Understanding the patterns and health impact of indoor air pollutant exposures in Bradford, UK: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Relative to outdoor air pollution, there is little evidence examining the composition and concentrations of indoor air pollution and its associated health impacts. The INGENIOUS project aims to provide the comprehensive understanding of indoor air pollution in UK homes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 'Real Home Assessment' is a cross-sectional, multimethod study within INGENIOUS. This study monitors indoor air pollutants over 2 weeks using low-cost sensors placed in three rooms in 300 Born in Bradford (BiB) households. Building audits are completed by researchers, and participants are asked to complete a home survey and a health and behaviour questionnaire, in addition to recording household activities and health symptoms on at least 1 weekday and 1 weekend day. A subsample of 150 households will receive more intensive measurements of volatile organic compound and particulate matter for 3 days. Qualitative interviews conducted with 30 participants will identify key barriers and enablers of effective ventilation practices. Outdoor air pollution is measured in 14 locations across Bradford to explore relationships between indoor and outdoor air quality. Data will be analysed to explore total concentrations of indoor air pollutants, how these vary with building characteristics, and whether they are related to health symptoms. Interviews will be analysed through content and thematic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the NHS Health Research Authority Yorkshire and the Humber (Bradford Leeds) Research Ethics Committee (22/YH/0288). We will disseminate findings using our websites, social media, publications and conferences. Data will be open access through the BiB, the Open Science Framework and the UK Data Service.

Benchmark study on glyphosate-resistant crop systems in the United States. Economics of herbicide resistance management practices in a 5 year field-scale study.

BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of glyphosate-resistant (GR) crops, growers have often relied on glyphosate-only weed control programs. As a result, multiple weeds have evolved resistance to glyphosate. A 5 year study including 156 growers from Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Nebraska, North Carolina and Mississippi in the United States was conducted to compare crop yields and net returns between grower standard weed management programs (SPs) and programs containing best management practices (BMPs) recommended by university weed scientists. The BMPs were designed to prevent or mitigate/manage evolved herbicide resistance. RESULTS: Weed management costs were greater for the BMP approach in most situations, but crop yields often increased sufficiently for net returns similar to those of the less expensive SPs. This response was similar across all years, geographical regions, states, crops and tillage systems. CONCLUSIONS: Herbicide use strategies that include a diversity of herbicide mechanisms of action will increase the long-term sustainability of glyphosate-based weed management strategies. Growers can adopt herbicide resistance BMPs with confidence that net returns will not be negatively affected in the short term and contribute to resistance management in the long term.

Benchmark study on glyphosate-resistant cropping systems in the United States. Part 6: Timeliness of economic decision-making in implementing weed resistance management strategies.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of glyphosate-resistant (GR) crops in the late 1990s made weed control in maize, cotton and soybean simple. With the rapid adoption of GR crops, many growers began to rely solely on glyphosate for weed control. This eventually led to the evolution of GR weeds. Growers are often reluctant to adopt a weed resistance best management practice (BMP) because of the added cost of additional herbicides to weed control programs which would reduce short-term revenue. This study was designed to evaluate when a grower that is risk neutral (profit maximizing) or risk averse should adopt a weed resistance BMP. RESULTS: Whether a grower is risk neutral or risk averse, the optimal decision would be to adopt a weed resistance BMP when the expected loss in revenue is greater than 30% and the probability of resistance evolution is 0.1 or greater. However, if the probability of developing resistance increases to 0.3, then the best decision would be to adopt a weed resistance BMP when the expected loss is 10% or greater. CONCLUSION: Given the scenarios analyzed, risk-neutral or risk-averse growers should implement a weed resistance BMP with confidence that they have made the right decision economically and avoided the risk of lost revenue from resistance. If the grower wants to continue to see the same level of return, adoption of BMP is required.