35 2023 1 18 08 |
allfieldsGer |
10.1186/s12302-023-00767-8 doi (DE-627)SPR052794601 (SPR)s12302-023-00767-8-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Sabine, Duquesne verfasserin aut A critical examination of the protection level for primary producers in the first tier of the aquatic risk assessment for plant protection products 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 Background The aim of environmental risk assessment (ERA) for pesticides is to protect ecosystems by ensuring that specific protection goals (SPGs) are met. The ERA follows a prospective tiered approach, starting with the most conservative and simple step in risk assessment (RA) (so-called tier 1) using the lowest available appropriate endpoint derived from ecotoxicological tests. In 2015, for the tier 1 RA of aquatic primary producers, the recommendation was changed from using the lowest of the 50% inhibition (EC50) values based on biomass (area under the curve—$ E_{b} %$ C_{50} $), increase in biomass (yield- $ E_{y} %$ C_{50} $) or growth rate ($ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $) to only using the growth rate inhibition endpoint ($ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $) because it is independent of the test design and thus more robust. This study examines the implications of this such on the level of conservatism provided by the tier 1 RA and evaluates whether it ensures a suitable minimum protection level. Results Our analysis shows that replacing the lowest endpoint with the growth rate inhibition endpoint while maintaining the assessment factor (AF) of 10 significantly reduces the conservatism in the tier 1 RA. Comparing protection levels achieved with different endpoints reveals that the current assessment is less protective. To maintain the previous level of protection, and since the protection goals have not changed, we recommend to multiply the default AF of 10 by an extra factor of minimum 2.4 in the tier 1 RA based on $ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $. Independently of the endpoint selected in tier 1 RA, several issues in the general RA of pesticides contribute to uncertainties when assessing the protection levels, e.g., lack of appropriate comparison of the higher tier experimental studies (i.e., best achievable approximation of field situation, so-called surrogate reference tier) with field conditions or the regulatory framework's failure to consider realistic conditions in agricultural landscapes with multiple stressors and pesticide mixtures. Conclusions We advise to consider adjusting the risk assessment in order to reach at least the previous protection level for aquatic primary producers. Indeed continuing using an endpoint with a higher value and without adjustment of the assessment factor is likely to jeopardize the need of halting biodiversity loss in surface waters. Micro-/mesocosm study (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tier 1 standard test (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tiered approach (dpeaa)DE-He213 Regulatory acceptable concentration (RAC) (dpeaa)DE-He213 Endpoint (dpeaa)DE-He213 E (dpeaa)DE-He213 C (dpeaa)DE-He213 E (dpeaa)DE-He213 C (dpeaa)DE-He213 Calibration (dpeaa)DE-He213 Algae (dpeaa)DE-He213 Macrophytes (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stephan, Brendel aut Linda, Hönemann aut Marco, Konschak aut Magali, Solé aut Joern, Wogram aut Silvia, Pieper aut Enthalten in Umweltwissenschaften und Schadstoff-Forschung Heidelberg : Springer, 1989 35(2023), 1 vom: 18. Aug. (DE-627)319337200 (DE-600)2014183-X 1865-5084 nnns volume:35 year:2023 number:1 day:18 month:08 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12302-023-00767-8 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_2360 AR 35 2023 1 18 08 |
allfieldsSound |
10.1186/s12302-023-00767-8 doi (DE-627)SPR052794601 (SPR)s12302-023-00767-8-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Sabine, Duquesne verfasserin aut A critical examination of the protection level for primary producers in the first tier of the aquatic risk assessment for plant protection products 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 Background The aim of environmental risk assessment (ERA) for pesticides is to protect ecosystems by ensuring that specific protection goals (SPGs) are met. The ERA follows a prospective tiered approach, starting with the most conservative and simple step in risk assessment (RA) (so-called tier 1) using the lowest available appropriate endpoint derived from ecotoxicological tests. In 2015, for the tier 1 RA of aquatic primary producers, the recommendation was changed from using the lowest of the 50% inhibition (EC50) values based on biomass (area under the curve—$ E_{b} %$ C_{50} $), increase in biomass (yield- $ E_{y} %$ C_{50} $) or growth rate ($ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $) to only using the growth rate inhibition endpoint ($ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $) because it is independent of the test design and thus more robust. This study examines the implications of this such on the level of conservatism provided by the tier 1 RA and evaluates whether it ensures a suitable minimum protection level. Results Our analysis shows that replacing the lowest endpoint with the growth rate inhibition endpoint while maintaining the assessment factor (AF) of 10 significantly reduces the conservatism in the tier 1 RA. Comparing protection levels achieved with different endpoints reveals that the current assessment is less protective. To maintain the previous level of protection, and since the protection goals have not changed, we recommend to multiply the default AF of 10 by an extra factor of minimum 2.4 in the tier 1 RA based on $ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $. Independently of the endpoint selected in tier 1 RA, several issues in the general RA of pesticides contribute to uncertainties when assessing the protection levels, e.g., lack of appropriate comparison of the higher tier experimental studies (i.e., best achievable approximation of field situation, so-called surrogate reference tier) with field conditions or the regulatory framework's failure to consider realistic conditions in agricultural landscapes with multiple stressors and pesticide mixtures. Conclusions We advise to consider adjusting the risk assessment in order to reach at least the previous protection level for aquatic primary producers. Indeed continuing using an endpoint with a higher value and without adjustment of the assessment factor is likely to jeopardize the need of halting biodiversity loss in surface waters. Micro-/mesocosm study (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tier 1 standard test (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tiered approach (dpeaa)DE-He213 Regulatory acceptable concentration (RAC) (dpeaa)DE-He213 Endpoint (dpeaa)DE-He213 E (dpeaa)DE-He213 C (dpeaa)DE-He213 E (dpeaa)DE-He213 C (dpeaa)DE-He213 Calibration (dpeaa)DE-He213 Algae (dpeaa)DE-He213 Macrophytes (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stephan, Brendel aut Linda, Hönemann aut Marco, Konschak aut Magali, Solé aut Joern, Wogram aut Silvia, Pieper aut Enthalten in Umweltwissenschaften und Schadstoff-Forschung Heidelberg : Springer, 1989 35(2023), 1 vom: 18. Aug. (DE-627)319337200 (DE-600)2014183-X 1865-5084 nnns volume:35 year:2023 number:1 day:18 month:08 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12302-023-00767-8 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_2360 AR 35 2023 1 18 08 |
language |
English |
source |
Enthalten in Umweltwissenschaften und Schadstoff-Forschung 35(2023), 1 vom: 18. Aug. volume:35 year:2023 number:1 day:18 month:08 |
sourceStr |
Enthalten in Umweltwissenschaften und Schadstoff-Forschung 35(2023), 1 vom: 18. Aug. volume:35 year:2023 number:1 day:18 month:08 |
format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
institution |
findex.gbv.de |
topic_facet |
Micro-/mesocosm study Tier 1 standard test Tiered approach Regulatory acceptable concentration (RAC) Endpoint E C Calibration Algae Macrophytes |
isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
container_title |
Umweltwissenschaften und Schadstoff-Forschung |
authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Sabine, Duquesne @@aut@@ Stephan, Brendel @@aut@@ Linda, Hönemann @@aut@@ Marco, Konschak @@aut@@ Magali, Solé @@aut@@ Joern, Wogram @@aut@@ Silvia, Pieper @@aut@@ |
publishDateDaySort_date |
2023-08-18T00:00:00Z |
hierarchy_top_id |
319337200 |
id |
SPR052794601 |
language_de |
englisch |
fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR052794601</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20231118064720.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230819s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12302-023-00767-8</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR052794601</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12302-023-00767-8-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sabine, Duquesne</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">A critical examination of the protection level for primary producers in the first tier of the aquatic risk assessment for plant protection products</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background The aim of environmental risk assessment (ERA) for pesticides is to protect ecosystems by ensuring that specific protection goals (SPGs) are met. The ERA follows a prospective tiered approach, starting with the most conservative and simple step in risk assessment (RA) (so-called tier 1) using the lowest available appropriate endpoint derived from ecotoxicological tests. In 2015, for the tier 1 RA of aquatic primary producers, the recommendation was changed from using the lowest of the 50% inhibition (EC50) values based on biomass (area under the curve—$ E_{b} %$ C_{50} $), increase in biomass (yield- $ E_{y} %$ C_{50} $) or growth rate ($ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $) to only using the growth rate inhibition endpoint ($ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $) because it is independent of the test design and thus more robust. This study examines the implications of this such on the level of conservatism provided by the tier 1 RA and evaluates whether it ensures a suitable minimum protection level. Results Our analysis shows that replacing the lowest endpoint with the growth rate inhibition endpoint while maintaining the assessment factor (AF) of 10 significantly reduces the conservatism in the tier 1 RA. Comparing protection levels achieved with different endpoints reveals that the current assessment is less protective. To maintain the previous level of protection, and since the protection goals have not changed, we recommend to multiply the default AF of 10 by an extra factor of minimum 2.4 in the tier 1 RA based on $ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $. Independently of the endpoint selected in tier 1 RA, several issues in the general RA of pesticides contribute to uncertainties when assessing the protection levels, e.g., lack of appropriate comparison of the higher tier experimental studies (i.e., best achievable approximation of field situation, so-called surrogate reference tier) with field conditions or the regulatory framework's failure to consider realistic conditions in agricultural landscapes with multiple stressors and pesticide mixtures. Conclusions We advise to consider adjusting the risk assessment in order to reach at least the previous protection level for aquatic primary producers. Indeed continuing using an endpoint with a higher value and without adjustment of the assessment factor is likely to jeopardize the need of halting biodiversity loss in surface waters.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Micro-/mesocosm study</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Tier 1 standard test</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Tiered approach</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Regulatory acceptable concentration (RAC)</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Endpoint</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">E</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">C</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">E</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">C</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Calibration</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Algae</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Macrophytes</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Stephan, Brendel</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Linda, Hönemann</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Marco, Konschak</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Magali, Solé</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Joern, Wogram</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Silvia, Pieper</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Umweltwissenschaften und Schadstoff-Forschung</subfield><subfield code="d">Heidelberg : Springer, 1989</subfield><subfield code="g">35(2023), 1 vom: 18. Aug.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)319337200</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2014183-X</subfield><subfield code="x">1865-5084</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:35</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2023</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:18</subfield><subfield code="g">month:08</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12302-023-00767-8</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2360</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">35</subfield><subfield code="j">2023</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">18</subfield><subfield code="c">08</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
author |
Sabine, Duquesne |
spellingShingle |
Sabine, Duquesne misc Micro-/mesocosm study misc Tier 1 standard test misc Tiered approach misc Regulatory acceptable concentration (RAC) misc Endpoint misc E misc C misc Calibration misc Algae misc Macrophytes A critical examination of the protection level for primary producers in the first tier of the aquatic risk assessment for plant protection products |
authorStr |
Sabine, Duquesne |
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)319337200 |
format |
electronic Article |
delete_txt_mv |
keep |
author_role |
aut aut aut aut aut aut aut |
collection |
springer |
remote_str |
true |
illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
issn |
1865-5084 |
topic_title |
A critical examination of the protection level for primary producers in the first tier of the aquatic risk assessment for plant protection products Micro-/mesocosm study (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tier 1 standard test (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tiered approach (dpeaa)DE-He213 Regulatory acceptable concentration (RAC) (dpeaa)DE-He213 Endpoint (dpeaa)DE-He213 E (dpeaa)DE-He213 C (dpeaa)DE-He213 Calibration (dpeaa)DE-He213 Algae (dpeaa)DE-He213 Macrophytes (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
topic |
misc Micro-/mesocosm study misc Tier 1 standard test misc Tiered approach misc Regulatory acceptable concentration (RAC) misc Endpoint misc E misc C misc Calibration misc Algae misc Macrophytes |
topic_unstemmed |
misc Micro-/mesocosm study misc Tier 1 standard test misc Tiered approach misc Regulatory acceptable concentration (RAC) misc Endpoint misc E misc C misc Calibration misc Algae misc Macrophytes |
topic_browse |
misc Micro-/mesocosm study misc Tier 1 standard test misc Tiered approach misc Regulatory acceptable concentration (RAC) misc Endpoint misc E misc C misc Calibration misc Algae misc Macrophytes |
format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
hierarchy_parent_title |
Umweltwissenschaften und Schadstoff-Forschung |
hierarchy_parent_id |
319337200 |
hierarchy_top_title |
Umweltwissenschaften und Schadstoff-Forschung |
isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)319337200 (DE-600)2014183-X |
title |
A critical examination of the protection level for primary producers in the first tier of the aquatic risk assessment for plant protection products |
ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR052794601 (SPR)s12302-023-00767-8-e |
title_full |
A critical examination of the protection level for primary producers in the first tier of the aquatic risk assessment for plant protection products |
author_sort |
Sabine, Duquesne |
journal |
Umweltwissenschaften und Schadstoff-Forschung |
journalStr |
Umweltwissenschaften und Schadstoff-Forschung |
lang_code |
eng |
isOA_bool |
true |
recordtype |
marc |
publishDateSort |
2023 |
contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
author_browse |
Sabine, Duquesne Stephan, Brendel Linda, Hönemann Marco, Konschak Magali, Solé Joern, Wogram Silvia, Pieper |
container_volume |
35 |
format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
author-letter |
Sabine, Duquesne |
doi_str_mv |
10.1186/s12302-023-00767-8 |
title_sort |
critical examination of the protection level for primary producers in the first tier of the aquatic risk assessment for plant protection products |
title_auth |
A critical examination of the protection level for primary producers in the first tier of the aquatic risk assessment for plant protection products |
abstract |
Background The aim of environmental risk assessment (ERA) for pesticides is to protect ecosystems by ensuring that specific protection goals (SPGs) are met. The ERA follows a prospective tiered approach, starting with the most conservative and simple step in risk assessment (RA) (so-called tier 1) using the lowest available appropriate endpoint derived from ecotoxicological tests. In 2015, for the tier 1 RA of aquatic primary producers, the recommendation was changed from using the lowest of the 50% inhibition (EC50) values based on biomass (area under the curve—$ E_{b} %$ C_{50} $), increase in biomass (yield- $ E_{y} %$ C_{50} $) or growth rate ($ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $) to only using the growth rate inhibition endpoint ($ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $) because it is independent of the test design and thus more robust. This study examines the implications of this such on the level of conservatism provided by the tier 1 RA and evaluates whether it ensures a suitable minimum protection level. Results Our analysis shows that replacing the lowest endpoint with the growth rate inhibition endpoint while maintaining the assessment factor (AF) of 10 significantly reduces the conservatism in the tier 1 RA. Comparing protection levels achieved with different endpoints reveals that the current assessment is less protective. To maintain the previous level of protection, and since the protection goals have not changed, we recommend to multiply the default AF of 10 by an extra factor of minimum 2.4 in the tier 1 RA based on $ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $. Independently of the endpoint selected in tier 1 RA, several issues in the general RA of pesticides contribute to uncertainties when assessing the protection levels, e.g., lack of appropriate comparison of the higher tier experimental studies (i.e., best achievable approximation of field situation, so-called surrogate reference tier) with field conditions or the regulatory framework's failure to consider realistic conditions in agricultural landscapes with multiple stressors and pesticide mixtures. Conclusions We advise to consider adjusting the risk assessment in order to reach at least the previous protection level for aquatic primary producers. Indeed continuing using an endpoint with a higher value and without adjustment of the assessment factor is likely to jeopardize the need of halting biodiversity loss in surface waters. © The Author(s) 2023 |
abstractGer |
Background The aim of environmental risk assessment (ERA) for pesticides is to protect ecosystems by ensuring that specific protection goals (SPGs) are met. The ERA follows a prospective tiered approach, starting with the most conservative and simple step in risk assessment (RA) (so-called tier 1) using the lowest available appropriate endpoint derived from ecotoxicological tests. In 2015, for the tier 1 RA of aquatic primary producers, the recommendation was changed from using the lowest of the 50% inhibition (EC50) values based on biomass (area under the curve—$ E_{b} %$ C_{50} $), increase in biomass (yield- $ E_{y} %$ C_{50} $) or growth rate ($ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $) to only using the growth rate inhibition endpoint ($ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $) because it is independent of the test design and thus more robust. This study examines the implications of this such on the level of conservatism provided by the tier 1 RA and evaluates whether it ensures a suitable minimum protection level. Results Our analysis shows that replacing the lowest endpoint with the growth rate inhibition endpoint while maintaining the assessment factor (AF) of 10 significantly reduces the conservatism in the tier 1 RA. Comparing protection levels achieved with different endpoints reveals that the current assessment is less protective. To maintain the previous level of protection, and since the protection goals have not changed, we recommend to multiply the default AF of 10 by an extra factor of minimum 2.4 in the tier 1 RA based on $ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $. Independently of the endpoint selected in tier 1 RA, several issues in the general RA of pesticides contribute to uncertainties when assessing the protection levels, e.g., lack of appropriate comparison of the higher tier experimental studies (i.e., best achievable approximation of field situation, so-called surrogate reference tier) with field conditions or the regulatory framework's failure to consider realistic conditions in agricultural landscapes with multiple stressors and pesticide mixtures. Conclusions We advise to consider adjusting the risk assessment in order to reach at least the previous protection level for aquatic primary producers. Indeed continuing using an endpoint with a higher value and without adjustment of the assessment factor is likely to jeopardize the need of halting biodiversity loss in surface waters. © The Author(s) 2023 |
abstract_unstemmed |
Background The aim of environmental risk assessment (ERA) for pesticides is to protect ecosystems by ensuring that specific protection goals (SPGs) are met. The ERA follows a prospective tiered approach, starting with the most conservative and simple step in risk assessment (RA) (so-called tier 1) using the lowest available appropriate endpoint derived from ecotoxicological tests. In 2015, for the tier 1 RA of aquatic primary producers, the recommendation was changed from using the lowest of the 50% inhibition (EC50) values based on biomass (area under the curve—$ E_{b} %$ C_{50} $), increase in biomass (yield- $ E_{y} %$ C_{50} $) or growth rate ($ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $) to only using the growth rate inhibition endpoint ($ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $) because it is independent of the test design and thus more robust. This study examines the implications of this such on the level of conservatism provided by the tier 1 RA and evaluates whether it ensures a suitable minimum protection level. Results Our analysis shows that replacing the lowest endpoint with the growth rate inhibition endpoint while maintaining the assessment factor (AF) of 10 significantly reduces the conservatism in the tier 1 RA. Comparing protection levels achieved with different endpoints reveals that the current assessment is less protective. To maintain the previous level of protection, and since the protection goals have not changed, we recommend to multiply the default AF of 10 by an extra factor of minimum 2.4 in the tier 1 RA based on $ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $. Independently of the endpoint selected in tier 1 RA, several issues in the general RA of pesticides contribute to uncertainties when assessing the protection levels, e.g., lack of appropriate comparison of the higher tier experimental studies (i.e., best achievable approximation of field situation, so-called surrogate reference tier) with field conditions or the regulatory framework's failure to consider realistic conditions in agricultural landscapes with multiple stressors and pesticide mixtures. Conclusions We advise to consider adjusting the risk assessment in order to reach at least the previous protection level for aquatic primary producers. Indeed continuing using an endpoint with a higher value and without adjustment of the assessment factor is likely to jeopardize the need of halting biodiversity loss in surface waters. © The Author(s) 2023 |
collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_2360 |
container_issue |
1 |
title_short |
A critical examination of the protection level for primary producers in the first tier of the aquatic risk assessment for plant protection products |
url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12302-023-00767-8 |
remote_bool |
true |
author2 |
Stephan, Brendel Linda, Hönemann Marco, Konschak Magali, Solé Joern, Wogram Silvia, Pieper |
author2Str |
Stephan, Brendel Linda, Hönemann Marco, Konschak Magali, Solé Joern, Wogram Silvia, Pieper |
ppnlink |
319337200 |
mediatype_str_mv |
c |
isOA_txt |
true |
hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
doi_str |
10.1186/s12302-023-00767-8 |
up_date |
2024-07-03T14:50:14.233Z |
_version_ |
1803569819011776512 |
fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR052794601</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20231118064720.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230819s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12302-023-00767-8</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR052794601</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12302-023-00767-8-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sabine, Duquesne</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">A critical examination of the protection level for primary producers in the first tier of the aquatic risk assessment for plant protection products</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background The aim of environmental risk assessment (ERA) for pesticides is to protect ecosystems by ensuring that specific protection goals (SPGs) are met. The ERA follows a prospective tiered approach, starting with the most conservative and simple step in risk assessment (RA) (so-called tier 1) using the lowest available appropriate endpoint derived from ecotoxicological tests. In 2015, for the tier 1 RA of aquatic primary producers, the recommendation was changed from using the lowest of the 50% inhibition (EC50) values based on biomass (area under the curve—$ E_{b} %$ C_{50} $), increase in biomass (yield- $ E_{y} %$ C_{50} $) or growth rate ($ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $) to only using the growth rate inhibition endpoint ($ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $) because it is independent of the test design and thus more robust. This study examines the implications of this such on the level of conservatism provided by the tier 1 RA and evaluates whether it ensures a suitable minimum protection level. Results Our analysis shows that replacing the lowest endpoint with the growth rate inhibition endpoint while maintaining the assessment factor (AF) of 10 significantly reduces the conservatism in the tier 1 RA. Comparing protection levels achieved with different endpoints reveals that the current assessment is less protective. To maintain the previous level of protection, and since the protection goals have not changed, we recommend to multiply the default AF of 10 by an extra factor of minimum 2.4 in the tier 1 RA based on $ E_{r} %$ C_{50} $. Independently of the endpoint selected in tier 1 RA, several issues in the general RA of pesticides contribute to uncertainties when assessing the protection levels, e.g., lack of appropriate comparison of the higher tier experimental studies (i.e., best achievable approximation of field situation, so-called surrogate reference tier) with field conditions or the regulatory framework's failure to consider realistic conditions in agricultural landscapes with multiple stressors and pesticide mixtures. Conclusions We advise to consider adjusting the risk assessment in order to reach at least the previous protection level for aquatic primary producers. Indeed continuing using an endpoint with a higher value and without adjustment of the assessment factor is likely to jeopardize the need of halting biodiversity loss in surface waters.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Micro-/mesocosm study</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Tier 1 standard test</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Tiered approach</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Regulatory acceptable concentration (RAC)</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Endpoint</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">E</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">C</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">E</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">C</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Calibration</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Algae</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Macrophytes</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Stephan, Brendel</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Linda, Hönemann</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Marco, Konschak</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Magali, Solé</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Joern, Wogram</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Silvia, Pieper</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Umweltwissenschaften und Schadstoff-Forschung</subfield><subfield code="d">Heidelberg : Springer, 1989</subfield><subfield code="g">35(2023), 1 vom: 18. Aug.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)319337200</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2014183-X</subfield><subfield code="x">1865-5084</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:35</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2023</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:18</subfield><subfield code="g">month:08</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12302-023-00767-8</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2360</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">35</subfield><subfield code="j">2023</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">18</subfield><subfield code="c">08</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
score |
7.400194 |