Marc C. Kennedy

The MCRA model for probabilistic single-compound and cumulative risk assessment of pesticides

Pesticide risk assessment is hampered by worst-case assumptions leading to overly pessimistic assessments. On the other hand, cumulative health effects of similar pesticides are often not taken into account. This paper describes models and a web-based software system developed in the European research project ACROPOLIS. The models are appropriate for both acute and chronic exposure assessments of single compounds and of multiple compounds in cumulative assessment groups. The software system MCRA (Monte Carlo Risk Assessment) is available for stakeholders in pesticide risk assessment at mcra.rivm.nl. We describe the MCRA implementation of the methods as advised in the 2012 EFSA Guidance on probabilistic modelling, as well as more refined methods developed in the ACROPOLIS project. The emphasis is on cumulative assessments. Two approaches, sample-based and compound-based, are contrasted. It is shown that additional data on agricultural use of pesticides may give more realistic risk assessments. Examples are given of model and software validation of acute and chronic assessments, using both simulated data and comparisons against the previous release of MCRA and against the standard software DEEM-FCID used by the Environmental Protection Agency in the USA. It is shown that the EFSA Guidance pessimistic model may not always give an appropriate modelling of exposure.

Assessing human health risks from pesticide use in conventional and innovative cropping systems with the BROWSE model

BACKGROUND Reducing the risks and impacts of pesticide use on human health and on the environment is one of the objectives of the European Commission Directive 2009/128/EC in the quest for a sustainable use of pesticides. This Directive, developed through European national plans such as Ecophyto plan in France, promotes the introduction of innovative cropping systems relying, for example, on integrated pest management. Risk assessment for human health of the overall pesticide use in these innovative systems is required before the introduction of those systems to avoid that an innovation becomes a new problem. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this work were to assess and to compare (1) the human exposure to pesticides used in conventional and innovative cropping systems designed to reduce pesticide needs, and (2) the corresponding risks for human health. METHODS Humans (operator and residents) exposure to pesticides and risks for human health were assessed for each pesticide with the BROWSE model. Then, a method was proposed to represent the overall risk due to all pesticides used in one system. This study considers 3 conventional and 9 associated innovative cropping systems, and 116 plant protection products containing 89 different active substances (i.e. pesticides). RESULTS The modelling results obtained with BROWSE showed that innovative cropping systems such as low input or no herbicide systems would reduce the risk for human health in comparison to the corresponding conventional cropping systems. On the contrary, BROWSE showed that conservation tillage system would lead to unacceptable risks in the conditions of our study, because of a high number of pesticide applications, and especially of some herbicides. For residents, the dermal absorption was the main exposure route while ingestion was found to be negligible. For operators, inhalation was also a predominant route of exposure. In general, human exposure to pesticides and human health risks were found to be correlated to the treatment frequency index TFI (number of registered doses of pesticides used per hectare for one copping season), confirming the relationship between the reduction of pesticide use and the reduction of risks. CONCLUSIONS Assessment with the BROWSE model helped to identify cropping systems with decreased risks from pesticides for human health and to propose some improvements to the cropping systems by identifying the pesticides that led to unacceptable risks.

Assessing and reporting uncertainties in dietary exposure analysis – Part II: Application of the uncertainty template to a practical example of exposure assessment

A previous publication described methods for assessing and reporting uncertainty in dietary exposure assessments. This follow-up publication uses a case study to develop proposals for representing and communicating uncertainty to risk managers. The food ingredient aspartame is used as the case study in a simple deterministic model (the EFSA FAIM template) and with more sophisticated probabilistic exposure assessment software (FACET). Parameter and model uncertainties are identified for each modelling approach and tabulated. The relative importance of each source of uncertainty is then evaluated using a semi-quantitative scale and the results expressed using two different forms of graphical summary. The value of this approach in expressing uncertainties in a manner that is relevant to the exposure assessment and useful to risk managers is then discussed. It was observed that the majority of uncertainties are often associated with data sources rather than the model itself. However, differences in modelling methods can have the greatest impact on uncertainties overall, particularly when the underlying data are the same. It was concluded that improved methods for communicating uncertainties for risk management is the research area where the greatest amount of effort is suggested to be placed in future.

Improvements in Modelling Bystander and Resident Exposure to Pesticide Spray Drift: Investigations into New Approaches for Characterizing the ‘Collection Efficiency’ of the Human Body

The BREAM (Bystander and Resident Exposure Assessment Model) (Kennedy et al. in BREAM: A probabilistic bystander and resident exposure assessment model of spray drift from an agricultural boom sprayer. Comput Electron Agric 2012;88:63-71) for bystander and resident exposure to spray drift from boom sprayers has recently been incorporated into the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) guidance for determining non-dietary exposures of humans to plant protection products. The component of BREAM, which relates airborne spray concentrations to bystander and resident dermal exposure, has been reviewed to identify whether it is possible to improve this and its description of variability captured in the model. Two approaches have been explored: a more rigorous statistical analysis of the empirical data and a semi-mechanistic model based on established studies combined with new data obtained in a wind tunnel. A statistical comparison between field data and model outputs was used to determine which approach gave the better prediction of exposures. The semi-mechanistic approach gave the better prediction of experimental data and resulted in a reduction in the proposed regulatory values for the 75th and 95th percentiles of the exposure distribution.