Search

Aquatic risk assessment is essential to guarantee the sustainable use of pesticides and the conservation of water resources near agricultural fields. This article discusses a proposal for a tiered regulatory framework for the aquatic risk assessment of pesticides in Brazil. The first step is problem formulation, which includes establishing general and specific protection goals. In the exposure assessment, the Estimated Environmental Concentrations in water should be calculated based on realistic worst‐case assumptions regarding application rate and frequency, the entry into the edge‐of‐field water body, and fate in the water body, using scenario‐dependent models suggested by the Brazilian Environmental Agency. These calculations can be refined by including Efate studies with variable exposures to reflect realistic environmental conditions accurately and include mitigation measures that impact the modeling. In the hazard assessment, ecotoxicological data for toxicity to fish, aquatic invertebrates, algae, and aquatic plants should be required for all pesticides based on standardized protocols and species. Tier 2 has several refinement options, including incorporating toxicity data from additional test species and effect modeling. In Tier 3, population‐ and community‐level effects are evaluated using semi‐field studies. Considering the case study in Brazil, Tier 1 demonstrated that, from the 12 pesticides that were assessed, seven (58%) failed based on the value of the Risk Quotient. In Tier 2, when exposure refinement options and mitigation measures such as buffer zones are considered, all seven pesticides, for which Tier 1 indicated risk, still failed the assessment. The risk for four of these seven pesticides could be refined by considering toxicity information from additional species. Refinement options and mitigation measures that could be applied to the agricultural scenario in Brazil were discussed. In conclusion, the proposed tiered risk assessment is a feasible way to evaluate whether a pesticide will pose an unacceptable risk to aquatic organisms. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:1514–1528. © 2024 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). Key Points: This article proposes a tiered regulatory framework for aquatic risk assessment of pesticides in Brazil; the framework involves problem formulation, exposure assessment, and hazard assessment, focusing on realistic worst‐case scenarios and refined calculations.The application of the proposed tiered approach in a Brazilian case study revealed that 58% of assessed pesticides failed the Tier 1 assessment.Refinement options and mitigation measures that could be applied to the agricultural scenario in Brazil were discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since 2019, the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) has actively developed pesticide environmental risk assessment (ERA) frameworks adapted to Brazil's specific ecological contexts. This initiative, supported by funding from the Brazilian Ministry of Justice and in partnership with academic institutions, has led to a concerted effort to establish ERA protocols for various taxa, including birds and mammals, soil organisms, aquatic organisms, and reptiles and amphibians. The outcomes of this initiative were disseminated in two distinct workshops held in February and November of 2023, where the agency showcased its research to the technical‐regulatory community. This article synthesizes the proposals for birds and mammals and soil organisms. First, we summarize the agency's proposals for both focal and generic species to be incorporated into the ERA and the methodologies for calculating exposure of these taxa to pesticides through agricultural practices, encompassing seed treatment and foliar applications. On this occasion, IBAMA also disclosed the risk assessment tool that the agency is developing for birds and mammals. IBAMA highlighted the knowledge gaps that must be bridged to progress from preliminary (lower‐tier) to more comprehensive (higher‐tier) assessments. Regarding soil organisms, during the workshop, the presenters shared findings on the most prevalent species of earthworms and enchytraeids in Brazil. They emphasized the need for additional data collection on a regional scale. The agency has also proposed methods for estimating soil organism exposure to pesticides at a screening level and identified specific data gaps that could be addressed to refine assessments at higher tiers. In summary, the workshop communicated the progress in establishing ERA guidelines, which we encapsulate here to benefit the technical‐regulatory community. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:1793–1799. © 2024 The Author(s). Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). Key Points: This brief communication summarizes the key messages conveyed at the workshop organized by the Brazilian Environmental Regulatory Agency (IBAMA) on ERA frameworks for birds and mammals in Brazil.This brief communication summarizes the key messages conveyed at the workshop organized by IBAMA on ERA frameworks for soil organisms in Brazil.The information summarized in this brief communication is a part of a very important shift in the Brazilian regulatory paradigm and may serve as a reference to the technical‐regulatory community, not only in Brazil but in Latin America as well.This brief communication may be very useful to the technical‐regulatory community in other regions (e.g., USA and Europe) by helping them to follow up on the regulatory changes in Brazil. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 Key Points: Tiered environmental risk assessment frameworks are important in order to have a robust and science‐based evaluation of pesticides.As usual, the more conservative Tier I assessment was sufficient to filter out most pesticides, whereas the Tier II assessment proved to be effective in identifying risks and providing potential mitigations.It was noticed that the combination of high persistence, low or no crop interception, and high toxicity are likely to require a higher tier risk assessment; nonetheless, refinement options may consider either or both the exposure and effect route of the framework.Given that different regulatory triggers may provide different outcomes for the evaluation, it is important that triggers that sensibly reflect the assessed regulatory region are considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]