Collection and evaluation of relevant information on crop interception for the revision of the Guidance Document on Persistence in Soil

Abstract

A literature search was carried out on behalf of EFSA to collect measurements of spray interception by crops. Various methods were used in literature for measuring interception and for deriving the interception values from the measurements. Advantages and disadvantages of the different methodologies are discussed. Reported measurements for interception by cereal crops were collated in a database, together with any additional information regarding the data, such as information related to the crop or the sprayer equipment. Interception values were calculated from the reported measurements and listed in the database.The interception values for cereals were analysed and compared with the FOCUS interception values currently used for PEC soil and groundwater calculations. Factors that may have affected interception were analysed and discussed, as well as the relationship between interception and the soil cover of the crop at the time of spray application. Based on the available data, the FOCUS values seem to overestimate interception during tillering (GS20-29) and during the final growth stages (GS70-99), while interception is underestimated during the later part of stem elongation (GS33-39). CFT/EFSA/PPR/2009/02. Accepted for Publication in October 2010Spray interception by crops during pesticide application 2The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the European Food Safety Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by EFSA. EFSA reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.The crop interception table currently used for PEC soil and groundwater calculations was compiled by members of the FOCUS groundwater group (FOCUS, 2000). Limited experimental data was available to the workgroup when these interception values were established. The aim of this project was to collate any data on interception by crops from publicly available literature and to analyse the data in relation to the current FOCUS values (FOCUS, 2002).A literature search was performed to retrieve available literature that reports measurements of spray interception by agricultural crops. Nineteen reference databases were searched using the Dialog host for terms related to "deposition" or "interception". The search terms and logic are set out in Chapter 2 of this report. More than 2000 references were found. The relevance of the literature references was checked against a list of minimal criteria. Where necessary the full articles were retrieved. A reference list was compiled for rejected references with their reason for rejection. A total of 55 references with relevant crop interception...

Statement of the PPR Panel on a framework for conducting the environmental exposure and risk assessment for transition metals when used as active substances in plant protection products (PPP)

“…For dustable powder formulation, several concerns (crop interception and spray drift % value BBA) have been identified. The crop interception factors are designed for spray drift applications (van Beinum and Beulke, 2010; Olesen and Jensen, 2013). The use of these values in exposure calculations for dustable powder application is therefore questionable and might not be appropriate for regulatory purposes without any further detailed evidence or additional data.…”

Scientific Opinion on the science behind the guidance for scenario selection and scenario parameterisation for predicting environmental concentrations of plant protection products in soil

“…The Panel proposes to use these percentages for all crops except cereals because the Panel considers this to be the best information that is currently available. Van Beinum & Beulke (2010) collected all relevant data on crop interception by cereals and found systematic differences (Figure 17) between the measurements and the relationship proposed by FOCUS (2000). The data shown in Figure 17 are those of van Beinum & Beulke (2010) with one modification: the data shown for a BBCH growth stage of 18 in Figure 17 were reported to be at growth stage 22 by van Beinum & Beulke (2010).…”

“…To improve assessment of the crop interception by cereal crops, the Panel divided the measurements reported by van Beinum & Beulke (2010) into classes (Table 11) and calculated the average crop interception for each class. The line based on the average measured value gives a better description than the relationship proposed by FOCUS (2000) (Figure 17), and so the Panel recommends using these averaged values (Table 11).…”

Experimental methods to evaluate herbicides behavior in soil

“…As the present review aims to explore the methods used to evaluate the behavior of herbicide in soil only root uptake will be considered. The most reliable method to study plant uptake is obtained by evaluating both concentrations of the herbicide on the crop and on the soil underneath the crop (Beinum and Beukle, 2010). Though, there is no accepted standard method for conducting plant uptake studies.…”