当前位置: X-MOL 学术Environ. Toxicol. Chem. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Assessing the Risks to Bats from Plant Protection Products: A Review of the Recent European Food Safety Authority Statement Regarding Toxicity and Exposure Routes
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry ( IF 3.6 ) Pub Date : 2021-09-09 , DOI: 10.1002/etc.5209
A C Brooks 1 , J Nopper 2 , A Weyers 3 , H Crosland 1 , M Foudoulakis 4 , S Haaf 5 , M Hackett 1 , A Lawrence 1
Affiliation  

Wild birds and mammals that feed in agricultural habitats are potentially exposed to pesticides through various routes. Until recently, it has been implicitly assumed that the existing European Union risk assessment scheme for birds and mammals also covered bats (Chiroptera). However, recent publications raised concerns and, in 2019, a scientific statement was published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that concluded that bats were not adequately covered by the current risk assessment scheme. We review the evidence presented and assumptions made in the EFSA bat statement relating to toxicity, bioaccumulation, and exposure pathways (oral, dermal, and inhalation), in terms of their relevance for bats potentially foraging in agricultural areas in the European Union; we highlight where uncertainties remain and how these could be addressed. Based on our review, it is clear that there is still much uncertainty with regard to the appropriateness of the assumptions made in the EFSA bat statement. Significantly more information needs to be gathered to answer fundamental questions regarding bat behavior in agricultural landscapes, together with the relative sensitivity of bats to pesticide exposure. Given the current critical information gaps, it is recommended that quantitative risk assessments for bats not be performed for pesticides until more robust, reliable, and relevant data are available. The risk to bats can then be compared with that for birds and ground-dwelling mammals, to determine the protectiveness of the existing scheme and thus whether a bat scenario is indeed required and under what circumstances. Environ Toxicol Chem 2021;40:2978–2989. © 2021 Cambridge Environmental Assessments, part of RSK ADAS Ltd. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.

中文翻译:

评估植物保护产品对蝙蝠的风险:审查最近欧洲食品安全局关于毒性和接触途径的声明

以农业栖息地为食的野生鸟类和哺乳动物可能通过各种途径接触到杀虫剂。直到最近,人们一直隐含地假设现有的欧盟鸟类和哺乳动物风险评估计划也涵盖了蝙蝠(翼手目)。然而,最近的出版物引起了人们的关注,并且在 2019 年,欧洲食品安全局 (EFSA) 发表了一份科学声明,得出结论认为当前的风险评估计划没有充分涵盖蝙蝠。我们回顾了 EFSA 蝙蝠声明中关于毒性、生物蓄积和暴露途径(口服、皮肤和吸入)的证据和假设,就它们与可能在欧盟农业区觅食的蝙蝠的相关性而言;我们强调存在不确定性的地方以及如何解决这些问题。根据我们的审查,很明显,关于 EFSA bat 声明中所做假设的适当性仍然存在很多不确定性。需要收集更多信息来回答有关蝙蝠在农业景观中的行为的基本问题,以及蝙蝠对农药暴露的相对敏感性。鉴于当前的关键信息缺口,建议在获得更可靠、更可靠和相关的数据之前,不要对杀虫剂进行蝙蝠的定量风险评估。然后可以将蝙蝠的风险与鸟类和陆栖哺乳动物的风险进行比较,以确定现有方案的保护性,从而确定是否确实需要蝙蝠方案以及在什么情况下。显然,EFSA 最佳可行技术声明中所做假设的适当性仍然存在很大不确定性。需要收集更多信息来回答有关蝙蝠在农业景观中的行为的基本问题,以及蝙蝠对农药暴露的相对敏感性。鉴于当前的关键信息缺口,建议在获得更可靠、更可靠和相关的数据之前,不要对杀虫剂进行蝙蝠的定量风险评估。然后可以将蝙蝠的风险与鸟类和陆栖哺乳动物的风险进行比较,以确定现有方案的保护性,从而确定是否确实需要蝙蝠方案以及在什么情况下。显然,EFSA 最佳可行技术声明中所做假设的适当性仍然存在很大不确定性。需要收集更多信息来回答有关蝙蝠在农业景观中的行为的基本问题,以及蝙蝠对农药暴露的相对敏感性。鉴于当前的关键信息缺口,建议在获得更可靠、更可靠和相关的数据之前,不要对杀虫剂进行蝙蝠的定量风险评估。然后可以将蝙蝠的风险与鸟类和陆栖哺乳动物的风险进行比较,以确定现有方案的保护性,从而确定是否确实需要蝙蝠方案以及在什么情况下。需要收集更多信息来回答有关蝙蝠在农业景观中的行为的基本问题,以及蝙蝠对农药暴露的相对敏感性。鉴于当前的关键信息缺口,建议在获得更可靠、更可靠和相关的数据之前,不要对杀虫剂进行蝙蝠的定量风险评估。然后可以将蝙蝠的风险与鸟类和陆栖哺乳动物的风险进行比较,以确定现有方案的保护性,从而确定是否确实需要蝙蝠方案以及在什么情况下。需要收集更多信息来回答有关蝙蝠在农业景观中的行为的基本问题,以及蝙蝠对农药暴露的相对敏感性。鉴于当前的关键信息缺口,建议在获得更可靠、更可靠和相关的数据之前,不要对杀虫剂进行蝙蝠的定量风险评估。然后可以将蝙蝠的风险与鸟类和陆栖哺乳动物的风险进行比较,以确定现有方案的保护性,从而确定是否确实需要蝙蝠方案以及在什么情况下。鉴于当前的关键信息缺口,建议在获得更可靠、更可靠和相关的数据之前,不要对杀虫剂进行蝙蝠的定量风险评估。然后可以将蝙蝠的风险与鸟类和陆栖哺乳动物的风险进行比较,以确定现有方案的保护性,从而确定是否确实需要蝙蝠方案以及在什么情况下。鉴于当前的关键信息缺口,建议在获得更可靠、更可靠和相关的数据之前,不要对杀虫剂进行蝙蝠的定量风险评估。然后可以将蝙蝠的风险与鸟类和陆栖哺乳动物的风险进行比较,以确定现有方案的保护性,从而确定是否确实需要蝙蝠方案以及在什么情况下。环境毒物化学2021;40:2978–2989。© 2021 Cambridge Environmental Assessments,RSK ADAS Ltd. 的一部分。Wiley Periodicals LLC 代表 SETAC 出版的Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 。
更新日期:2021-10-27
down
wechat
bug