Environmental plastics in the context of UV radiation, climate change, and the Montreal Protocol.

There are close links between solar UV radiation, climate change, and plastic pollution. UV-driven weathering is a key process leading to the degradation of plastics in the environment but also the formation of potentially harmful plastic fragments such as micro- and nanoplastic particles. Estimates of the environmental persistence of plastic pollution, and the formation of fragments, will need to take in account plastic dispersal around the globe, as well as projected UV radiation levels and climate change factors.

Plastics in the environment in the context of UV radiation, climate change and the Montreal Protocol: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, Update 2023.

This Assessment Update by the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP) of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) considers the interactive effects of solar UV radiation, global warming, and other weathering factors on plastics. The Assessment illustrates the significance of solar UV radiation in decreasing the durability of plastic materials, degradation of plastic debris, formation of micro- and nanoplastic particles and accompanying leaching of potential toxic compounds. Micro- and nanoplastics have been found in all ecosystems, the atmosphere, and in humans. While the potential biological risks are not yet well-established, the widespread and increasing occurrence of plastic pollution is reason for continuing research and monitoring. Plastic debris persists after its intended life in soils, water bodies and the atmosphere as well as in living organisms. To counteract accumulation of plastics in the environment, the lifetime of novel plastics or plastic alternatives should better match the functional life of products, with eventual breakdown releasing harmless substances to the environment.

Assessment of risks to listed species from the use of atrazine in the USA: a perspective.

Atrazine is a triazine herbicide used predominantly on corn, sorghum, and sugarcane in the US. Its use potentially overlaps with the ranges of listed (threatened and endangered) species. In response to registration review in the context of the Endangered Species Act, we evaluated potential direct and indirect impacts of atrazine on listed species and designated critical habitats. Atrazine has been widely studied, extensive environmental monitoring and toxicity data sets are available, and the spatial and temporal uses on major crops are well characterized. Ranges of listed species are less well-defined, resulting in overly conservative designations of "May Effect". Preferences for habitat and food sources serve to limit exposure among many listed animal species and animals are relatively insensitive. Atrazine does not bioaccumulate, further diminishing exposures among consumers and predators. Because of incomplete exposure pathways, many species can be eliminated from consideration for direct effects. It is toxic to plants, but even sensitive plants tolerate episodic exposures, such as those occurring in flowing waters. Empirical data from long-term monitoring programs and realistic field data on off-target deposition of drift indicate that many other listed species can be removed from consideration because exposures are below conservative toxicity thresholds for direct and indirect effects. Combined with recent mitigation actions by the registrant, this review serves to refine and focus forthcoming listed species assessment efforts for atrazine.Abbreviations: a.i. = Active ingredient (of a pesticide product). AEMP = Atrazine Ecological Monitoring Program. AIMS = Avian Incident Monitoring SystemArach. = Arachnid (spiders and mites). AUC = Area Under the Curve. BE = Biological Evaluation (of potential effects on listed species). BO = Biological Opinion (conclusion of the consultation between USEPA and the Services with respect to potential effects in listed species). CASM = Comprehensive Aquatic System Model. CDL = Crop Data LayerCN = field Curve Number. CRP = Conservation Reserve Program (lands). CTA = Conditioned Taste Avoidance. DAC = Diaminochlorotriazine (a metabolite of atrazine, also known by the acronym DACT). DER = Data Evaluation Record. EC25 = Concentration causing a specified effect in 25% of the tested organisms. EC50 = Concentration causing a specified effect in 50% of the tested organisms. EC50RGR = Concentration causing a 50% reduction in relative growth rate. ECOS = Environmental Conservation Online System. EDD = Estimated Daily Dose. EEC = Expected Environmental Concentration. EFED = Environmental Fate and Effects Division (of the USEPA). EFSA = European Food Safety Agency. EIIS = Ecological Incident Information System. ERA = Environmental Risk Assessment. ESA = Endangered Species Act. ESU = Evolutionarily Significant UnitsFAR = Field Application RateFIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. FOIA = Freedom of Information Act (request). GSD = Genus Sensitivity Distribution. HC5 = Hazardous Concentration for ≤ 5% of species. HUC = Hydrologic Unit Code. IBM = Individual-Based Model. IDS = Incident Data System. KOC = Partition coefficient between water and organic matter in soil or sediment. KOW = Octanol-Water partition coefficient. LC50 = Concentration lethal to 50% of the tested organisms. LC-MS-MS = Liquid Chromatograph with Tandem Mass Spectrometry. LD50 = Dose lethal to 50% of the tested organisms. LAA = Likely to Adversely Affect. LOAEC = Lowest-Observed-Adverse-Effect Concentration. LOC = Level of Concern. MA = May Affect. MATC = Maximum Acceptable Toxicant Concentration. NAS = National Academy of Sciences. NCWQR = National Center of Water Quality Research. NE = No Effect. NLAA = Not Likely to Adversely Affect. NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAEC = No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Concentration. NOAEL = No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Dose-Level. OECD = Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. PNSP = Pesticide National Synthesis Project. PQ = Plastoquinone. PRZM = Pesticide Root Zone Model. PWC = Pesticide in Water Calculator. QWoE = Quantitative Weight of Evidence. RGR = Relative growth rate (of plants). RQ = Risk Quotient. RUD = Residue Unit Doses. SAP = Science Advisory Panel (of the USEPA). SGR = Specific Growth Rate. SI = Supplemental Information. SSD = Species Sensitivity Distribution. SURLAG = Surface Runoff Lag Coefficient. SWAT = Soil & Water Assessment Tool. SWCC = Surface Water Concentration Calculator. UDL = Use Data Layer (for pesticides). USDA = United States Department of Agriculture. USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency. USFWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service. USGS = United States Geological Survey. WARP = Watershed Regressions for Pesticides.

Ecotoxicology of Glyphosate, Its Formulants, and Environmental Degradation Products.

The chemical and biological properties of glyphosate are key to understanding its fate in the environment and potential risks to non-target organisms. Glyphosate is polar and water soluble and therefore does not bioaccumulate, biomagnify, or accumulate to high levels in the environment. It sorbs strongly to particles in soil and sediments and this reduces bioavailability so that exposures to non-target organisms in the environment are acute and decrease with half-lives in the order of hours to a few days. The target site for glyphosate is not known to be expressed in animals, which reduces the probability of toxicity and small risks. Technical glyphosate (acid or salts) is of low to moderate toxicity; however, when mixed with some formulants such as polyoxyethylene amines (POEAs), toxicity to aquatic animals increases about 15-fold on average. However, glyphosate and the formulants have different fates in the environment and they do not necessarily co-occur. Therefore, toxicity tests on formulated products in scenarios where they would not be used are unrealistic and of limited use for assessment of risk. Concentrations of glyphosate in surface water are generally low with minimal risk to aquatic organisms, including plants. Toxicity and risks to non-target terrestrial organisms other than plants treated directly are low and risks to terrestrial invertebrates and microbial processes in soil are very small. Formulations containing POEAs are not labeled for use over water but, because POEA rapidly partitions into sediment, risks to aquatic organisms from accidental over-sprays are reduced in shallow water bodies. We conclude that use of formulations of glyphosate under good agricultural practices presents a de minimis risk of direct and indirect adverse effects in non-target organisms.

Estimated exposure to glyphosate in humans via environmental, occupational, and dietary pathways: an updated review of the scientific literature.

Glyphosate is one of the most widely used herbicides in the world, but it has also been the focus of discussion and restrictions in several countries since it was declared 'probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A)' by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2015. Since that time, several regulatory agencies have reviewed the public literature and guideline studies submitted for regulatory purposes and have concluded that it is not a carcinogen, and revised acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) and the reference dose (RfD) have been published. Also, restrictions on use have been lifted in many locations. Risk assessment for any pesticide requires knowledge of exposure in humans and the environment, and this paper is an update on a previous review in 2016 and includes papers published after 2016. These exposure data for air, water, bystanders, the general public, domesticated animals, pets, and applicators were combined and compared to the revised exposure criteria published by regulatory agencies. In all cases, measured and estimated systemic exposures to glyphosate in humans and animals were less than the ADIs and the RfD. Based on this large dataset, these exposures represent a de minimis risk. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry.

Toward Sustainable Environmental Quality: Priority Research Questions for North America.

Anticipating, identifying, and prioritizing strategic needs represent essential activities by research organizations. Decided benefits emerge when these pursuits engage globally important environment and health goals, including the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. To this end, horizon scanning efforts can facilitate identification of specific research needs to address grand challenges. We report and discuss 40 priority research questions following engagement of scientists and engineers in North America. These timely questions identify the importance of stimulating innovation and developing new methods, tools, and concepts in environmental chemistry and toxicology to improve assessment and management of chemical contaminants and other diverse environmental stressors. Grand challenges to achieving sustainable management of the environment are becoming increasingly complex and structured by global megatrends, which collectively challenge existing sustainable environmental quality efforts. Transdisciplinary, systems-based approaches will be required to define and avoid adverse biological effects across temporal and spatial gradients. Similarly, coordinated research activities among organizations within and among countries are necessary to address the priority research needs reported here. Acquiring answers to these 40 research questions will not be trivial, but doing so promises to advance sustainable environmental quality in the 21st century. Environ Toxicol Chem 2019;38:1606-1624. © 2019 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.

Prostate cancer incidence and mortality among men using statins and non-statin lipid-lowering medications.

BACKGROUND: Statins have demonstrated protection against aggressive/late-stage and/or lethal prostate cancer (PC), but prior studies are limited by small populations, short follow-up and unequal health-care access. Research has not demonstrated that non-statin lipid-lowering medications (NSLLMs) provide a similar benefit, which would support a cholesterol-based mechanism. We sought to rigorously test the hypothesis that cholesterol-lowering drugs affect PC incidence and severity. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted by abstracting prescription and health service records for 249,986 Saskatchewan men aged ≥40 years between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 2014 and comparing first-time statin and NSLLM users with age-matched non-users and glaucoma medication (GM) users for PC incidence, metastases at diagnosis and PC mortality using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: In comparing statin users to non-users, a weak association was detected with increased PC incidence (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.12) that disappeared when compared with GM users. Substantial protective associations were observed between statin use and metastatic PC and PC mortality (HRs 0.69, 95% CI: 0.61-0.79 and 0.73, 95% CI: 0.66-0.81, respectively), which were stronger when compared with GM use (HRs 0.52, 95% CI: 0.40-0.68 and 0.51, 95% CI: 0.41-0.63, respectively). Similar associations were found for NSLLM versus GM for metastatic PC (HR 0.57, 95% CI: 0.41-0.79) and PC mortality (HR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.51-0.85). CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses provide one of the more comprehensive findings to date that statins may reduce risk of metastatic PC and PC mortality, and the first to demonstrate that NSLLM have similar effects, supporting a cholesterol-based mechanism.

Impact of 5α-reductase inhibitor and α-blocker therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia on prostate cancer incidence and mortality.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the use of 5α-reductase inhibitors (5ARIs) and α-blockers among men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in relation to prostate cancer (PCa) incidence, severity and mortality. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective 20-year cohort study in men residing in Saskatchewan, aged 40-89 years, with a BPH-coded medical claim between 1995 and 2014, was conducted. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare incidence of PCa diagnosis, metastatic PCa, Gleason score 8-10 PCa, and PCa mortality among 5ARI users (n = 4 571), α-blocker users (n = 7 764) and non-users (n = 11 677). RESULTS: In comparison with both non-users and α-blocker users, 5ARI users had a ~40% lower risk of a PCa diagnosis (11.0% and 11.4% vs 5.8%, respectively), and α-blocker users had an 11% lower risk of a PCa diagnosis compared with non-users. Overall, the incidence of metastatic PCa and PCa mortality was not significantly different among 5ARI or α-blocker users compared with non-users (adjusted hazard ratios [HR] of metastatic PCa: 1.12 and 1.13, respectively, and PCa mortality: 1.11 and 1.18, respectively, P > 0.05 for both drugs), but both 5ARI and a-blocker users had ~30% higher risk of Gleason score 8-10 cancer, adjusted HR 1.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.82, P = 0.03, and adjusted HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03-1.59, P = 0.02, respectively compared with non-users. CONCLUSION: The use of 5ARIs was associated with lower risk of PCa diagnosis, regardless of comparison group. Risk of high grade PCa was higher among both 5ARI users and α-blocker users compared with non-users; however, this did not translate into higher risk of PCa mortality.

Effects of atrazine on fish, amphibians, and reptiles: update of the analysis based on quantitative weight of evidence.

Quantitative weight of evidence (QWoE) provides a framework and process for evaluating different toxicological studies based on quality and relevance of the results. This framework allows for data from these studies to be combined in separate lines of evidence to address causality, and relevance to environmental risks. In 2014, such a QWoE that examined the body of available company reports and peer reviewed literature regarding the effects of the herbicide atrazine on fish, amphibians, and reptiles was published. Since that time, new studies have been conducted and/or published. One of the advantages of the QWoE framework is that additional information can be added as it becomes available. Thus, these new studies were evaluated in the same manner as previously and the new data incorporated into the existing QWoE. As before, the new updated QWoE was based on the same process of objective scoring of individual studies with respect to the quality of the methods and the relevance of individual responses to the apical endpoints of survival, growth, development, and reproduction. These new data did not identify new responses or indicate any relevant effects of atrazine. The new updated QWoE analysis concluded that atrazine does not adversely affect fish, amphibians, and reptiles, at environmentally relevant concentrations (<100 µg atrazine/L), which is consistent with the previous conclusions. These new studies and data are discussed in this paper and the accompanying supplement information provides detailed and transparent information to support these conclusions.

Serum cholesterol levels and tumor growth in a PTEN-null transgenic mouse model of prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Some, but not all, epidemiologic evidence supports a role for cholesterol, the precursor for steroid hormone synthesis, in prostate cancer. Using a PTEN-null transgenic mouse model of prostate cancer, we tested the effect of modifying serum cholesterol levels on prostate tumor development and growth. We hypothesized that serum cholesterol reduction would lower tumor androgens and slow prostate cancer growth. METHODS: PTENloxP/loxP-Cre+ mice consuming ad libitum high fat, high cholesterol diets (40% fat, 1.25% cholesterol) were randomized after weaning to receive the cholesterol uptake inhibitor, ezetimibe (30 mg/kg/day), or no intervention, and sacrificed at 2, 3, or 4 months of age. Serum cholesterol and testosterone were measured by ELISA and intraprostatic androgens by mass spectrometry. Prostate histology was graded, and proliferation and apoptosis in tumor epithelium and stroma was assessed by Ki67 and TUNEL, respectively. RESULTS: Ezetimibe-treated mice had lower serum cholesterol at 4 months (p = 0.031). Serum cholesterol was positively correlated with prostate weight (p = 0.033) and tumor epithelial proliferation (p = 0.069), and negatively correlated with tumor epithelial apoptosis (p = 0.004). Serum cholesterol was unrelated to body weight (p = 0.195). Tumor stromal cell proliferation was reduced in the ezetimibe group (p = 0.010). Increased serum cholesterol at 4 months was associated with elevated intraprostatic DHEA, testosterone, and androstenedione (p = 0.043, p = 0.074, p = 0.031, respectively). However, cholesterol reduction did not significantly affect adenocarcinoma development at 2, 3, or 4 months of age (0, 78, and 100% in ezetimibe-treated vs. 0, 80, and 100% in mice not receiving ezetimibe). CONCLUSIONS: Though serum cholesterol reduction did not significantly affect the rate of adenocarcinoma development in the PTEN-null transgenic mouse model of prostate cancer, it lowered intraprostatic androgens and slowed tumor growth. These findings support a role for serum cholesterol in promoting prostate cancer growth, potentially via enhanced tumor androgen signaling, and may provide new insight into cholesterol-lowering interventions for prostate cancer treatment.

Bioaccumulation of Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers and Alternative Halogenated Flame Retardants in a Vegetation-Caribou-Wolf Food Chain of the Canadian Arctic.

The trophodynamics of halogenated flame retardants (HFRs) including polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and alternative HFRs were investigated in the terrestrial, vegetation-caribou-wolf food chain in the Bathurst Region of northern Canada. The greatest concentrations in vegetation (geometric mean of lichens, moss, grasses, willow, and mushrooms) were of the order 2,4,6-tribromophenyl allyl ether (TBP-AE) (10 ng g-1 lw) > BDE47 (5.5 ng g-1 lw) > BDE99 (3.9 ng g-1 lw) > BDE100 (0.82 ng g-1 lw) > 1,2,3,4,5-pentabromobenzene (PBBz) (0.72 ng g-1 lw). Bioconcentration among types of vegetation was consistent, though it was typically greatest in rootless vegetation (lichens, moss). Biomagnification was limited in mammals; only BDE197, BDE206-208 and ∑PBDE biomagnified to caribou from vegetation [biomagnification factors (BMFs) = 2.0-5.1]. Wolves biomagnified BDE28/33, BDE153, BDE154, BDE206, BDE207, and ∑PBDE significantly from caribou (BMFs = 2.9-17) but neither mammal biomagnified any alternative HFRs. Only concentrations of BDE28/33, BDE198, nonaBDEs, and ∑PBDE increased with trophic level, though the magnitude of biomagnification was low relative to legacy, recalcitrant organochlorine contaminants [trophic magnification factors (TMFs) = 1.3-1.8]. Despite bioaccumulation in vegetation and mammals, the contaminants investigated here exhibited limited biomagnification potential and remained at low parts per billion concentrations in wolves.

Response to Tennekes (2018) "The Resilience of the Beehive" Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health B 20: 316-386.

This paper is a response to a letter from Dr. H Tennekes ("The Resilience of the Beehive" Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health B 20: 316-386). Here we emphasize that our quantitative weight of evidence analyses were focused on the level of the honeybee colony. These colony-level responses include redundancy and resiliency as well as a number of possible sublethal effects of pesticides on the colony. We also note that the literature has shown that binding of neonicotinoid insecticides to the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor is reversible. The comments in this letter do not provide reasons to change our conclusions, that, as currently used in good agricultural practices as seed-treatments, imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam do not present significant risks to honeybees at the level of the colony.

Quantitative weight of evidence assessment of risk to honeybee colonies from use of imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam as seed treatments: a postscript.

This paper is a postscript to the four companion papers in this issue of the Journal (Solomon and Stephenson 2017a , 2017b ; Stephenson and Solomon 2017a , 2017b ). The first paper in the series described the conceptual model and the methods of the QWoE process. The other three papers described the application of the QWoE process to studies on imidacloprid (IMI), clothianidin (CTD), and thiamethoxam (TMX). This postscript was written to summarize the utility of the methods used in the quantitative weight of evidence (QWoE), the overall relevance of the results, and the environmental implications of the findings. Hopefully, this will be helpful to others who wish to conduct QWoEs and use these methods in assessment of risks.

Quantitative weight of evidence assessment of higher tier studies on the toxicity and risks of neonicotinoids in honeybees. 4. Thiamethoxam.

A quantitative weight of evidence (QWoE) methodology was used to assess several higher-tier studies on the effects of thiamethoxam (TMX) on honeybees. Assessment endpoints were population size and viability of commercially managed honeybee colonies and quantity of hive products. A higher-tier field toxicology study indicated a no-observed-adverse effect concentration (NOAEC) of 29.5 µg TMX/kg syrup, equivalent to an oral no-observed-adverse-effect-dose (NOAED) of 8.6 ng/bee/day for all responses measured. For exposures via deposition of dust, a conservative no-observed-adverse-effect-rate at the level of the colony was 0.1 g TMX/ha. There was minimal risk to honeybees from exposure to TMX via nectar and pollen from its use as a seed-treatment. For exposures via dust and dust/seed applications, there were no concentrations above the risk values for TMX in nectar and pollen. Although some risks were identified for potential exposures via guttation fluid, this route of exposure is incomplete; no apparent adverse effects were observed in field studies. For exposures via dust/seed and dust/foliar applications, few adverse effects were observed. Considering all lines of evidence, the quality of the studies included in this analysis was variable. However, the results of the studies were consistent and point to the same conclusion. The overall weight of evidence based on many studies indicates that TMX has no adverse effects on viability or survival of the colony. Thus, the overall conclusion is that the treatment of seeds with thiamethoxam, as currently used in good agricultural practices, does not present a significant risk to honeybees at the level of the colony.

Quantitative weight of evidence assessment of higher-tier studies on the toxicity and risks of neonicotinoid insecticides in honeybees 1: Methods.

A quantitative weight of evidence (QWoE) methodology was developed and used to assess many higher-tier studies on the effects of three neonicotinoid insecticides: clothianidin (CTD), imidacloprid (IMI), and thiamethoxam (TMX) on honeybees. A general problem formulation, a conceptual model for exposures of honeybees, and an analysis plan were developed. A QWoE methodology was used to characterize the quality of the available studies from the literature and unpublished reports of studies conducted by or for the registrants. These higher-tier studies focused on the exposures of honeybees to neonicotinoids via several matrices as measured in the field as well as the effects in experimentally controlled field studies. Reports provided by Bayer Crop Protection and Syngenta Crop Protection and papers from the open literature were assessed in detail, using predefined criteria for quality and relevance to develop scores (on a relative scale of 0-4) to separate the higher-quality from lower-quality studies and those relevant from less-relevant results. The scores from the QWoEs were summarized graphically to illustrate the overall quality of the studies and their relevance. Through mean and standard errors, this method provided graphical and numerical indications of the quality and relevance of the responses observed in the studies and the uncertainty associated with these two metrics. All analyses were conducted transparently and the derivations of the scores were fully documented. The results of these analyses are presented in three companion papers and the QWoE analyses for each insecticide are presented in detailed supplemental information (SI) in these papers.

Quantitative weight of evidence assessment of higher tier studies on the toxicity and risks of neonicotinoids in honeybees. 3. Clothianidin.

A quantitative weight of evidence (QWoE) methodology was used to assess higher tier studies on the effects of clothianidin (CTD) on honeybees. Assessment endpoints were population size and viability of commercially managed bees and quantity of hive products. A colony-level no-observed-adverse effect concentration (NOAEC) of 25 µg CTD/kg syrup, equivalent to an oral no-observed-adverse effect-dose (NOAED) of 7.3 ng/bee/d for all responses measured. Based on a NOAEC of 19.7 µg/kg pollen, the NOAED for honeybee larvae was 2.4 ng/bee larva/d. For exposures via dust, a no-observed-adverse effect rate of 4 g CTD/ha was used to assess relevance of exposures via deposition of dust. The overall weight of evidence suggested that there is minimal risk to honeybees from exposure to CTD from its use as a seed treatment. For exposures via dust, dust/seed and dust/foliar applications, there were no exposures greater than the NOAED for CTD in nectar and pollen, indicating a de minimis risk to honeybees when the route of exposure was via uptake in plants. Analysis of effect studies in the field indicated a consistent lack of relevant effects, regardless of the way CTD was applied. For exposures via dust, there were no adverse effects because of these applications and there were no exposures greater than the NOAED for CTD in nectar and pollen. The overall weight of evidence based on many studies indicated no adverse effects on colony viability or survival of the colony. Thus, the overall conclusion is that clothianidin, as currently used in good agricultural practices, does not present a significant risk to honeybees at the level of the colony.

Quantitative weight of evidence assessment of higher-tier studies on the toxicity and risks of neonicotinoids in honeybees. 2. Imidacloprid.

A quantitative weight of evidence (QWoE) methodology was used to assess higher-tier studies on the effects of imidacloprid (IMI) on honeybees. Assessment endpoints were population size and viability of commercially managed bees and quantity of hive products. A colony-level no-observed-adverse effect concentration (NOAEC) of 25 µg IMI/kg syrup, equivalent to an oral no-observed-adverse-effect-dose of 7.3 ng/bee/d for all responses, was measured. The overall weight of evidence indicates that there is minimal risk to honeybees from exposure to IMI from its use as a seed treatment. Exposures via dusts from currently used seed coatings present a de minimis risk to honeybees when the route of exposure is via uptake in plants that are a source of pollen or nectar for honeybees. There were few higher-tier observational (ecoepidemiological) studies conducted with IMI. Considering all lines of evidence, the quality of the studies included in this analysis was variable, but the results of the studies were consistent and point to the same conclusion - that IMI had no adverse effects on viability of the honeybee colony. Thus, the overall conclusion is that IMI, as currently used as a seed treatment and with good agricultural practices, does not present a significant risk to honeybees at the level of the colony.

Effects of the herbicide surfactant MON 0818 on oviposition and viability of eggs of the ramshorn snail (Planorbella pilsbryi).

The surfactant mixture MON 0818 is an adjuvant in various commercial formulations of the herbicide glyphosate. Initial studies have shown that MON 0818 is more toxic to aquatic animals than the active ingredient. However, few studies have examined the effect of exposure to MON 0818 on species of mollusks, and no studies have examined the effect on gastropods. The present study investigated the effect of acute exposure (96 h) of MON 0818 to the eggs, juveniles, and adults of the file ramshorn snail (Planorbella pilsbryi). Concentrations of MON 0818 up to 9.9 mg/L did not have a significant effect on the viability of eggs (p > 0.05). Juvenile snails (50% lethal concentration [LC50] = 4.0 mg/L) were more sensitive than adult snails (LC50 = 4.9-9.1 mg/L). Oviposition was inhibited by exposure to MON 0818 (median effective concentration [EC50] = 0.4-2.0 mg/L). However, oviposition resumed when snails were removed to clean water, even after 96-h exposure to up to 4.9 mg/L of MON 0818. Exposure to a concentration ≥2.7 mg/L caused visible damage to the tentacles of adult snails, which could potentially impact chemoreception. A deterministic hazard assessment indicated that environmentally relevant concentrations of MON 0818 could pose a hazard to the deposition of eggs. However, because of the relatively short half-life of MON 0818 in aquatic systems and the ability of snails to resume oviposition following the dissipation of MON 0818, environmentally relevant concentrations of MON 0818 likely pose a de minimis risk to populations of ramshorn snails. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:522-531. © 2016 SETAC.