Ecotoxicological soil risk assessment under the new soil exposure framework - an impact assessment.

For the European risk assessment (RA) for soil organisms exposed to plant protection products (PPPs) endpoints from ecotoxicological laboratory studies are compared with predicted environmental concentrations in soil (PECSOIL) at first tier. A safety margin must be met; otherwise, a higher tier RA is triggered (usually soil organism field studies). A new tiered exposure modeling guidance was published by EFSA to determine PECSOIL. This work investigates its potential impact on future soil RA. PECSOIL values for >50 active substances and metabolites were calculated and compared with the respective endpoints for soil organisms to calculate the RA failure rate. Compared to the current (FOCUS) exposure modeling, PECSOIL values for all EU regulatory zones considerably increased, e.g., resulting in active substance RA failure rates of 67%, 58% and 36% for modeling Tier-1, Tier-2 and Tier-3A, respectively. The main driving factors for elevated PECSOIL were soil bulk density, crop interception and wash-off, next to obligatory modeling and scenario adjustment factors. Spatial PECSOIL scenario selection procedures result in agronomically atypical soil characteristics (e.g., soil bulk density values in Tier-3A scenarios far below typical European agricultural areas). Consequently, exposure modeling and ecotoxicological study characteristics are inconsistent, which hinders scientifically reasonable comparison of both in the RA.

Applying a tiered environmental risk assessment framework to estimate the risk of pesticides to soil organisms in Latin America.

This work investigates the application of a tiered risk assessment scheme for soil organisms based on the risk quotient (RQ) and the toxicity exposure ratio (TER). Forty-five pesticides registered in Latin America were chosen and the ecotoxicological endpoints for earthworms, Collembola, and microorganisms were collated. Tier I assessment was made on conservative assumptions in which no refinements were applied. There, 14 pesticides (31%) exceed the RQ regulatory trigger indicating unacceptable risk, whereas 27 (60%) indicate unacceptable risk on the TER approach. In a Tier II evaluation when refinement options such as foliar interception, field half-life, and the dissipation following the peak estimated environmental concentration are considered, eight (18%) pesticides indicate unacceptable risk based on the RQ, and 15 (33%) indicate unacceptable risk based on the TER. A nonmetric multidimensional scaling evaluation was performed to understand the relevant characteristics involved in how each pesticide poses a risk to soil organisms. Based on the outcome of this analysis, we observed that, for a given pesticide, the combination of high persistence, low or no crop interception, and high toxicity are likely to require higher tier risk assessment. Refinement options can consider either or both the exposure and/or the effect side of the framework. Exposure refinements are potentially simpler and can be conducted with data already available to risk assessors, whereas effect refinements involving further testing with the organisms potentially at risk are still under discussion for intermediate and higher tiers. A sensitive, simple, and logical environmental risk assessment framework can be used to adequately identify risks based on the relevant protection goals that, in turn, will help to protect the desired soil multifunctionality of the ecosystem. We encourage academia and industry to further investigate these topics to provide the most scientifically robust and evidence-based information to decision makers. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2023;19:446-460. © 2022 SETAC.

Toward sustainable environmental quality: Priority research questions for Europe.

The United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals have been established to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all. Delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals will require a healthy and productive environment. An understanding of the impacts of chemicals which can negatively impact environmental health is therefore essential to the delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals. However, current research on and regulation of chemicals in the environment tend to take a simplistic view and do not account for the complexity of the real world, which inhibits the way we manage chemicals. There is therefore an urgent need for a step change in the way we study and communicate the impacts and control of chemicals in the natural environment. To do this requires the major research questions to be identified so that resources are focused on questions that really matter. We present the findings of a horizon-scanning exercise to identify research priorities of the European environmental science community around chemicals in the environment. Using the key questions approach, we identified 22 questions of priority. These questions covered overarching questions about which chemicals we should be most concerned about and where, impacts of global megatrends, protection goals, and sustainability of chemicals; the development and parameterization of assessment and management frameworks; and mechanisms to maximize the impact of the research. The research questions identified provide a first-step in the path forward for the research, regulatory, and business communities to better assess and manage chemicals in the natural environment. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:2281-2295. © 2018 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.