Movement of two neonicotinoid insecticide active ingredients, clothianidin (CLO) and thiamethoxam (TMX), was investigated in different soil types (sand, clay, or loam) and in pumice. Elution profiles were determined to explore differences in binding capacity. Soil characterized by high organic matter content retained the ingredients, whereas high clay content resulted in long release of compounds. Decrease in concentration was strongly influenced by soil types: both CLO and TMX were retained in loam and clay soils and showed ready elution through sandy soil and pumice. Elution capability of the active ingredients in sandy soil correlated with their water solubility, indicating approximately 30% higher rapidity for TMX than for CLO. Soil organic carbon-water partitioning coefficients (Koc) determined were in good agreement with literature values with somewhat lower value for CLO in sandy soil and substantially higher values for TMX in clay soil. High mobility of these neonicotinoid active ingredients in given soil types urges stronger precautionary approach taken during their application.

Various environmental and ecotoxicological aspects related to applications of neonicotinoid insecticides are assessed. Dosages of neonicotinoids applied in seed coating materials were determined and are compared to other applications (spray and granule). Environmental levels in soils and affecting factors in translocation are discussed. Excretion of neonicotinoids via guttation from coated maize seeds up to two months upon emergence, as well as cross-contamination of plants emerged from non-coated seeds or weeds nearby have been demonstrated. Contamination of surface waters is discussed in scope of a worldwide review and the environmental fate of the neonicotinoid active ingredients and the formulating surfactant appeared to be mutually affected by each other. Toxicity of neonicotinoid active ingredients and formulations on Daphnia magna completed with some investigations of activity of the detoxifying glutathione S-transferase enzyme demonstrated the modified toxicity due to the formulating agents. Electrophysiological results on identified central neurons of the terrestrial snail Helix pomatia showed acetylcholine antagonist (inhibitory) effects of neonicotinoid insecticide products, but no agonist (ACh-like) effects were recorded. These data also suggested different molecular targets (nicotinergic acetylcholine receptors and acetylcholine esterase enzyme) of neonicotinoids in the snail central nervous system.Before the approval of neonicotinoids in seed treatment, numerous insect pests were controlled with the use of in-furrow granular insecticides. Seed coating is regarded as a precise delivery method of pesticides, which is therefore more effective compared to other plant protection product (PPP) applications (e.g., spraying). Neonicotinoids persist long enough to provide an effective control on a broad spectrum of insects, which led to their increased adoption by growers. As for maize, an estimated annual average of 45% and 25% of the total crop cultivation in the US was treated with CLO and TMX, respectively (with annual maxima of 65% for CLO and 45% for TMX in any given year) [16], and corresponding average proportion of the use of seeds coated with CLO or TMX are 46%, 33%, 24% and 18% for sugar beet, cotton, sorghum and soybean, respectively [16]. In accordance with these maximum rates, nearly 100% of maize in the US and canola in Canada is cultivated from seeds coated with neonicotinoids [17] and often fungicides as well.One of the first signs of the environmental problem caused by neonicotinoids was detected in Germany in the spring 2008, when abrasion of active substance from treated seeds during sowing of maize led to mass poisonings incidents of bees [18]. Thereafter, substantial efforts were made to minimize the environmental impacts of these crop protection products. Improvements in seed coating technology (e.g., application of polymers) and modification of pneumatic planters have been introduced to reduce abrasion of the seed coating material during planting. Polymers in seed treatment not only i...

No abstract

Chemical substances applied in animal husbandry or veterinary medicine and in crop protection represent substantial environmental loads, and their residues occur in food and feed products. Product approval is governed differently in these two sectors in the European Union (EU), and the occurrence of veterinary drug (VD) and pesticide residues indicated by contamination notification cases in the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed of the EU also show characteristic differences. While the initial high numbers of VD residues reported in 2002 were successfully suppressed to less than 100 cases annually by 2006 and on, the number of notification cases for pesticide residues showed a gradual increase from a low (approximately 50 cases annually) initial level until 2005 to more than 250 cases annually after 2009, with a halt occurring only in 2016. Main notifiers of VD residues include Germany, Belgium, the UK, and Italy (63, 59, 42, and 31 notifications announced, respectively), and main consigning countries of non-compliances are Vietnam, India, China, and Brazil (88, 50, 34, and 23 notifications, respectively). Thus, countries of South and Southeast Asia are considered a vulnerable point with regard to VD residues entering the EU market. Unintended side effects of VDs and plant protection products may be caused not only by the active ingredients but also by various additives in these preparations. Adjuvants (e.g., surfactants) and other co-formulants used in therapeutic agents and feed additives, as well as in pesticide formulations have long been considered as inactive ingredients in the aspects of the required main biological effect of the pharmaceutical or pesticide, and in turn, legal regulations of the approval and marketing of these additives specified significantly less stringent risk assessment requirements, than those specified for the active ingredients. However, numerous studies have shown additive, synergistic, or antagonistic side effects between the active ingredients and their additives in formulated products; moreover, toxicity has been evidenced for various additives. Therefore, toxicological evaluation of surfactants and other additives is essential for proper environmental risk assessment of formulations used in agriculture including animal husbandry and plant protection.

Background Glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) are among the most often used pesticides. The hundreds of GBHs used worldwide consist of the active ingredient (AI) glyphosate in form of different salts, possibly other AIs, and various mostly undisclosed co-formulants. Pesticide risk assessments are commonly performed using single AIs or GBHs at standard soil conditions without vegetation. In a greenhouse experiment, we established a weed population with common amaranth (Amaranthus retroflexus) to examine the effects of three GBHs (Roundup LB Plus, Roundup PowerFlex, Touchdown Quattro) and their corresponding AIs (salts of glyphosate isopropylammonium, potassium, diammonium) on the activity and physiological biomarkers (glutathione S-transferase, GST; acetylcholine esterase, AChE) of an ecologically relevant earthworm species (Lumbricus terrestris). GBHs and AIs were applied at recommended doses; hand weeding served as control. Experiments were established with two soil types differing in organic matter content (SOM; 3.0% vs. 4.1%) and other properties. Results Earthworm activity (casting and movement activity) decreased after application of glyphosate formulations or active ingredients compared to hand weeding. We found no consistent pattern that formulations had either higher or lower effects on earthworm activity than their active ingredients; rather, differences were substance-specific. Earthworm activity was little affected by soil organic matter levels. Biomarkers remained unaffected by weed control types; GST but not AChE was decreased under high SOM. Water infiltration after a simulated heavy rainfall was interactively affected by weed control types and SOM. Leachate amount was higher after application of formulations than active ingredients and was higher under low SOM. Glyphosate concentrations in soil and leachate were strongly affected by application of formulations or active ingredients and varied with SOM (significant weed control type x SOM interaction). Conclusions We found that both commercial formulations and pure active ingredients can influence earthworms with consequences on important soil functions. Glyphosate products showed increased, reduced or similar effects than pure glyphosate on particular soil functions; soil properties can substantially alter this. Especially at lower SOM, heavy rainfalls could lead to more glyphosate leaching into water bodies. A full disclosure of co-formulants would be necessary to further decipher their specific contributions to these inconsistent effects.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract