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.

Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and the Need for a Meaningful Regulatory Plant Protection Product Testing Strategy.

Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) perform key soil ecosystem services and, because of their symbiotic relationship with plant roots, may be exposed to the plant protection products (PPPs) applied to soils and crops. In 2017, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) released a scientific opinion addressing the state of the science on risk assessment of PPPs for in-soil organisms, recommending the inclusion of AMF ecotoxicological testing in the PPP regulatory process. However, it is not clear how this can be implemented in a tiered, robust, and ecologically relevant manner. Through a critical review of current literature, we examine the recommendations made within the EFSA report and the methodologies available to integrate AMF into the PPP risk assessment and provide perspective and commentary on their agronomic and ecological relevance. We conclude that considerable research questions remain to be addressed prior to the inclusion of AMF into the in-soil organism risk assessment, many of which stem from the unique challenges associated with including an obligate symbiont within the PPP risk assessment. Finally, we highlight critical knowledge gaps and the further research required to enable development of relevant, reliable, and robust scientific tests alongside pragmatic and scientifically sound guidance to ensure that any future risk-assessment paradigm is adequately protective of the ecosystem services it aims to preserve. Environ Toxicol Chem 2022;41:1808-1823. © 2022 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.

Investigating the role of soil mesofauna abundance and biodiversity for organic matter breakdown in arable fields.

Intact soil food webs are pivotal to maintaining essential soil functions, such as carbon recycling, sequestering, and biomass production. Although the functional role of micro- (e.g., bacteria and fungi) and macrofauna (e.g., earthworms) is comparatively well established, the importance of the mesofauna community (e.g., abundance and diversity of Acari and Collembola) in maintaining soil functionality is less clear. We investigated this question in a six-month field experiment in arable soil by actively manipulating mesofauna abundance and biodiversity through the application of two legacy insecticides (lindane and methamidophos) at sufficiently high doses to reduce mesofauna abundance (well above previously registered application rates; 2.5 and 7.5 kg a.s./ha for lindane, and 0.6 and 3 kg a.s./ha for methamidophos) and measure the impact on organic matter degradation. Our results demonstrate that both insecticides had reduced Collembola and Acari abundances by up to 80% over the study's six-month duration. In addition, we observed less pronounced and more complex changes in mesofauna biodiversity over time. These included insecticide-dependent temporal fluctuations (both reduction and increase) for different estimates (indices) of local (alpha)-diversity over time and no lasting impact for most estimates after six months. Even at these exceptionally high field rates, Collembola and Acari diversity was observed to generally recover by six months. In contrast, considering organic matter breakdown, we found no evidence of a treatment-related effect. These results suggest that organic matter breakdown in arable soils is likely driven by other trophic levels (e.g., microorganisms or earthworms) with only a limited influence of the mesofauna community. We discuss these findings with regard to their implications for our current understanding of soil food web function and future European soil risk assessments. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2022;18:1423-1433. © 2021 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (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.

AMEG: the new SETAC advisory group on aquatic macrophyte ecotoxicology.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: Primary producers play critical structural and functional roles in aquatic ecosystems; therefore, it is imperative that the potential risks of toxicants to aquatic plants are adequately assessed in the risk assessment of chemicals. The standard required macrophyte test species is the floating (non-sediment-rooted) duckweed Lemna spp. This macrophyte species might not be representative of all floating, rooted, emergent, and submerged macrophyte species because of differences in the duration and mode of exposure; sensitivity to the specific toxic mode of action of the chemical; and species-specific traits (e.g., duckweed's very short generation time). DISCUSSION AND PERSPECTIVES: These topics were addressed during the workshop entitled "Aquatic Macrophyte Risk Assessment for Pesticides" (AMRAP) where a risk assessment scheme for aquatic macrophytes was proposed. Four working groups evolved from this workshop and were charged with the task of developing Tier 1 and higher-tier aquatic macrophyte risk assessment procedures. Subsequently, a SETAC Advisory Group, the Macrophyte Ecotoxicology Group (AMEG) was formed as an umbrella organization for various macrophyte working groups. The purpose of AMEG is to provide scientifically based guidance in all aspects of aquatic macrophyte testing in the laboratory and field, including prospective as well as retrospective risk assessments for chemicals. As AMEG expands, it will begin to address new topics including bioremediation and sustainable management of aquatic macrophytes in the context of ecosystem services.